29 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Quackwatch on cryonics.

The information here is obviously wrong and outdated. I wonder if Michael Shermer reviewed the latest experiments and preservation technology if he would still do something as silly as comparing human tissue to strawberries. LOL!

I think it is worth it to contact quackwatch and provide them with some updated information. The rabbit kidney preservation. Micrograph pictures of perfect cellular preservation. The latest preservation chemicals. Ben Best's latest paper is good as well.

Maybe they wouldn't change the overall tone article, but having updated information would at least give rational people something to evaluate.

Any volunteers to contact quackwatch?

[niner]

Quackwatch is a good example of people who turn healthy skepticism into a religion. A great many self-professed "skeptics" are nothing more than ideologues.

[kismet]

Quackwatch is a good example of people who turn healthy skepticism into a religion. A great many self-professed "skeptics" are nothing more than ideologues.

Yep, it's pretty sad. The article is one big knee-jerk reaction.

[T.Theodorus Ibrahim]

Paul Crowley has attempted to do this

http://blog.ciphergo...dodgy-cryonics/

Stephen Barrett (the author of the Quackwatch article on cryonics) has refused to engage in any discussion.

cheers
theo

[T.Theodorus Ibrahim]

The rationalwiki folk have an article up on cryonics. It may require some revision.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Cryonics

cheers
theo

[Luke Parrish]

The rationalwiki folk have an article up on cryonics. It may require some revision.

[url="http://"%20&lt;a%20href="http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Cryonics""%20target="_blank"&gt;http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Cryonics"&lt;/a&gt;"] <a href="http://rationalwiki..../wiki/Cryonics" target="_blank">http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Cryonics[/url]</a>

cheers
theo

I've been fighting this one. It's a bit of a thankless job, lots of name calling and ignorant knee-jerk reactions. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? I've taken the stance that cryonics is not a matter of positive claims, which distinguishes it from pseudoscience. David Gerard has a different idea, i.e. that cryonics inherently claims it preserves human identity. I can see how that may be an implicit claim (from a certain point of view), but it's not what I'd call a positive claim.

The trouble is that it sounds to him like I'm trying to weasel out of giving evidence.

Anyone have a good reply to that?

[xlifex]

The trouble is that it sounds to him like I'm trying to weasel out of giving evidence.

Anyone have a good reply to that?

Evidence for what? The whole point of cryonics is to make rational decisions without having certainty about the future. People have to make their best judgment calls based on their understanding of the science of cryobiology, biogerontology and molecular nanotechnology. One thing that rarely resonates with critics of cryonics is that from a technical point of view cryonics patients have LOTS of time. Critics of cryonics can be challenged to substantiate why advanced cell repair technologies will NEVER be developed, no matter how much time will pass.

[Luke Parrish]

The trouble is that it sounds to him like I'm trying to weasel out of giving evidence.

Anyone have a good reply to that?

Evidence for what? The whole point of cryonics is to make rational decisions without having certainty about the future. People have to make their best judgment calls based on their understanding of the science of cryobiology, biogerontology and molecular nanotechnology. One thing that rarely resonates with critics of cryonics is that from a technical point of view cryonics patients have LOTS of time. Critics of cryonics can be challenged to substantiate why advanced cell repair technologies will NEVER be developed, no matter how much time will pass.

Nice to talk to someone who doesn't think I'm crazy.

The predictable counter arguments:

• If we challenge them to provide evidence that we are wrong, that is shifting the burden of proof.
• Lots of time for vaguely defined advanced cell repair technology sounds like hand-waving.

[Mind]

Holy crap! The "rationale wiki" needs to be renamed, perhaps "irrational I-am-afraid-of-the-future wiki". The cryonics article is full of ad hominems and false information. Who the heck runs that site?

Anyway, does anyone know what it takes to get a rational view presented? Is it just the volume of comments, or are these places run by people that refuse to be rational.

[xlifex]

[*]If we challenge them to provide evidence that we are wrong, that is shifting the burden of proof.
[*]Lots of time for vaguely defined advanced cell repair technology sounds like hand-waving.
[/list]

But there is no burden of proof on cryonics. There can only be a burden of proof on suspended animation. That is a complete misunderstanding of the cryonics argument.

