X-Message-Number: 29792
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Do I respond to dss? Hmm...well, maybe a small
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:20:14 +0200

On 27 Aug 2007, at 19:05, Hare, Tim R wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CryoNet F [mailto:] On Behalf Of David
> Stodolsky
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:46 AM
> To: CryoNet F
> Subject: Re: [CN] Do I respond to dss? Hmm...well, maybe a small
> posting. ...
>
> On 25 Aug 2007, at 18:15,  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for sharing, David  Stodolski.
>
> If you had the training of a research scientist, you would be less
> likely to make mistakes like this. ;-)
> (i =/= y)
>
> [TRH: Tolerate the exchange (I >> Y).  With your training you must  
> have
> *some* appreciation for the evolution of words/languages via this sort
> of transcription error.]

The evolution of languages has nothing to do with it. The question is  
whether identity of an author is crucial. I don't know of a single  
journal that wouldn't return a paper for correction if it had an  
error like this.



>
> As Niels Bohr commented: "Prediction is very difficult, especially
> about the future"

This is supposed to be taken as a humorous statement.

>
> [TRH: Your paper tiger just turned on you: appeal to a better  
> authority,
> as this in fact *supports* Rudi's case.]


No. It shows you haven't taken the time to think about my argument.

If one of the world's most famous scientists makes a statement like  
this,  you begin to understand how any predictions are extremely  
hazardous.





>
> For anyone but a person doing research in cryobiology
>
> [TRH: Is your degree in cryobiology?  No?  Then for anyone not doing
> research in this field, to defend *alternatives* to Rudi's assertion,
> even vague skepticism, is "to be hoist by one's own petard".  It  
> *is* in
> cryobiology?  Ah, well, then stop posting on such a wide range of  
> other
> topics, as you're not an acknowledged expert in these areas.]

The point is that if anyone would be able to make a credible  
prediction, it would have to be someone in the field.



>
> to make predictions about reversible suspended animation
>
> [TRH: "Reversible suspended animation"?  Your position would be  
> stronger
> if you didn't muddy the waters
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation] and referred to  
> it as
> re-animation. Given the rigor you suggest we all adhere to, why the  
> lack
> of precision? ]

Rudi was discussing suspension reversible at will, not by waiting for  
an unknown period.



>
> merely shows an arrogant
>
> [TRH: Arrogant? You're projecting...(see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection]
>
> disregard for the complexities of the science.
>
> [TRH: You're undercutting your own argument again.  It is, as you've
> convinced us all, I'm sure, by quoting Bohr, an appreciation for the
> complexities that affords the latitude for a wide range of estimates.]
>

Stop wasting our time and destroying your own credibility.


dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29792