X-Message-Number: 3293
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 23:10:03 -0400
From: 
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS evidence 

A scientist correspondent--not unfriendly to cryonics, but not convinced
either--has remarked on CryoNet bickering, and also said something (unclear)
about "faith ascendant over proof." A few comments:
 
I don't think the Net gives a balanced impression of what goes on in
cryonics. Most of our time--even of the most contentious people--is probably
spent productively. All the more reason to reduce the bickering, since it
shows us in a bad light and thus impairs recruitment efforts.

I'm not quite sure what [the correspondent means] by "faith ascendant over
proof." It is true that many people believe what they want to believe,
regardless of evidence (probably more true of our opponents than of us); but
it is also true that a great many  scientists have incorrect notions of what
constitutes evidence.  To provide persuasive evidence that a moon rocket was
possible, it wasn't necessary to actually land one on the moon; Goddard and
Tsiolkovsky provided the evidence long before the technology was available,
despite lack of any absolute proof that it ever would become available.
Eventually the U.S. committed billions to the project, still without any
complete "proof" of success. 

Sixty years ago I saw clear evidence that one day we could revive people, if
they were frozen reasonably soon after death. The evidence was not the kind
of specific, quantitative experimental evidence that many scientists would
demand, but valid all the same. It was simply the observation that we were
learning anatomy and physiology (among other things) in ever greater and
finer detail, with no barrier in sight to complete understanding, down to the
atomic level; and that after understanding usually comes control. It was
obvious that our bodies "know" how to effect myriad kinds of construction and
repair, and there was no reason to expect that we could
not--eventually--outdo blind and bumbling "nature." I couldn't predict the
details of technology, but the sweep of history was clearly on our side.
There was--and is--no guarantee of success, but the presumption of progress
is very powerful.

In recent years we have begun to see the outlines of some of the details of
certain avenues of diagnosis and repair, including the work of Eric Drexler
and Ralph Merkle. This has helped move a few scientists off the dime, but
many more are still waiting for more proof, more details, more nearly
complete demonstrated success. (Many, in fact--and especially
physicians--demand COMPLETE success, being unwilling to put ANY BURDEN
WHATSOEVER on the future--an attitude which is not stupid, but insane.)

We need to keep reminding the undecided that the probability of
success--revival and rejuvenation for THEMSELVES and their families in
particular--is not some abstract number that exists or that is waiting to be
discovered; it is a variable that depends, among other things, on the amount
and timing of support for cryonics organizations as well as for cryonics
research. 

Among the many feedbacks is that of motivation and commitment.
Kibitzers--even friendly ones--contribute relatively little, and if death
catches them still on the sidelines, the cosmos will probably extend little
sympathy. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3293