X-Message-Number: 10033 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 98 16:13:20 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Scientific "Evidence" Paul Wakfer, #10021, wrote, > [snip] However, I believe that I dealt > with him quite effectively, by simply replying to his statement that I > "had shown no evidence that cryonics would work" (which from the > traditional - and proper - scientific viewpoint of the meaning of > "evidence" is quite correct. No one has yet shown any such evidence!) What is this 'traditional - and proper - scientific viewpoint of the meaning of "evidence"'? To my thinking there is significant, scientific evidence cryonics will work, some evidence (also scientific) it won't work, so far no proof (again scientific) either way. In a sense, true scientific "proof" is impossible, though when the evidence for something is overwhelming enough, for practical purposes we say it has been proved. But "evidence" is not the same as "proof" or "almost-proof". Its criteria are less stringent and admit more in the way of contrary evidence. As a case in point, consider the evolutionary hypothesis. Today, perhaps, many scientists would consider it "proved" but certainly this was not always so. In 1800 the objective--I would say scientific--evidence seemed strongly to favor the "design" hypothesis, i.e. creationism, though by now, with more and better evidence, we reach a different conclusion. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10033