X-Message-Number: 19735
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Shermer, "skeptics", debunkers and odds.
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:34:02 -0700

I read with some amusement those cryonics members who, identifying
themselves with what passes for "skepticism" today, are dismayed that one of
their own has turned on cryonics in public and clearly is using the same
emotionally charged "debunking" sound bite and propaganda tricks which seem
to be their standard practice in attacking the "heretics".

Not pleasant to feel betrayed by one of your own is it?

I'm going to suggest that it is too late to change any minds in that camp on
this issue.  Once your ideas are considered "wrong" that seems to be it.
It's like trying to get the Inquisition to reconsider Church dogma.

Just ask yourself this: Has there ever been even ONE instance when CSICOP
reversed its condemnation of anything once they decided it was nonsense?
Maybe there is.  If so I never heard of it.

So based on that track record, I would submit that efforts to "win over"
Shermer or others in that camp have a zero probability of success - the same
success rate they evidently now ascribe to cryonics ever working.

So what useful conclusions can be gained from this?  I can see two which are
worth understanding deeply.

(1) Some political groups have an issue with masquerading as "reasonable"
but will scrap all evidence they dislike (or twist it) if it does not
promote their other agendas.  ("The end justifies the means" = "Truth is the
first casualty").

In other words some people are just bear traps.  Don't step into one
willingly.

(2) It is intellectually dishonest to assign ANY "odds" with ANY numbers to
the gamble we call cryonics other than zero or 100%.

In other words, don't become a bear trap for others yourself.

Please be aware that the primary gripe you have had with what Shermer wrote
was his rejection of cryonics ever working  (0% odds) versus the
pro-cryonics "skeptics" who are giving 0.00001 odds ("one in a million").

Give me a break!

Sorry to risk offending those involved but giving fractional odds to the
likelihood of cryonics eventually succeeding is just nuts.

The simple, practical truth of cryonics success probability is either zero
or 100%.

It either will eventually work FOR YOU or it won't.

Anything beyond that is pure hubris or baloney (or both).

If you have a functioning time machine you might be able to prove me wrong.
Otherwise, forget it.

Look, if you honestly want to HELP PROMOTE cryonics I would suggest two
things:

(1) Don't waste time with trying to get off the CSICOP "blacklist" once you
are there.  (And cryonics is now there it would seem).

(2) Stop claiming specific odds for cyonics success - (especially these
incredibly LOW odds I keep reading!).

How is this different from what Shermer is doing?  You are both claiming to
know in advance what will be possible in the future in regard to cryonics
success.  He says "zero".  You say "one in a million".  I say you are both
full of baloney because NO ONE KNOWS.

(Please repeat the last three words long and often enough until you finally
get it.  It is important for your survival).

And the impact of offering false "odds" on the spread of cryonics?  It's as
if you are really saying to people, "Hey, sign up for cryonics.  It probably
won't work.  In fact, I think the chances are less than ever winning the
lotto, being struck by lightning twice - a million to one long shot.  But
you should anyway."

Wow.

Now THAT's an argument really going to cause people to consider signing up,
isn't it?

A real motivator based on pure facts.

THAT will gain grants for research and attract serious scientific interest.

Sure.

Look, all of us tend to like people who agree with our views.  Those of you
who view yourselves as modern "skeptics" will want all other "skeptics" to
agree with you in regard to cryonics as well.

You hope to appeal to them because there are supposed to be so many
"skeptics" signed up for cryonics.  Essentially you are saying, "Hey!  Don't
stab US in the back and compare cryonics to all that other weird stuff like
UFOs, ESP, NDEs, etc.!  We agree with YOU!  We ARE you"

Well, ask yourself if they have EVER changed their minds in the past, EVER
admitted to being wrong.

You want them to change their stance.  My prediction?

They won't.

But YOU can.

Please stop assigning "odds" to cryonics success.  You are NOT being more
"accurate" or "scientific"  by doing so.  You are only descending to the
level of Shermer and hurting the movement as a whole by bandying about
numbers which are plucked from the air and CANNOT be substantiated at all!

Instead, tell the truth.

Let people consider the possiblity of personal success.

Except for those signed up, the odds are currently zero percent for physical
survival.  Let people get the idea it might be possible for them to go to
100%.  This is a "QUANTUM" choice.  You either are on one side of the thing
or the other.  Zero or 100.  There are no fractional survivals, folks.
There are no other possibilities or odds.  Something or nothing.  That's it.
Period.  Finis.  Kaput.  End.

Suggest THIS fact: SOME chance for physical survival or no chance.

Help people choose life by dumping the use of nonsense "probabilities".

Open your minds.  Suspend your judgement.  Tell the truth.

Just my opinion ...as a TRUE dictionary-defined skeptic:

"skeptic 1. a member of any of the ancient Greek philosophical schools which
denied the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.  2. a person who
believes in or practices philosophical skepticism. 3. a person who
habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgement upon matters generally
accepted.  4. a person who doubts religious doctrines, especially those of
Christianity." - Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language,
College edition.  1968.

George Smith
CI member

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19735