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