14 replies to this topic

[MentalParadox]

I am excited about the idea of extending life, but I just realized something that sort of killed my enthousiasm. Turns out Longecity are followers of Aubrey De Grey.
Now don't get me wrong, Longecity's cause is a good one. But I have heard bad things about Mr. De Grey and his theories. What about the panel of 28 scientists that pretty much
debunked his theories and claims? Surely they are not lying. There's only one thing I am afraid of, and that's investing time and money in a lost cause. It happens but all too
often that zealous believers in a debunked theory (like global warming...) ignore reason (and the fact they've been proven wrong) and masquerade as scientists. For normal people,
it becomes impossible to know which "scientist" is telling the truth, and which is a lying zealot. I'm not jumping to conclusions here - but I gotta know... what does the org have to
say to the fact that Aubrey's theories were debunked? If I'm going to spend thousands of euros based on faith, I want to know in advance if I should bother or not.

[MentalParadox]

I am excited about the idea of extending life, but I just realized something that sort of killed my enthousiasm. Turns out Longecity are followers of Aubrey De Grey.
Now don't get me wrong, Longecity's cause is a good one. But I have heard bad things about Mr. De Grey and his theories. What about the panel of 28 scientists that pretty much
debunked his theories and claims? Surely they are not lying. There's only one thing I am afraid of, and that's investing time and money in a lost cause. It happens but all too
often that zealous believers in a debunked theory (like global warming...) ignore reason (and the fact they've been proven wrong) and masquerade as scientists. For normal people,
it becomes impossible to know which "scientist" is telling the truth, and which is a lying zealot. I'm not jumping to conclusions here - but I gotta know... what does the org have to
say to the fact that Aubrey's theories were debunked? If I'm going to spend thousands of euros based on faith, I want to know in advance if I should bother or not.

I just noticed I put this in the wrong thread, my apologies. Could anyone please move it to where it belongs?

[The Immortalist]

I am excited about the idea of extending life, but I just realized something that sort of killed my enthousiasm. Turns out Longecity are followers of Aubrey De Grey.
Now don't get me wrong, Longecity's cause is a good one. But I have heard bad things about Mr. De Grey and his theories. What about the panel of 28 scientists that pretty much
debunked his theories and claims? Surely they are not lying. There's only one thing I am afraid of, and that's investing time and money in a lost cause. It happens but all too
often that zealous believers in a debunked theory (like global warming...) ignore reason (and the fact they've been proven wrong) and masquerade as scientists. For normal people,
it becomes impossible to know which "scientist" is telling the truth, and which is a lying zealot. I'm not jumping to conclusions here - but I gotta know... what does the org have to
say to the fact that Aubrey's theories were debunked? If I'm going to spend thousands of euros based on faith, I want to know in advance if I should bother or not.

I just noticed I put this in the wrong thread, my apologies. Could anyone please move it to where it belongs?

Why don't you ask the man himself? His profile on Imminst is ag24
http://www.longecity.../user/899-ag24/

[MentalParadox]

I am excited about the idea of extending life, but I just realized something that sort of killed my enthousiasm. Turns out Longecity are followers of Aubrey De Grey.
Now don't get me wrong, Longecity's cause is a good one. But I have heard bad things about Mr. De Grey and his theories. What about the panel of 28 scientists that pretty much
debunked his theories and claims? Surely they are not lying. There's only one thing I am afraid of, and that's investing time and money in a lost cause. It happens but all too
often that zealous believers in a debunked theory (like global warming...) ignore reason (and the fact they've been proven wrong) and masquerade as scientists. For normal people,
it becomes impossible to know which "scientist" is telling the truth, and which is a lying zealot. I'm not jumping to conclusions here - but I gotta know... what does the org have to
say to the fact that Aubrey's theories were debunked? If I'm going to spend thousands of euros based on faith, I want to know in advance if I should bother or not.

I just noticed I put this in the wrong thread, my apologies. Could anyone please move it to where it belongs?

Why don't you ask the man himself? His profile on Imminst is ag24
http://www.longecity.../user/899-ag24/

Because I'm no scientist, and am an easy victim. I can't debate professionals or pseudo-professionals.

[rwac]

But I have heard bad things about Mr. De Grey and his theories. What about the panel of 28 scientists that pretty much
debunked his theories and claims? Surely they are not lying.

You got a link for that ?

[caliban]

He means this:
http://www.longecity...872#entry453872

which pretty much closes that particular approach to the topic.

Please be a bit more careful about off-topic discussions in the future.

[Inkstersco]

I am excited about the idea of extending life, but I just realized something that sort of killed my enthousiasm. Turns out Longecity are followers of Aubrey De Grey.
Now don't get me wrong, Longecity's cause is a good one. But I have heard bad things about Mr. De Grey and his theories. What about the panel of 28 scientists that pretty much
debunked his theories and claims? Surely they are not lying.

Hi Timotheos,

I work for SENS Foundation, and I recently came across your post. Allow me to address your concerns. As Caliban noted, what you’re referring to is the 2006 Technology Review “SENS Challenge,” during which any participant who debunked Dr. de Grey’s proposal would receive a $20,000 prize. In spite of that incentive, the SENS proposal was not, in fact, debunked.

Given the importance of expert opinions, you might want to take a look at SENS Foundation’s Research Advisory Board -- there you will find two dozen scientists, many of them renowned in their fields, who back SENS.

There's only one thing I am afraid of, and that's investing time and money in a lost cause. It happens but all too often that zealous believers in a debunked theory (like global warming...) ignore reason (and the fact they've been proven wrong) and masquerade as scientists. For normal people, it becomes impossible to know which "scientist" is telling the truth, and which is a lying zealot.