A decision to make cryonics arrangements can be said to be irrational (but not "false") if (a) it can be proven that the cryonics project contradicts the known laws of physics or (b) that the value of future life is zero. Unless this can be done, I do not see how anyone can claim that a person cannot come to a positive assessment of cryonics in light of the state of our existing scientific knowledge and the value of personal survival.

Why would it be hand-waving to claim that cryonics is not dependent on solving resuscitation problems within a narrow time frame. Cell repair technologies are not vaguely defined at all. We know quite a deal about what these technologies are supposed to do. We even know that evolution has enabled nature with tools to manipulate matter on such scales already. The very person you are debating with is the outcome of such bio-nanotechnology!

If you want to be rigorous about it. All decision making has an element of uncertainty. There is nothing in our knowledge about decision making that dictates that the degree of uncertainty associated with cryonics renders it irrational. There is a straightforward reason for this. Even if probabilities are extremely low (which I do not think is the case at all) the value of life can still make cryonics a rational decision.

If people desire certainty they should not debate cryonics but consult a priest.

[Luke Parrish]

I've been reading through the wikipedia entry on pseudoscience, and considering how some of the things might seem to apply to cryonics. For example, "vague or misleading claims". Are there any claims cryonics makes, vaguely or not?

I suppose it accepts the premise that the human mind is material and can be preserved by material means. But that's suspended animation's premise as well, and not particularly controversial among scientists.

Then there is the claim of a nonzero probability that cryonics will work, i.e. that a human mind is preserved by currently achievable means. But that's a claim of nonzero probability, not a positive claim. I kind of doubt that counts as a vague claim for this purpose.

Another concern might be that it is cloaked in the language of science without being science. The trouble is that it relies so heavily on cryobiology and other sciences that this is practically unavoidable. It is when the scientific references have no relation to real science, or are attempts to obfuscate the real nature of the belief that it should be considered a problem.

Maybe a good term for cryonics is pseudo-pseudo-science -- something which appears to be pseudo-science but fails to fit rigorous criteria for it.

[advancedatheist]

Maybe a good term for cryonics is pseudo-pseudo-science -- something which appears to be pseudo-science but fails to fit rigorous criteria for it.

I consider cryonics more of a really hard engineering problem requiring currently undeveloped tools to solve, kind of like the task of launching rockets into Earth's orbit and beyond a century ago.

BTW, I wonder what skeptics used to say about the existence of exoplanets. A few decades ago people believed in exoplanets because they kept appearing in science fiction stories; and exoplanets play a role in some skeptics' other targets like ufology, Mormonism and Scientology.

But I don't know of any skeptic who attacked exoplanets as an irrational pseudoscientific belief because we lacked evidence for their existence until the last couple of decades, though skeptics should have heaped scorn on the idea before then in the name of rational consistency.

[advancedatheist]

A decision to make cryonics arrangements can be said to be irrational (but not "false") if (a) it can be proven that the cryonics project contradicts the known laws of physics or (b) that the value of future life is zero. Unless this can be done, I do not see how anyone can claim that a person cannot come to a positive assessment of cryonics in light of the state of our existing scientific knowledge and the value of personal survival.

A lot of cryonics refusers haven't even gotten to this level. I swear I have to laugh when I read someone's objection to the idea of waking up in Future World which sounds like a child's fears about going to a new school: "What if the kids there don't like me? What if they don't let me play with them? What if they make fun of me?"

In other words, these people imagine experiencing social anxiety in a revival scenario, then use that as an argument against cryonics! Haven't these people ever entered situations involving a bunch of strangers, then realize after a few weeks they've made new friends? Like freshman year at college, military service, a new job? Even elderly people can do this when they enter nursing homes full of strangers; I've seen this happen for my father.

Even if the conditions in Future World involves new challenges, I suspect the advanced neuroscience and psychology of the future would give us the tools we need to overcome our deficits. And if we survive cryotransport with realistic expectations of superlongevity, the additional time will help us to make the adaptations to build satisfying lives.

[Luna]

I swear I have to laugh when I read someone's objection to the idea of waking up in Future World which sounds like a child's fears about going to a new school: "What if the kids there don't like me? What if they don't let me play with them? What if they make fun of me?"

