X-Message-Number: 10051 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 18:16:32 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Re: Re: Scientific "Evidence" Paul Wakfer has written a good reply to my message #10033 on whether we should regard "scientific evidence" as supporting the cryonics premise (that persons frozen today can eventually be restored to life and good health). [snip] > You may differ with my analysis above and reply that the theory of > cryonics (that highly damaged patients may still be restorable by future > technology) should be properly treated as a theory for which controlled > experiments *cannot* be done BECAUSE OF THE TIME FACTOR INVOLVED. My > response to that, however, is that, if so, this would be the only case > in the history of the scientific method where such as distinction has > been made. It is possible that this last argument is correct and that > cryonics (as opposed to perfected suspended animation) *should* be > properly treated as a science for which controlled experiments cannot be > done (or are currently being done! - as Ralph Merkle likes to point out, > only half tongue in cheek). However, it is again reasonable that > scientists will *not* accept this change to their basic paradigms of > thought about the scientific method, until you convince them of its > usefulness for producing scientific "truth". > I strongly agree with this paragraph. Yes, I do think cryonics should be treated as a theory for which controlled experiments cannot be done (no, are currently being done but not yet complete!) because of the time factor. But, again it *is* reasonable, as Paul says, "that scientists will *not* accept this change to their basic paradigms of thought ..." Most scientists anyway, along with other people. They see it their way, and I and a few others (including many who read this, I should think) see it our way, and think the others are wrong. Perfected suspended animation would bring the two groups much closer together, and is a goal to be sought. Meanwhile we have to deal with people whose mindset is different from ours, whose very vocabulary could mean different things from what the same words mean to us. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10051