X-Message-Number: 9077
From: 
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:24:34 EST
Subject: probability of revival

It's probably wasting everbody's time--especially mine--but I can't resist a
small lecture.

John Pietrzak, Thomas Donaldson, Steve Bridge, and Paul Wakfer all say more or
less that the probability of success in reviving today's patients is unknown
and unknowable. Paul says he has not read my booklet on this topic, but then
proceeds to explain why it must be wrong anyway. Thomas speaks "as a
mathematician," and he certainly knows a lot more math than I do--but not
necessarily about the foundations of probability theory. On this topic I have
proven--to the satisfaction of some experts, at least--that in certain areas I
am right and such giants of history as Richard v. Mises were wrong.

Of course Thomas is right that the "probability" in question is subject to
change and feedback, and in this sense is not a fixed number, and we have the
power to improve the odds by our own actions.I have frequently emphasized
that. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of any particular moment and any
particular set of assumptions and any particular observer, it is ALWAYS
possible to make a scientific estimate of probability for any event whatever. 

That the estimate may often be very rough does not change the fact that it is
valid. In fact, one of the worst failings of many (most?) statisticians is
that they prefer estimates that are PRECISE over estimates that are VALID.
(They  prefer exact numbers and erroneous premises to rough numbers and
appropriate premises.) In my booklet I have included specific technical
examples, stamped kosher by experts in the field. 

Finally, yet again, none of this means I am complacent about the state of
cryonics or indifferent to the urgent need for more research. It DOES
underscore that it is bad science as well as bad public relations and bad
recruitment policy to cave in to the know-nothings and concede that the
chances of our patients are lousy. They are in fact pretty good. Many people
will be unconvinced by any amount of proof, but the proof is there.

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9077