... Haven't these people ever entered situations involving a bunch of strangers, then realize after a few weeks they've made new friends?

Well, people are afraid of anti-aging because a dictator might have it so they rather just die. Weird, isn't it?

Edited by Michael, 18 March 2010 - 05:36 PM.
Trim quotes

[bgwowk]

The skeptic Wiki article is so bad that it's good. It's practically self-discrediting.

Despite dedication to generally rational causes, skeptics are a tribe like any other. They are human. It's politically correct for skeptics to believe that cryonics is crazy, like UFOs or water dowsing. Anything that doesn't fit that template will be filtered out of consideration. It's a rare member of that community, like Steve Harris, who can see beyond the group consensus.

[Mind]

As far as the Rational Wiki goes, I didn't realize it was meant for entertainment, not discussing things "rationally". I would suggest not wasting much more effort trying to convince the people there to change the article. The real Wikipedia article is much better and is surprisingly even-handed on cryonics. I would suggest editing that article with the latest research into cryonics - as a better method of supporting the cryonics community.

[advancedatheist]

Despite dedication to generally rational causes, skeptics are a tribe like any other. They are human. It's politically correct for skeptics to believe that cryonics is crazy, like UFOs or water dowsing. Anything that doesn't fit that template will be filtered out of consideration. It's a rare member of that community, like Steve Harris, who can see beyond the group consensus.

Many skeptics still seem to hold the belief that something mystical or spooky happens when you die which resists technological intervention. Cryonicists come along to question this belief based on scientific arguments and a judgment about the capabilities of sufficiently advanced medicine in a few centuries; yet the skeptics accuse us of woo instead of examining the woo in their own assumptions.

[advancedatheist]

Well, people are afraid of anti-aging because a dictator might have it so they rather just die. Weird, isn't it?

Anders Sandberg on a recent podcast said that people tend to approve of the idea of life extension if you frame it altruistically. For example, a life extended surgeon (who presumably kept his skills) would probably meet with approval because of the perception that the other people's lives he can save will justify his extra longevity .

Only people apply this principle inconsistently. Investors and entrepreneurs benefit society by accumulating and allocating capital towards productive uses, providing goods and services and creating jobs (not to mention the fact that they pay the disproportionate share of the taxes); yet when some of them seek radical life extension through cryonics, many people don't see the social advantages of keeping these investors and entrepreneurs in the life business, but instead disapprove of their "selfishness."

Reference: The Future and You:

http://www.thefuture...?post_id=591399

[bgwowk]

There is a dispute on the Talk page of the Rational Wiki article about cryonics that some people here have participated in, and about which I want to set the scientific record straight.

Ben Best's cryonics paper, Scientific Justification of Cryonics Practice,

http://www.cryonics....stification.pdf

says "The formerly vitrified transplant functioned well enough as the sole kidney to keep the rabbit alive indefinitely," referring to a kidney vitrification experiment by Greg Fahy et al. A description of that experiment is published in detail in this paper from the journal Organogenesis

http://www.21cm.com/...hyORG5-3[1].pdf

There is a sentence in that Organogenesis paper mentioning a rabbit that lived for 9 days after vitrified kidney transplantation. This apparently led some readers of the paper to stop at that sentence and conclude that was the best result ever obtained. This is false. In fact, that 9-day rabbit was classified as a "non-survivor" because it did not survive long-term. The detailed description of the successful survivor experiment, including clinical status of the animal for seven weeks after transplant, includes the language:

After ensuring that the animal appeared capable of living
indefinitely using the vitrified kidney as the sole renal support,
it was euthanized for histological follow-up on day 48.

Therefore the Organogenesis paper DOES describe long-term survival of a vitrified kidney that "functioned well enough as the sole kidney to keep the rabbit alive indefinitely." Ben Best's paper was correct, and the information presently on Rational Wiki is wrong.

[enoonsti]

One of the participants - David Gerard - has a website. In particular, one of his links on the front page is to this essay. I've included a relevant snippet below:

A Fuckhead Must Never Back Down When Caught In A Lie

It is so easy to obtain all sorts of facts on the modern Information Superhighway that it is hard to imagine anyone attempting to lie, simply because it is so easy to get caught in a lie and therefore have your credence demolished. That does not stop the on-line Fuckhead.

