An article in Scientific American I think might be of interest to us. See the discussion here:
http://www.universal...ewtopic.php?t=8
Tripper
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
The Skeptic One of Us?
Started by
tripperm
, Oct 03 2004 08:11 PM
5 replies to this topic
#3
-
- Guest
- 1,715 posts
- 125 ₮
Posted 26 October 2004 - 06:06 PM
Cryonics, like medicine, is applied science. Although medical experiments such as cryonics do generate pure knowledge, the goal of the field is not the acquisition of knowledge. So in that sense cryonics is based on science without actually being a science. Just like medicine.
HOWEVER, when Shermer rates cryonics a 1 out 10 on the scale of being a science, he is not drawing distinctions between applied and pure science. He is making the much nastier allegation that cryonics is not based on science at all (that it is 9/10 pseudoscience). That's a different kettle of fish entirely.
---BrianW
HOWEVER, when Shermer rates cryonics a 1 out 10 on the scale of being a science, he is not drawing distinctions between applied and pure science. He is making the much nastier allegation that cryonics is not based on science at all (that it is 9/10 pseudoscience). That's a different kettle of fish entirely.
---BrianW
#4
-
- Lurker
- 0 ₮
Posted 26 October 2004 - 06:29 PM
I read Shermer's article about Cryonics, if I recall he did not even take into account vitrification as a way of preserving neurons and neural connections.
I understand his skepticism (he is a professional skeptic after all), but with all due respect he seemed to come to the issue with a pre-concieved view that he just reasserted in his article.
I understand his skepticism (he is a professional skeptic after all), but with all due respect he seemed to come to the issue with a pre-concieved view that he just reasserted in his article.
#5
-
- Guest
- 1,715 posts
- 125 ₮
Posted 27 October 2004 - 01:08 AM
In a recent issue of Skeptic, Shermer featured a new article criticizing cryonics based on comments from a cryobiologist who was not very well informed about vitrification. To Shermer's credit, he agreed to print rebuttals from three scientists, including another cryobiologist, in an upcoming issue of his magazine.
I think Shermer is turned off cryonics by millennialist nanotechnology-is-necessary-and-sufficient thinking in the field. He probably won't take cryonics off his hit list as long as it retains the trappings of religion among its adherents.
---BrianW
I think Shermer is turned off cryonics by millennialist nanotechnology-is-necessary-and-sufficient thinking in the field. He probably won't take cryonics off his hit list as long as it retains the trappings of religion among its adherents.
---BrianW
#6
-
- Lurker
- 0 ₮
Posted 27 October 2004 - 01:29 AM
I see... I was referring to his older article about Cryonics, not this most recent one.
Shermer needs to take his head out of the ground once in a while. Whether or not Cryonics is being turned into a religion by some, should not void it's possible crediibility in the scientific community. Shermer hardly speaks for the scientific community, but as you say he won't take Cryonics off his hit list for the time being.
On a side note this is why it is troubling to see the Society of Venturists turning many of the views some of us have, into religious beliefs. I see now that this could hurt the credibility of overall life extension and cryonics research and application in the scientific community.
Shermer needs to take his head out of the ground once in a while. Whether or not Cryonics is being turned into a religion by some, should not void it's possible crediibility in the scientific community. Shermer hardly speaks for the scientific community, but as you say he won't take Cryonics off his hit list for the time being.
On a side note this is why it is troubling to see the Society of Venturists turning many of the views some of us have, into religious beliefs. I see now that this could hurt the credibility of overall life extension and cryonics research and application in the scientific community.
Edited by cosmos, 10 November 2004 - 11:21 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
