X-Message-Number: 9501
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:58:18 -0400
From: "John P. Pietrzak" <>
Subject: Re: Probability of Survival (post #9492)
References: <>

[On my criticisms of Ettinger's thesis]
> I think that the post gives the wrong impression that Ettinger's
> calculation is based primarily on intuition.

I guess my own spin is that, in that he _explicitly_ uses intuition to
bias his results, and in that he has absolutely no real-world samples to
guide his calculation, any results he comes up with must therefore be
based primarily on intuition.

In fact, your two example arguments fit within his system perfectly:

[Ettinger's argument, boiled down]
> Given that in the past science and technology confounded the experts
> and made advances that had been considered impossible, we can be
> optimistic that this will happen in the future with respect to
> reversing freezing damage.

[Cryonics skeptic's argument, boiled down]
> Given that in the past many people claimed that they found ways to
> cheat death (mostly fountain of youth elixirs and such), and given the
> fact that all proved wrong, the probability that Cryonics is
> worthwhile is very small.

Lacking any objective way to choose between the two arguments presented
above, Ettinger's system would have to support both of them equally.  In
his own words, these two statements would _both_ end up as "highly
relevant and thoroughly scientific."


John

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9501