X-Message-Number: 7196
From: 
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:33:48 -0500
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS science

Admittedly I brought it on myself, getting sucked into more time on e-mail;
I'll make a partial response to Steve Harris' latest, and try in future
better to restrain my impulses, even though I feel rather strongly about some
of these things and believe they are important. I'll try to make the
following reasonably self-contained.

First, I was indeed guilty of some intemperate language, resulting from a
lifetime of impatience with certain attitudes and misconceptions. And I admit
to lack of humility in certain specific areas--resulting not from failure to
appreciate the talents and contributions of others (we all owe our insights
and even existence to the efforts and sacrifices of predecessors and
contempories), but from conviction, based on evidence, that I see some things
more clearly.

1. Many scientists, including Dr. Harris, have proposed various specific or
systematic procedures as the basis of "science" or the "scientific method" or
the "scientific attitude." I noted Paul Bridgman's definition, that the
essence of science is just (approximately quoted) "to do one's utmost with
one's mind, no holds barred." I believe I improve this by saying the essence
of the scientific attitude is just in honesty (facing facts) and
resourcefulness (devising ways to find facts and apply them toward one's
goals).

Dr. Harris defends his position as that of most scientists, and accuses me of
creating my own definitions. Of course he is right on both counts, but that
is not the issue. The issue is whether I am justified in offering this
definition, and in saying I am one of a tiny minority who understand the
foundations of probability theory. I offer specific evidence--in particular,
as to the foundations of probability theory, in a booklet, "Cryonics and the
Probability of Rescue," available on request. This is not just vague
generalities, but also includes a few specific, quantitative examples--one in
particular, showing  that the professional statistical brethren were wrong in
their advocacy of a certain estimate of the exponential life parameter. (And
this was stamped kosher by a card-carrying professor of statistics.)

An aside: Steve suggests, with intended sarcasm, that I write complaining
letters to the publishers of dictionaries, if I don't like their definitions.
By this he intends to convey that if I differ from those august publishers, I
must be wrong. But the definitions in a dictionary represent just one
comittee's opinion, and the committee's opinions often reflect vulgar
misconceptions and institutionalize them. As a famous example, current
dictionaries make "imply" and "infer" synonymous. Admittedly, many currently
"correct" usages were orginally corruptions of previous usages, but that is
no excuse. In certain areas we are duty bound to resist increase of entropy.

2. Harris says my definition of "science" is too vague and ignores the
history of science; he asks whether, when science began to flower (at certain
times and places), people suddenly became more honest and resourceful; and he
cites the mistakes of Aristotle as evidence that honesty and resourcefulness
are not enough. 

He is confusing the necessary and the sufficient. It is generally necessary
to be honest in a particular area to be scientifically successful in that
area. Honesty alone, in any area, may not be sufficient; and resourcefulness
may be required in greater than available degree....Yes, whenever there was a
flowering of science, people did relatively suddenly improve in honesty
or/and resourcefulness.

My definition is broad but not vague. More specificity and detail emerge,
gradually,  whenever the definition is applied. The same thing could be said
of Kelvin's dictum that Science demands measurement; he didn't and couldn't
specify in advance the details of how to make every measurement.

3. The real nub is whether my view is useful, and Harris tries to show it is
not. But I have shown, in many published and unpublished efforts, that it is
or can be. 

Among other things, it is devastatingly counterproductive to concede that any
area of life or thought is outside the purview of science--it conveys license
to be as wrong-headed as you please. "Everyone is entitled to his own
opinion."  "That's how I feel." But your wrong opinion could kill me, or my
wrong opinion could impoverish you. (Note: given their  convictions, the
Catholics are absolutely right in not tolerating error, and were correct in
not tolerating other religions; and the "liberal" Catholics are thoroughly
confused.)

Harris says that many areas of life and thought continue without any
scientific attitude. That is the problem, not the answer. 

A primary difficulty of the too-narrow definition of "science" used by Harris
and most others is precisely that it reinforces the tendency to exclude
certain VITAL questions from scientific study--in particular, the
"philosophical" questions of the meaning and purpose of life, the question of
the origin and validity of values. 

I don't expect my views to gain much favor any time soon, any more than
cryonics did--the shift in mind-set is too great, despite the simplicity of
the main ideas. But we have to work on it.

Robert Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7196