X-Message-Number: 16583
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:36:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: visser

Thanks to Steve Bridge for a Visser overview. I agree with Steve (and
disagree with Mike Darwin): I think Olga totally believed in her abilities
and was not a fraud in the sense that she set out to deceive people.

My friend John Sladek (dead now, alas) wrote a book titled THE NEW
APOCRYPHA in which he described the classic progression that occurs in a
pseudoscientist (sometimes in a bona-fide scientist):

1. The researcher believes that (s)he is destined to do something great.

2. A chance discovery suggests that "This is it!"

3. Skepticism from outsiders merely reinforces the researcher's belief
that the discovery is valid, because the outsiders must be jealous, or
trying to steal the work--pretending that it's worthless, so they can grab
it more easily.

4. Further trials fail to produce such clear-cut results. But by this
time, the researcher is SO convinced that this is a world-changing
discovery, instead of questioning the concept itself, the researcher
questions the circumstances surrounding the trials. Thus, the ESP
researcher never doubts ESP; he complains that the presence of skeptics
prevents the effect from being expressed.

5. Ultimately, if there is a crucial test attended by dispassionate
observers, the researcher will be tempted to fake the results if
necessary. This is because the researcher _knows_ the phenomenon is valid,
and because it is of such extreme importance to humanity, the researcher
cannot bear the thought that one failure to get results will deprive the
world forever of this brilliant breakthrough. So, the researcher "helps
things along" a little, where necessary.

Thus, deception occurs only toward the end of this cycle, and grows out of
self-deception.

It is fortunate that so many people were present at the Alcor/Visser demo,
and were watching so closely. When Olga claimed that the first
resuscitated heart was beating, she almost got away with it. The fluid
which was being perfused through the heart was leaking slightly, and
dripping rhythmically from the bottom of the heart. The sensor attached to
the heart began beeping in rhythm with the dripping, presumably because
the sensor detected the oscillating electrical capacitance caused by fluid
accumulating and then dripping. Moreover, since fluid was flowing around
the outside of the heart, and this liquid film increased and diminished
fractionally in thickness (again, in rhythm with the dripping action), the
light refracting through this film appeared to fluctuate. The heart almost
looked as if it were beating, and of course the rhythmic beep of the
sensor reinforced this impression. I was fooled myself, for a few seconds.
If fewer people had been present, and if they had been less able to
observe closely, Olga might have convinced everyone.  When an experimenter
is fooling herself, she naturally encourages other people to fool
themselves too.

---

A couple other comments re Steve Bridge's post. First, if Alcor and CI had
pursued their interest in Visser cooperatively and openly instead of
secretly, probably the whole farce could have been avoided, and $50,000
could have been saved. The preconception that Alcor and CI had stumbled
upon something which must be kept confidential, and which they intended to
protect under an EXCLUSIVE licensing arrangement, resulted in the
organizations depriving themselves of expert advice. Moreover, the
exclusivity of this agreement seemed offensive to me then, and still does
now. So far as I know, it is the only time in the history of
cryonics-related research when two organizations seemed ready to deprive
other organizations of a possibly significant development. At the time,
Olga was almost crowing about this, warning people such as Brian Wowk that
he would soon regret his critical comments, presumably because he would be
deprived of the fruits of her genius.

I remain adamantly convinced that free and open exchange of all
information is always beneficial in this field, because the field is so
small, and because there are so many opportunities for self-deception, as
the Visser cases illustrated. If someone came to me and said, "I can
resuscitate rat hearts, give me $50,000," I wouldn't immediately think,
"Aha, I must keep this information secret, all to myself." I would
immediately go to the most highly qualified people in the field, get them
to sign nondisclosure agrements if necessary, and then solicit their
advice.

This is just another example of the virtues of an inclusive attitude
toward research, as opposed to the exclusive approach, which locks out
other people's valuable experience and expertise, and results in work that
reinvents the wheel--or invents a new kind of wheel that will not actually
rotate properly.

--CP

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16583