X-Message-Number: 19750 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:26:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Hartl <> Subject: Re: Shermer, "skeptics", debunkers and odds <note> I think a series of unknown keystrokes may have sent a version of this email prematurely; if so, blame Yahoo! Mail </note> Hi George, I agree with you that Shermer is probably not going to "come around" to cryonics; I'd be happy if he'd just keep his mouth shut. I said it much more nicely to him, of course, since telling him to shut his mouth would probably provoke hostility. And you may be right that he won't shut up, either. I thought that it was worth a shot; at least maybe he'll think twice next time. Your analysis of skeptical organizations -- and their seeming unwillingness to revise their opinions -- is, unfortunately, probably right. Many people, including many skeptics (and including Michael Shermer), have a hard time changing their views, especially once they have made a public commitment to them. Psychologist Robert Cialdini identifies this one-two punch as "commitment and consistency", and they are powerful forces indeed. As far as odds go, you'll note that I never brought up the issue. Making such estimates is fraught with uncertainty. I also agree that one-in-a-million estimates are unfounded and potentially counter-productive -- and very likely much too small as well. On the other hand, it isn't unreasonable to make educated guesses about the prospect of cryonics: for future events, probabilities are still meaningful. Consider this: I offer you the chance to bet $1 to win $2 on the roll of a die. You can bet either on numbers 1-5 (inclusive) or 6. Would you really claim that the probability of a 6 being rolled is either 0 or 1, so there's no way to decide short of a time machine? Of course not; the probability is 1 in 6. You, like me, would bet on 1-5 -- and then curse your luck (but not your strategy) when a 6 is rolled. A similar situation arises in blackjack, a subject I happen to know something about. Assuming that you are not counting cards (which I for one would never do ;), it turns out that you should always hit a hard 16 when the dealer is showing 7 through ace. Unfortunately, the probability of winning is much less than 50% whether you stand or hit, and if you advise someone to hit a hard 16 they'll still probably bust. It's *always* the right play to hit, but try telling that to a gambler who's just lost a big bet on your advice. Not understanding this point -- that the "right play" can *never* depend on what actually happens, since by hypothesis the outcome is unknown a priori -- is one of the most common gambling fallacies. The application to cryonics is this: like the gambler holding a hard 16,we are in a situation with imperfect information -- we don't know if cryonics will work. With cryonics, the question is whether or not to place the bet. This is why a reasonable estimate of success, even if uncertain, is potentially valuable; it allows us to perform a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to bet or not. If you believe that the chances of success are essentially zero, then it makes sense not to bet. The problem with many cryo-skeptics is that their 0% estimates are rarely (if ever) justified with rigorous arguments; they just dismiss the subject out of hand. Though many would reject cryonics even if it were free (for a host of "reasons" all-too-familiar to those on CryoNet), this cost-benefit analysis lies at the heart of reasoned objections to cryonics. Consider the two main factors: (a) the probability of success and (b) the payoff. Most on this list consider (a) to be "reasonable" based on the work of Ettinger, Drexler, Merkle, and others; and we consider (b) to be astronomical. The public and even so-called "experts" are typically not familiar enough with the science to have an informed opinion on (a), but we should be willing to admit that if (a) is small enough, then it's not worth the price. Realize also that a big part of our equation, usually only implicit, is (b), which we consider huge. I am always amazed at how little many people value their own lives; for them, the payoff is, astonishingly to us, quite small. But, within the context of a tiny (a) and only moderate (b), not signing up (and, in particular, not paying for) cryonics makes sense. My guess: (a) is not infinitesimal, and for me (b) is huge; ergo, I'm signed up. -Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19750