X-Message-Number: 9109
From: 
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:48:03 EST
Subject: responses

A few quick responses to today's posts:

Thanks to Prof. Hirsch (#9098) for his kind words.

Stephen Bogner (#9099) uses quite a few words essentially--initially--to
support my position on probability of rescue. He says that in certain
circumstances "I could make a [likelihood] statement with a high confidence
about its validity." But then he also says there would be "no actual basis for
calculating a 'probability'..." And a little later he says "...the subjective
nature of the estimates [in my football example]" reduce the status from
"scientific" to "educated guess."

One of the main points of my probability booklet is to show that an "educated
guess" is in fact essentially the SAME THING as a "scientific" calculation of
probability. Another prime point is that ALL probability estimates (leaving
out of account for the moment such things as quantum statistics and
statistical mechanics) have a subjective aspect, for the simple reason that
every probability depends on the information available to the observer, and
this differs in general from one observer to another. Probability is objective
(relative frequency) AND subjective (depends on choice of experiments).

It may seem like a pointless quibble to fuss over words. Does it matter if
some people choose to say that an "educated guess" is "unscientific?"  Such
people, like Mr. Bogner, obviously believe the educated guess has value,
"unscientific"  and "subjective" or not.

Yes, I think it matters a great deal. As just one example of why it matters,
consider the disgraceful way in which most of the "experts" in cryobiology
attempt--with dismaying success--to use their "scientific" prestige to
discount cryonics. While never holding  still for cross examination, they make
airy statements about the "negligible" probability of success, while never
making any calculation or reasoned estimate whatever. 

Some time back Steve Harris made some statements about what is and is not
"scientific," and I replied--unfortunately--in a somewhat testy way. But both
scientists and laymen need to understand that the essence of "science" is
extremely simple--honesty and resourcefulness, nothing more nor less.
Prescriptions and details of procedure, while often useful, do NOT make
science. As an extreme example, consider the "evidence" for telekinesis and
other "paranormal" phenomena.

The late Joseph Rhine at Duke had a staff of Ph.D.s and used reams of
statistics to show that his "non-random" results meant that the "phenomena"
were firmly established by the usual statistical criteria. Extremely
"scientific." But among other shortcomings, he failed to note the dictum of
Hume that extraordinary claims demand an extraordinarily high level of
evidence. Put another way, he did not use the Bayes formula, which requires an
estimate of a priori probability. Since the a priori probability in these
cases can only be estimated or guessed, many "scientists" would disregard
it--which means that in practice they would implicitly assume a moderate a
priori probability, whereas in fact it should be extremely small. Many laymen,
without using or knowing the jargon, would reject Rhine's claims on their
ESSENTIALLY SCIENTIFIC intuition that the a priori probability is minuscule.

In short, too narrow a view of the "scientific" is pernicious for at least two
reasons: it gives too much prestige and confidence to narrow-minded
"scientists" and it robs laymen of confidence in common sense.

Thomas Donaldson (#9077) takes a position similar to Mr. Bogner's, and the
same comments apply.

In #9103 Thomas also shows a certain amount of confusion about terminology.
Among other things, he says "we don't have to calculate probabilities to see
[the worth of cryonics]." But we most certainly do. We MUST calculate or
estimate probabilities (whether that word is used or not) to form a conclusion
about the worth of any choice at all. Failure to understand this is just a
failure of liberation from the tyranny of terminology. EVERY decision is
based--explicitly or implicitly, or a combination--on an estimate of
consequences.

I also have some disagreements with Thomas' "philosophical" points about
restoration of the "same" individual, but another time for that. Needless to
say, I appreciate Thomas' many and continuing contributions to our endeavors.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9109