So in other words, one is supposed to detect bad science using bad science?
If I were to take the stage saying "I can't disprove Theory X using empirical data, but here are some red flags that cast that theory into doubt", many would consider that textbook pseudoscience.
I'm not saying that red flags and intuition have no value, but they should be taken with a boulder of salt, and definitely not suggested to a layperson who may not have the experience and context to know when red flags should and should not be applied.
As the letter clearly states, tripping red flags should result in a higher level of scrutiny from the organizer. They do not, in themselves, trigger rejection.
Keep in mind that these are volunteers from a broad set of backgrounds. Their only demonstrated expertise is running small to medium events. The central TED organization is modest in size and staffed by people who are fiendishly busy. Go!
If the problem isn't tractable enough to apply hard science, then rough heuristics and human judgment are about the best you get.
The context, in this case, is a recent scandal in Valencia (Spain). If you didn't follow the links: lots of New Age, Homeotherapy, Reiki and such.
I suspect TED trusted the wrong persons. I don't know if TED has revoked their licences. Maybe there're are contracts in place and it might be difficult to walk out of them.
Under that light, this letter seems to be a public way of saying "we didn't approve what happened, next time call us if in doubt and don't say you weren't warned".
If I were to take the stage saying "I can't disprove Theory X using empirical data, but here are some red flags that cast that theory into doubt", many would consider that textbook pseudoscience.
I'm not saying that red flags and intuition have no value, but they should be taken with a boulder of salt, and definitely not suggested to a layperson who may not have the experience and context to know when red flags should and should not be applied.