X-Message-Number: 32354
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32351 - #32352
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 16:19:49 +0100
References: <>

On 2 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Although cryonics has some things in common with religion, it is not  
> one.
> Neither is it evidence based science, because the only way to get the
> evidence is to cryopreserve and reanimate a human and then  
> demonstrate that
> it is the same as the person cryopreserved. Part of the technology  
> required
> to do that has not been developed yet. It relies on an enormous
> infrastructure that has yet to appear.

This same claim could be made for most of theoretical physics.  
Evidence to test string theory, etc. is going to be a long time  
coming. Some new evidence will be generated once the new machine at  
CERN gets up to full power. It has been in the works for about 30 years.

While 'religion' is not a well defined term, the concept of 'faith'  
plays a crucial role in most cases. The only 'faith' required by  
cryonics is a faith in scientific progress. Since there is substantial  
evidence for this progress, it could be argued that belief in cryonics  
is not based upon faith. So, while the final evidence is not in on  
cryonics, it is fair to say it is a scientific endeavor.


dss


David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32354