X-Message-Number: 10064 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 16:28:16 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: More "scientific evidence" Actually, there is really a rather large amount of evidence I consider scientific that cryonics will work. An example is that some brain cells revive after warming from liquid nitrogen temperature (as established by appropriate laboratory experiments). This puts some sort of cap on the amount of damage freezing causes--e.g. we never see a cell revive from cremation. Of course it is indirect evidence, and far short of any *proof*. But similarly, there are other pieces of evidence, scientific by reasonable standards, though indirect too, that point toward the desired conclusion. A lot of indirect pointers like this may add up to a pretty strong case, even though each is weak individually. In the case of cryonics I think the case overall is reasonably strong but still uncertain; we have to consider negative indicators too, such as the freezing damage that has been observed. (Informational and thermodynamic considerations provide at least a partial counterweight to this one indicator.) And, of course, there *are* ongoing, controlled, scientific experiments in cryonics--but for obvious reasons none of these has been completed yet nor is likely to be soon. But anyone who offers the curt dismissal, "cryonics doesn't work" is speaking prematurely, just the same as if someone were to deny that the lifespan of a laboratory mouse could be extended by some method, without waiting to see if the mouse would really live longer. (The difference, of course, is that the non-cryonicist cannot simply wait till the experiment is over!) If confronted by someone, particularly a non-cryonicist, who wants to deny that there is any scientific evidence favoring cryonics, I would try to explain why, in my view, there *is* scientific evidence favoring it, though not any proof. This I have done before--on a radio interview, for instance. This then will lead to a discussion of what is "scientific evidence"--if the other party is interested (often they aren't), and any differences in views can be aired. I still think the position Paul Wakfer brings up in #10038 is the right one. Cryonics, as a scientific endeavor, *is* different from a conventional laboratory science, and must not be held to the same standards--though it does have appropriate standards of its own. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10064