Some of the talks are genuinely good, but many have a sort of weird vibe to them that I find offputting, that seems to value flashiness and trends over intellectual content. Sort of like if all of academia were the MIT Media Lab. Some, especially the management/motivation/life-philosophy ones, even border on the new-agey psuedo-psych sort of stuff you find on the corporate speaking circuit.
...the talks are 18 minutes or less. If any of the talks seemed lacking in intellectual content to you it's most likely because of time constraints. For example Ken Robinson's talk on education was 100% motivation/life-philosophy, simply because he doesn't have time to present the proof he's based his opinions on. The proof does exist though; all the speakers have the credentials to back up their presentations.
I'd be interesting in a few of the "many" examples you have of this type of talk you object you. If you wouldn't mind, please link to a few here. I haven't seen a single TED talk that fits the "corporate speaking circuit" test.
Daniel Pink came to mind when I was writing that part. I agree in an 18-minute talk you can only sort of speak in generalities, but in his case, his books are similarly unscientific.
I never watched Pink's talk, but based on his bio I can see what you are basing your opinion off of. However, it's my impression at least that speakers like that are a minority.
