X-Message-Number: 182
From att!cs.sfu.ca!miron Tue Jun  5 21:57:10 1990
Return-Path: <att!cs.sfu.ca!miron>
Received: from att.UUCP by whscad1.att.uucp (4.1/SMI-3.2)
	id AA02386; Tue, 5 Jun 90 21:57:09 EDT
Received: by att.att.com; Tue Jun  5 21:50:02 1990
Received: by relay.CDNnet.CA (4.1/1.14)
	id AA00842; Tue, 5 Jun 90 18:49:49 PDT
From: <>
Date:  5 Jun 90 18:06 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Mail from '' dated Tue, 5 Jun 90 19:40:19 EDT>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: cryonics #181 - Re: Science Court

Of course the real world is the final arbiter on scientific truth.  But here
we are talking about an area of science that is not available for experimental
validation.  Therefore, our only recourse is in experts who know enough
about basic theory and the current state of the art.  They must also be able
to predict future advances within the limits of the theory.

Most of the people who will use cyronics are not experts in cryonics or
in related fields.  Therefore, they must use the opinion of experts in
their decision on the matter.  The expert opinion on cryonics is not uniform.

To arrive at satisfactory recommendations, there must be a procedure for
sorting out the differences between the experts.  I hold that the current
ways of resolving differences of opinion are bad.  They do not resolve
anything, or give more weight to people who can wield communication
tools better (which surely does not mean that they hold the truth).

An online science court seems to be a good way of ensuring that only
relevant information is used to resolve this matter.  When advances
are made in the state of the art or in basic research, the results
of the 'verdict' will be revised.

I will be willing to participate in a science court if one is created.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=182