X-Message-Number: 9508 From: (John P. Pietrzak) Newsgroups: sci.cryonics Subject: Re: Pietrzak 3 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:17:10 GMT Message-ID: <> References: <> Yet more "quibbles": On 17 Apr 1998 16:35:35 GMT, (Ettinger) wrote: >One more effort to elucidate a few points--first some tiresome minor ones, >essentially language quibbles, then the major one. > > [Michelson-Morley...] > [Goals of technology: Fountain of Youth (which I didn't bring up as > a goal of technology, it was a quote from another person's post), and > a long treatise on ornithopters] > [Mr. Ettinger's belief that everything is possible] > >I had intended to point-by-point some of John's other statements, especially >with regard to sample size etc., but I think we have reached the point of >rapidly diminishing returns, and I do have other obligations. Those in doubt >are referred to our web site, subsite "Cryonics: The Probability of Rescue." >Form your own opinion. I too had intended to point-by-point Mr. Ettinger's claims in this post, until I realized that he'd ignored the latter 2/3 of my previous post (wherein were contained my most serious arguments). As this conversation appears to be at an end, let me summarize them here and get back to my own other tasks. 1) Mr. Ettinger, do you accept that the results you give in "Cryonics: The Probability of Rescue" are based solely upon intuition? If not, please provide any objective evidence you used in coming up with your results (and some reason why intuition is given such an emphasis in your paper). 2) Given that you use intuition, do you accept that your conclusion is circular in nature? Your own belief in the success of cryonics _cannot_ be any different after consulting your probabilistic study than before, in that you are basing it upon your own intuitions. For those of you who do browse through his paper, please keep these points in mind, and see if the material contained therein refutes them. Thank you John Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9508