X-Message-Number: 19775
From: 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:04:19 EDT
Subject: Skeptical Inquirer article on cryonics? And "Harris Equation"

--part1_a5.2bba875e.2a889bd3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 8/11/02 5:00:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
 writes:


> 
> That's it -- Michael Shermer, former religious-true-believer has now gone
> overboard as the anti-religious-true-believer. And I say this with sadness
> but no disrespect for Shermer, whose work as a skeptic has been mostly very
> worthwhile. However, when I compare the tone of his writings and those
> contained in his magazine SKEPTIC with similar material published in
> SKEPTICAL INQUIRER and its sister publication FREE INQUIRY, I notice that
> Shermer often shows less respect to those he criticizes. The latter two
> skeptical pubs, which are published by philosopher Paul Kurtz, are
> unfailingly polite and restrained while generally reaching the same
> skeptical conclusions as Shermer with one major exception: The article on
> cryonics published in FREE INQUIRY some years ago was balanced, fair,
> thorough and ultimately positive in the sense that cryonics was not judged
> to be nonsense, merely a long shot. I can accept that.
> 
> Michael LaTorra
> 
> 
> 
> 
Hello, Michael LaTorra and Fellow Cryoneters,

Rudi Hoffman here, deciding that I have a measurable and quantifiable 
probability of writing a relevant and semi-interesting post before my eyes 
involuntarily shut.

(Yes, folks, I side with the Harris Equation people on this quantifiability 
question...the entire field of probability is ABOUT determining and 
quantifying expected outcomes for an event yet to happen.) 

And would anyone (George?) disagree with the pretty clear fact that the SETI 
people have gotten good mileage and scientific respectability from the Drake 
equation?  Despite having to make speculations on the individual variables, 
the concept of having an equation shows that we understand the many variables 
that could impact cryonics "working."

So let's here it for the Harris Equation.   

Somewhat of a topic change...

I am a long term subscriber to both Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer.

However, I have yet to see any evidence that these generally fine pubs even 
know of the existence of the cryonics "movement,"  much less like or dislike 
or hate us.  Is there a web reference to this article?  

I am especially interested because I am considering paying for an ad similar 
to my ad in the back of the "cryonics" magazine in some magazine with 
appropriate demographics.

I have considered "The Futurist" from World Future Society, Life Extension ( 
I have talked to Bill Faloon about this and he was receptive but preferred to 
wait until we have a more "proven" product), Free Inquiry, Skeptical 
Inquirer, Discover, Scientific American, National Geographic, and Popular 
Science.  

I get all the above, like them, but don't know if an ad is affordable or cost 
justifiable.  

I personally had my first introduction to cryonics in 1994 from the now 
defunct OMNI magazine article and ad.  (The only nationwide ad ALCOR has ever 
placed, if I am not mistaken.)  Anyone else get pulled from this article/ad 
combo back then?

Anyway, I am curious about two things.  (Well, really more, but two tonite 
anyway.)

1.  Does SCICOP really have a "position" on cryonics?

2.  What is the most cost effective and optimal demographic magazine for an 
ad I can place to sell more cryonics life insurance, eventually indirectly 
benefiting most readers of this list?  

Good night, dear folks.  Warm wishes to all.  

Rudi

--part1_a5.2bba875e.2a889bd3_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19775