X-Message-Number: 19750
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Hartl <>
Subject:  Re: Shermer, "skeptics", debunkers and odds

<note> I think a series of unknown keystrokes may have
sent a version of this email prematurely; if so, blame
Yahoo! Mail </note>

Hi George,

I agree with you that Shermer is probably not going to
"come around" to cryonics;  I'd be happy if he'd just
keep his mouth shut.  I said it much more nicely to
him, of course, since telling him to shut his mouth
would  probably provoke hostility.  And you may be
right that he won't shut up, either.  I thought that
it was worth a shot; at least maybe he'll think twice
next time.

Your analysis of skeptical organizations -- and their
seeming unwillingness to revise their opinions -- is,
unfortunately, probably right.  Many people, including
many skeptics (and including Michael Shermer), have a
hard time changing their views, especially once they
have made a public commitment to them.  Psychologist
Robert Cialdini identifies this one-two punch as
"commitment and consistency", and they are powerful
forces indeed.

As far as odds go, you'll note that I never brought up
the issue.  Making such estimates is fraught with
uncertainty.  I also agree that one-in-a-million
estimates are unfounded and potentially
counter-productive -- and very likely much too small
as well.

On the other hand, it isn't unreasonable to make
educated guesses about the prospect of cryonics: for
future events, probabilities are still meaningful. 
Consider this: I offer you the chance to bet $1 to win
 $2 on the roll of a die.  You can bet either on
numbers 1-5 (inclusive) or 6.  Would you really claim
that the probability of a 6 being rolled is either 0
or 1, so there's no way to decide short of a time
machine?  Of course not; the probability is 1 in 6. 
You, like me, would bet on 1-5 -- and then curse your
luck (but not your strategy) when a 6 is rolled.

A similar situation arises in blackjack, a subject I
happen to know something about.  Assuming that you are
not counting cards (which I for one would never do ;),
it turns out that you should always hit a hard 16
when the dealer is showing 7 through ace.
Unfortunately, the probability of winning is much less
than 50% whether you stand or hit, and if you     
advise someone to hit a hard 16 they'll still probably
bust.  It's *always* the right play to hit, but try
telling that to a gambler who's just lost a big bet on
your advice.  Not understanding this point -- that 
the "right play" can *never* depend on what actually
happens, since by hypothesis the outcome is unknown a
priori -- is one of the most common gambling
fallacies.

The application to cryonics is this: like the gambler
holding a hard 16,we are in a situation with imperfect
information -- we don't know if cryonics will work. 
With cryonics, the question is whether or not to  
place the bet.  This is why a reasonable estimate of
success, even if uncertain, is potentially valuable;
it allows us to perform a cost-benefit analysis to
decide whether to bet or not.  If you believe that the
chances
of success are essentially zero, then it makes sense
not to bet.  The problem with many cryo-skeptics is
that their 0% estimates are rarely (if ever) justified
with rigorous arguments; they just dismiss the subject
out of hand.

Though many would reject cryonics even if it were free
(for a host of "reasons" all-too-familiar to those on
CryoNet), this cost-benefit analysis lies at the heart
of reasoned objections to cryonics.  Consider the two
main factors: (a) the probability of success and (b)
the payoff.  Most on this list consider (a) to be
"reasonable" based on the work of Ettinger, Drexler,
Merkle, and others; and we consider (b) to be
astronomical.

The public and even so-called "experts" are typically
not familiar enough with the science to have an
informed opinion on (a), but we should be willing to
admit that if (a) is small enough, then it's not worth
the price.  Realize also that a big part of our
equation, usually only implicit, is (b), which we
consider huge.  I am always amazed at how little many
people value their own lives; for them, the payoff is,
astonishingly to us, quite small.  But, within the
context of a tiny (a) and only moderate (b), not
signing up (and, in particular, not paying for)
cryonics makes sense.

My guess: (a) is not infinitesimal, and for me (b) is
huge; ergo, I'm signed up.

-Michael

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19750