X-Message-Number: 3358 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 00:26:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: CRYONICS:Scientific Expertise Years ago, a science-fiction writer told me, quite seriously, he had been working on a new theory of gravity. He postulated that gravity could in reality be a REPULSIVE force. We find ourselves pressed against the surface of the Earth because the cumulative gravitational repulsion from the stars overwhelms the local gravitational repulsion from our own planet. The idea sounded wacky, but I didn't see how to disprove it. Against my friend's wishes (he was afraid of the idea being "stolen") I showed his thirty-page thesis to a professional scientific historian, who was also qualified as a theoretical physicist. The historian/physicist first pointed out that my friend's idea of "negative gravity" had been originally proposed in the 1800s. He then suggested that if my friend wanted to be taken seriously, he had to do the following: first, predict from his theory an anomaly that would be inexplicable by existing science; and second, suggest an experiment or observation which could verify whether the anomaly existed. Some mathematics would also be needed along the way, to show that "negative gravity" would not violate existing proven physical laws. In other words, when a gifted amateur comes running in crying, "The sky is falling!" we shouldn't feel obliged to duck for cover on the basis of his statement alone. The onus is on him to provide some proof. Cryonics is a field that has attracted many gifted amateurs, some more qualified than others. In cryonics, almost anyone can quickly become an expert within a relatively short space of time, with no formal education and very little experience required. Cryonicists are also aware of the shortcomings of "experts" in cryobiology whose negative statements about cryonics are at best unnecessarily pessimistic and at worst uninformed. Unfortunately, this tends to foster a kind of all-purpose confidence which encourages cryonicists to doubt the authority of experts in almost any field. I think this attitude is problematic, not just because we should respect people who are more knowledgable than we are, but because it makes cryonicists look like pseudoscientists or even crackpots if they are excessively intolerant of the "blinkered scientific establishment." Cryonics should never be made to seem like Velikovsky's theories of planetary motion, or homeopathic remedies which work by "residual vibrations" from atoms that have been diluted out of existence. If we are to be taken seriously by orthodox science, the onus is on us to prove ourselves, not on them to be "open minded" and see things our way. We're not going to convince any expert in any field by being dismissive or by telling him he's stupid or uncooperative. Consequently, I am depressed by exchanges on CryoNet that take this tone. In fact, they bother me more than the occasional personal squabbles that occur here. The squabbles may seem trivial, but at least the people involved can speak with full authority on the subject matter. ############################################################ Charles Platt, 1133 Broadway (room 1214), New York, NY 10010 Voice: 212 929 3983 Fax: 212 929 4467 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3358