The on-line Fuckhead will lie about where he/she is, what he/she does, who he/she is, and what he/she knows. For example, a Fuckhead will claim to be an attorney, even though there are several on-line directories of attorneys which do not include the Fuckhead. A Fuckhead will claim to be in a certain geographic location but not be able to provide details such as the street on which he/she is located, yet the Internet provides many detailed maps and guidebooks and even services which tell you how to drive from your location to any address.

Yet this abundance of proof and truth does not deter the Fuckhead trait of mendacity. "I never said that," claims the Usenet fuckhead, yet the Usenet archive can give you chapter, verse, and message ID. And, as befits the Fuckhead, when you challenge the Fuckhead and prove that the Fuckhead has lied, the Fuckhead will usually respond with a completely irrelevant ad-hominem attack. Such is the way of the Fuckhead.

[Mind]

I made a couple posts on the Cult Education forum as well last week. As Bwowk mentioned earlier (about the "rational" wiki), the posters there are so irrational and full of hate that it makes Cryonics supporters look like angels and the epitome of tolerance.

[Mixter]

Suggestion: Start your own Quackwatch-watch blog, there already are a few

[enoonsti]

I made a couple posts on the Cult Education forum as well last week. As Bwowk mentioned earlier (about the "rational" wiki), the posters there are so irrational and full of hate that it makes Cryonics supporters look like angels and the epitome of tolerance.

Read his reply


Then read my reply to his reply


Then read his reply to my reply of his first reply


...


I have a theory consisting of the following elements:


1. The Antcult is schizophrenic

2. And he's having a private debate between his personalities

3. And I'm missing out on some of the details of those private exchanges.

4. Thus, the sporadic details that escape into the public sound nutty to me.

5. But I may be wrong because Larry "agree(s) with (both of them) 100%"

[bgwowk]

I made a couple posts on the Cult Education forum as well last week. As Bwowk mentioned earlier (about the "rational" wiki), the posters there are so irrational and full of hate that it makes Cryonics supporters look like angels and the epitome of tolerance.

To be clear on this, I think my comments about "Rational" Wiki were limited to the observation that their article on cryonics was so bad as to be self-discrediting. I made some private comments to Mind about the Cult Education Forum that were less charitable.

[enoonsti]

I made some private comments to Mind about the Cult Education Forum that were less charitable.

This sentence made my day. Well anyways, I left another reply there, but I'm wondering if it will be approved. I thought I was pretty nice in it, because I end up supporting his rationale. He truly has a beautiful mind; we just have to wrap our inferior minds around it.

[Luke Parrish]

Great image, estooni.

The fact that he evidently specializes in being small-minded, conformist, and creepy makes it all the funnier.

[Mind]

I made a couple posts on the Cult Education forum as well last week. As Bwowk mentioned earlier (about the "rational" wiki), the posters there are so irrational and full of hate that it makes Cryonics supporters look like angels and the epitome of tolerance.

To be clear on this, I think my comments about "Rational" Wiki were limited to the observation that their article on cryonics was so bad as to be self-discrediting. I made some private comments to Mind about the Cult Education Forum that were less charitable.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth Brian, it was not intended that way. I meant to say that in a similar manner as the irrational "rational" wiki , the people at the Cult Education Forum were detrimental to their "cause".

[Luke Parrish]

I meant to say that in a similar manner as the irrational "rational" wiki , the people at the Cult Education Forum were detrimental to their "cause".

The "rational" wiki people are positively saintlike compared to those insane cult forum characters.

[Shannon Vyff]

Power to you both for posting in anti-cult. I always figure I'd get way too involved with watching it and subsequently spending a bunch of time counter-posting. I think anyone who is interested in cryonics will do their own research and there is overwhelmingly more good information than bad. Right now when a person types in cryogenics, or cryonics or even people or freezing body etc. -the first links on the page are to sites that have impartial information.

[T.Theodorus Ibrahim]

The sidewiki option in the google toolbar would allow one to annotate the quackwatch page on cryonics.