X-Message-Number: 10063 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:35:55 -0400 From: Paul Wakfer <> Newsgroups: sci.cryonics Subject: Re: Language References: <> Ettinger wrote: > > LANGUAGE > > Following up my post yesterday on "Scientific Evidence" (for cryonics): > > Many "establishment" scientists say there is no "scientific evidence" that > cryonics will work (that current patients will ever be revived). Some in > cryonics are willing--either as a matter of public relations tactics or > otherwise--to concede this point, as a matter of language. Since I am one of those people "in cryonics" to whom you are attributing this position, I wish to state categorically that "public relations" is not the reason for it. Rather, accuracy of standard scientific usage and a desire not to distort such usage for any presumed sales benefit is the reason for my position. I am conceding nothing, I am only trying to correct past mistakes of cryonicists (including myself) and to be accurate and honest. > The notion is that > the scientific community is entitled to its own definition of "scientific > evidence" and this means at least one experimental success, or perhaps even > several confirmatory successes. Many words have multiple meanings. Often, one or more general or "standard usage" meanings, and sometimes more than one "technical usage" meaning quite precisely defined for some particular scientific, engineering, sociological, or even artistic discipline. If "the scientific community" is not "entitled to its own definition", then no one is and you are rejecting outright this whole well-founded and well-known structure. It is never wise to start off ones arguments but rejecting and distorting the language of those who you are addressing. > This position is neither logical nor--in my opinion--good tactics. Your definition of "logical", and most certainly not any notion of "good tactics", have little relevance to common and accurate usage of terms in the biological sciences. > The criterion of experimental success implies that there can NEVER be > "scientific evidence" for any expectation about the future. You are confusing the usage of "scientific evidence" in the physical sciences with that in the biological sciences. Given your training in physics, and lack of training or experience in biology, perhaps this is understandable. However, this is an example where a phrase, "scientific evidence", may have multiple meanings in "technical usage". > Therefore ALL plans > and projects are unsupported by "scientific evidence." Here you are distorting or confusing several things. First, even in the biological sciences, no experiments stand alone. They rely on related prior results which *have* evidence or are even "proven" (much weighty evidence). However, the first time any particular experiment is done, it is correct and proper to say that there is no "scientific evidence" (evidence according to accepted scientific methodology) for it to have a result one way or the other. In fact, this viewpoint is of paramount importance in order to maintain an unbiased view when attempting to analyze the experimental results. It is important to realize that, scientifically, biological experiments are done to "investigate", not to *achieve* some *particular* result (even though we may - and I plead guilty here - attempt to promote them that way to outside interests). However, your main error it that you continue to relate everything to the manner in which the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering operate. Physical systems are, in general, much less complex that biological ones. The theories are much better proven, and often the results of a given experiment can be precisely predicted ahead of time from that theory. Such use of proven theories to make predictions is quite reasonably called "scientific evidence" for the result that will obtain from the experiment. (In fact, most physical theory is so well proven, that we don't even bother to test every prediction by experiment any more.) In the biological sciences, this pattern is not the case at all. In most areas, theory is either nonexistent or far behind experiment. Yes, we have working theories consistent with previous results which we use to make hypotheses and decisions about what particular experimental design will be most efficiently further our understanding, however, as often as not we find out (after the fact) that our experiment did not produce the result that we thought it might, and, looking back, it was almost never the most optimal way to proceed. Biological scientific methodology is, therefore, vastly different from that of much of physics. > One might choose to use > language in this way, but it would be unreasonable, Please supply an argument for this assertion instead of using "unreasonable" as a smear word. > and it is NOT in fact the > way people usually talk or act. We are not speaking here of the way "people" talk, but of the way biological scientists talk. > When scientific organizations, or organizations relying on science (including > not only academic research teams but businesses, the military, etc.) make > plans, they use EVIDENCE based on available information and evaluation. They use information, theory, and evidence and proof for previous experiments. But again you are talking about business, military, physical scientists or engineers which are all essentially different than biological scientists. > When > the Manhattan Project was under study, did anyone say "There is no scientific > evidence this will work."? Certainly not. (Well, one admiral asserted, "as an > expert on explosives," that it could not work.) On the contrary, they found > what they believed to be good evidence that it would probably work, and this > was either explicitly or implicitly labeled "scientific evidence." This was an engineering project based upon already proven physical law (much as is current nanotechnology). It relates very little to the methodology or terminology of the biological sciences. In this case, it was/would be perfectly reasonable to use the phrase "scientific evidence" (except, perhaps, about the end result itself). Hell, it is even reasonable, if you wish, to continue to state that there *is* "scientific evidence" when we are talking to the general public. However, when we are talking to a biological scientist *qua scientist*, we must honestly admit that there is no scientific evidence that cryonics works. That is what I did in Taiwan. When I addressed the retort of my scientist opponent there, I very carefully stated "If you mean that - there is no scientific evidence in the sense that no macroscopic whole animal has had its temperature lowered to below the glass transition point and has been restored to life - then you are correct. However, you in turn have no scientific evidence that this cannot be done, and there are both theoretical grounds and related scientific evidence from other experiments to suggest that it will be possible." I then went on to state that "While I agree with you that in general people should not adopt procedures for which there is no or even little scientific evidence, impending death is a special case because no alternative is available. When one is about to die, one cannot simply say, "I will wait until cryonics is proven before trying it. Instead, while there may be no scientific evidence for it, this is one of the few situations where it is still rational to adopt a procedure". This last argument was irrefutable! All my opponent could do was "snort" and the audience appeared to be nodding their heads with agreement. > Language evolves, sometimes for better and sometimes for the worse. But language *evolution* does not necessitate distorting, losing, or equating currently useful words and phrases. (Personally, I am unhappy that the original, and beautiful meaning of the word "gay" - which has no peer, IMO - has been forever lost from the English language.) > Contemporary Romance languages are mostly degenerate corruptions of Latin. In > recent years, dictionaries have allowed one to use "infer" and "imply" as > synonyms--an obvious step backward. We are in full agreement about that error. Although I understand it, I do not perpetuate it. > On the other hand, the use of "contact" as > a verb, still decried by purists, is a step forward; there is no good reason > not to use it. Quite so. > Dictionary definitions represent just one committee's opinion. The dictionary > committees do not originate usages. The originators are the people active in > the respective fields. If enough of us insist on what we consider appropriate > usage, with persuasive reasoning, that will help everyone. Since the cryonics community is so small, this argument has gone nowhere. > A procedure or an attitude or a project is "scientific" if it is based on > realistic evaluation of probabilities. For the umpteenth time, no one said that "a procedure or an attitude or a project" is not scientific. What was stated is that there is no *"scientific evidence" that cryonics works*, and that is quite different. Once, again you are confusing, distorting and equating things. > If I were the only one who said that, I would be a majority of one. But I am > far from alone. Percy Bridgman, long ago, said something like: "Science is just > doing your utmost with your mind, no holds barred." And in doing so he was talking, and promoting science to laymen. In any case, philosophers and historians of science do not count! To use your phrase above, they are not "the people active in the respective fields" who I am talking about addressing with respect for their customs and usage of language. -- Paul -- Voice/Fax: 416-968-6291 Page: 800-805-2870 The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org Perfected cryopreservation of Central Nervous System tissue for neuroscience research and medical repair of brain diseases Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10063