X-Message-Number: 1677
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 00:33:19 +0100
From:  (David Stodolsky)
Subject: CRYONICS: re "Style or Content"

MICHAEL RISKIN <> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     As to content, I am often not in a position to judge the accuracy
of the facts presented. Innuendo is usually spotted by most readers
and easily rejected. What I can say about the content is that it is 
often presented in the same way lawyers present evidence at a trial.
Our legal system is based on the adversarial concept ; prosecution does
not present evidence to support the defense and v.v. As a result, the
verdict does not always represent the truth but which side was the most
persuasive. It is my ideal scenario that cryonicists would strive to
present all evidence whether it supported their viewpoint or not, the
same way real and honest and useful research is conducted. It seems
that
many cryonet contributors prefer to prove themselves right, as compared
to searching for the truth. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you want truth, then the scientific method, including a journal is
the only proven format. Operating a journal with an email list is
potentially more powerful than using a paper format, but the software is
not in place {Stodolsky, D. S. (1990). Consensus Journals: Invitational
journals based upon peer consensus. Datalogiske Skrifter (Writings on
Computer Science). No. 29 / 1990. Roskilde University Centre, Institute
of Geography, Socioeconomic Analysis, and Computer Science. (ISSN
0109-9779-29) ([1990, Nov.19]. Psycoloquy, 1[15]. [Available by
anonymous ftp from PRINCETON.EDU in directory /pub/harnad at Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University, Dept. of Psychology.])}

A straight email list does not even offer a good foundation for an
adversarial  proceeding, but lists could be set up for such a
proceeding: 

Complaints could be submitted to a panel of "judges." A "trial" could be
started by three judges, who felt an issue is worth processing. They
could then issue invitations to an agreed upon random subset of cryonet
authors. This leads to a list including the judges, jury, and involved
parties. After the parties have concluded their debate and answered
questions, a separate list for jury deliberation could be set up. The
final conclusion would be submitted to the judges and then published on
the net.

Somebody with legal training could elaborate on the above, making it
more suitable for specific types of proceedings.

The first step would be establishing a "judges" list to which people
could send their complaints. 

This type of proceeding would clear cryonet from the endless charges and
replies that few can follow and that offer little of substantive value.
I presume the "Alcor politics" archive already plays a similar role, but
the release of some kind of conclusion to the net in general would be of
value.

David S. Stodolsky                            Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82
Department of Computer Science                Fax: + 45 46 75 42 01
Bldg. 20.1, Roskilde University              Internet: 
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark      or: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1677