X-Message-Number: 7227
From: 
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:34:40 -0500
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS science & values

I hope the following comments will have a degree of usefulness; they touch
both on broad issues and individual "human interest" notes.

Anatole Dolinoff (Cryonet # 7225) thought certain writers gave me
insufficient respect and leeway as the founder of cryonics. This raises
several issues--trivial or profound according to one's orientation at the
moment.

Steve Harris had offered an implicit definition of the "scientific method"
which I called "juvenile." "Sophomoric"  might have been slightly less
offensive, and "too narrow" would have been more tactful and clearly
preferable. 

I have already said that "juvenile" was intemperate. Many people have
remarked on the ease with which e-mail induces people to dash off hasty
remarks, when it would often be better (a) to cool off and revise before
sending, or (b) forget it altogether, since the time spent is usually largely
wasted anyway. (I have the strong impression that Cryonet--so far--has not
justified the time I have spent on it, and would not have  even if I had been
more careful in postings.)

(There may be an advantage in having impromptu writings on record--for your
archives, to help in your reconstruction. But it would be better to have both
first draft and revisions in your archives, only the  final revision public.)

Yet "juvenile" was indeed appropriate in the sense of drawing attention to
the extremely pernicious effects of the crude definitions of "science" as
used e.g. by Lord Kelvin ("...you have to MEASURE...") and others, including
Steve Harris, who joins the distinguished but grotesquely mistaken crowd who
exclude crucial areas of life and thought from "science."  

To repeat, Paul Bridgman said the essence of science is (approximately quoted
from memory) "...to do one's utmost with one's mind, no holds barred); I
improved this by saying the main features of science are honesty (facing the
facts) and resourcefulness (devising ways to find the facts and apply them
toward one's goals--including the very setting of goals). 

Even when precise measurements are difficult or impossible; even when
definitions are vague; and even when one's very goal is unclear, there is
frequently STILL a vast gap between a scientific attitude and an
irresponsible, impulsive or numbbrained one.
This often occurs in the MOST IMPORTANT aspects of life and thought,
involving values and goals. Subcategories of world-view include ethics, art,
politics, and religion. Very few people--even among philosophers, whose
specialty it should be--recognize the possibility and necessity of
identifying biological axioms and then using logic to build an evolving
structure of values. In short, scarcely anyone truly and broadly recognizes
the place in science of "ought"--objective criteria for personal decisions. 

The alternative to my broad definition of "science" is what we have
now--surrender to "all opinions are created equal" in discussions of values
and goals. "I can be as wrong-headed as I please; it's my constitutional
right. My opinion is as good as anyone's, if not better. How I feel is how I
feel, so shut up." .... A full discussion is far beyond the scope of a short
message; I am writing a book on it. One sub-category includes questions of
loyalty.

We are all well aware, both in the abstract and in our personal lives, of the
pervasive attitude of "What have you done for me lately?" This contrasts with
the "old-fashioned" ideas of my dear friend Anatole, whose values include
loyalty, love, and debts of conscience. 

Luke-warm and short-term loyalty, and even lip-service-only loyalty and
respect, are very common--and to some extent, in some circumstances,
justifiable. I have often been asked if I want to be "remembered" as this or
that, and of course I say I don't want to be remembered at all--first because
I want to be there, and second because, if I'm not there, the contents of
other people's memories will not do much for me. 

Those whose goals turn tightly on the esteem of others--in the extreme, on
mindless adulation by the masses--are in large part delusional. (How large a
part is again a complicated question.)

Aside: It sometimes helps a little to point out, to people resisting
immortalism, two things they usually (in effect) forget or disregard: first,
that in a relative augenblick they and (nearly) everything they now value
will be forgotten, if they are dead; second, that their grandchildren,
perhaps even their children, may never die of "natural" causes. A real
appreciation of these points can do wonders to clear the mind and focus
attention.

It is more the rule than the exception, in science, to give distinguished
people scant respect except parenthetically or pro forma. Linus Pauling, in
his later years, was largely dismissed as a crank (with little
justification). Einstein, in his later years, was not considered worth much
attention (more justification in his case than in Pauling's). Of course I am
not in their class in most respects; yet what I have already done, and what I
am still doing, may be of more direct importance to the lives of some people.

Naturally no one, living or dead, old or young, regardless of credentials,
deserves to have his dicta accepted uncritically. Minute and relentless
examination of all ideas and all alleged evidence is required for
science--the first tenet of which is honesty, after all. But we unavoidably
live in a world in which science in the narrow sense of Steve Harris (and
most others) must share mental space with science in the broader sense,
including a central place for goals and values. These latter, in turn, depend
in part on some understanding of psychological and social repercussions. 

It aint easy; but the first step is to recognize the problem. Another step is
to decide to what extent established values or habits are valid. As a first
approximation, it is probably safe to say that most of the old-fashioned
virtues have a considerable degree of merit. These include loyalty and
respect--for individuals, not institutions.

Robert Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7227