X-Message-Number: 15472
From: 
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:46:16 EST
Subject: Results

Wakfer's #15469 mostly requires and deserves no comment, but the following is 
so exceedingly odd that I draw attention to it. He writes in part: 

 >The first requirement of any scientific report is sufficient detail that 
the experiment >can be fully repeated (ie every important measurement will be 
reproduced) by
>anyone who wishes to do so. This requirement has the same weight of
>importance whether or not anyone is actually expected to repeat the
>work. Until such detail is forthcoming, it is premature to consider (and
>certainly to report) either the validity or the falsity of any
>"results". 

When a layman chooses (say) a hospital for a bypass operation, he doesn't and 
can't compare details of equipment and practice, and from his point of view 
any reports in medical journals, or any disputes in medical journals, are of 
little or no importance. What he can do is look at survival statistics--that 
is the bottom line. (Even that is not so simple, because some hospitals get 
harder cases on average; but it is still the relevant survival numbers that 
count.)

For even more emphasis, consider buying a car. Is the average customer--or 
almost any customer--going to look at engineering drawings and reams of 
descriptions of the manufacturing process, and make a choice based on that? 
Of course not. If he makes any effort at a systematic comparison at all, he 
is likely to read Consumer Reports for a professional evaluation, how it 
actually drives and how it has held up.

In cryonics procedures also, the bottom line is results. The results of CI 
experiments have been evaluated by independent professionals--two sets of 
them--and key portions of the reports are on our web site. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15472