No one is being asked to ignore reason; as mentioned previously, the SENS proposal has not been “proven wrong.” In fact, a proposal of this sort cannot precisely be proven wrong. Were Aubrey to claim that an existing treatment would be effective against some particular disease, that claim could be tested, and thus be either confirmed or disproven. But the SENS proposal does not contain claims about existing treatments. Rather, as a technological proposal, it proposes the pursuit and development of novel treatments. As these treatments do not yet exist, they cannot be tested, and therefore, their efficacy can be neither confirmed nor disproven.

Given the necessarily speculative nature of technological proposals (airplanes, one must suppose, were also “pseudoscience” prior to their development), the only way to determine whether or not you ought to support a proposal is to evaluate the ideas underlying that proposal. The SENS proposal is built on the idea that the diseases of aging are caused by cellular and molecular damage that accumulates in the body as a byproduct of normal metabolism. Aubrey’s big idea is to try to repair this damage -- not to interfere with metabolism to slow the accumulation of damage, or to ameliorate the damage’s downstream effects, but to attack the damage itself. That’s what SENS is: damage repair.

I'm not jumping to conclusions here - but I gotta know... what does the org have to say to the fact that Aubrey's theories were debunked?

That Aubrey’s theories have not been debunked. With experts on both sides of the issue, you will need to form your own opinion.

If I'm going to spend thousands of euros based on faith, I want to know in advance if I should bother or not.

You should read about the work that SENS Foundation is doing, consider the apparent role of accumulated damage in the aging process, and determine from those facts whether or not you ought to donate.

[niner]

often that zealous believers in a debunked theory (like global warming...) ignore reason (and the fact they've been proven wrong) and masquerade as scientists.

SENS, global warming... Hey Tim, you forgot Evolution! I wish that the level of scientific literacy was higher among people in general.

[MentalParadox]

often that zealous believers in a debunked theory (like global warming...) ignore reason (and the fact they've been proven wrong) and masquerade as scientists.

SENS, global warming... Hey Tim, you forgot Evolution! I wish that the level of scientific literacy was higher among people in general.

Don't know what I was thinking when I mentioned global warming. That must have been a mistake.
Anyway, you never addressed my point, you only attacked some other, less relevant part and then proceeded with a hidden ad hominem.
Do you claim wishful thinking and pseudoscience do not exist?

[niner]

often that zealous believers in a debunked theory (like global warming...) ignore reason (and the fact they've been proven wrong) and masquerade as scientists.

SENS, global warming... Hey Tim, you forgot Evolution! I wish that the level of scientific literacy was higher among people in general.

Don't know what I was thinking when I mentioned global warming. That must have been a mistake.
Anyway, you never addressed my point, you only attacked some other, less relevant part and then proceeded with a hidden ad hominem.
Do you claim wishful thinking and pseudoscience do not exist?

Of course they exist, but so far you've not provided an example. SENS has not been debunked, nor has global warming. A good example of wishful thinking/pseudoscience would be Intelligent Design. Your original point had already been addressed. There's not much ad hom here; you said :

Because I'm no scientist, and am an easy victim. I can't debate professionals or pseudo-professionals.

I'm agreeing with you. If your scientific literacy was better, you wouldn't be easy prey for zealots and liars. You aren't alone; most of the world is the same way. I'm sorry to sound like such a jerk, but when someone makes false statements about things that are important to all of us, it raises my ire, and I tend to show it. I feel that someone needs to correct the record.

[johnross47]

Way off topic really but if you want to get some properly informed information on the subject of global warming you should read through all the reference links on Real Climate. A recent poll of publishing climate scientists found that over 95% accept that warming is real and is caused by human activity. These are not all charlatans and liars; they are thousands of university and research foundation scientist; it takes a very paranoid world view to imagine they are all part of some conspiracy. Try to imagine how so many people could conspire to reach important positions, then consider which industries are funding the denialist campaign. All will be revealed.

[JonesGuy]

Don't feel bad for being skeptical. It really is a war of ideas, and that's how science and progress is done. People back a horse that they believe in and eventually someone is proven right and someone is proven wrong. Longecity may 'back' SENS, but there's no reason why you have to. Honestly, we're all on the same team, and we don't mind if people are taking different paths.

The goal is momentum, more than anything. If you're going to help move the ball forward, we're happy to have you around. If you want to spend your time and money pushing for medical/technological advancements via an alternate route, then you have my blessing. The one thing to worry about is seditious destruction. You're better off (and so are we) if you're building something you believe in, instead of tearing down something you don't really believe in. This is especially true if you're not a qualified expert, but more just an active citizen. Want to learn about nutrition for yourself and for you loved ones? We're on your team. Want to invest in personal genomics companies and donate to cancer research charities? We're on your team.

We all have the same goal. You don't need to be swayed to a particular brand of faith, you just need momentum.

[Mind]

Every scientific endeavor, whether SENS or "global warming", needs challenges and skeptics, in order to make it more robust. It is one of the ways science advances.

[niner]

Every scientific endeavor, whether SENS or "global warming", needs challenges and skeptics, in order to make it more robust. It is one of the ways science advances.

Very true, as long as the skepticism is reality-based. If the skeptics are making up their own facts, then they don't advance anything, with the possible exception of a political objective.

[Mind]

Every scientific endeavor, whether SENS or "global warming", needs challenges and skeptics, in order to make it more robust. It is one of the ways science advances.

Very true, as long as the skepticism is reality-based. If the skeptics are making up their own facts, then they don't advance anything, with the possible exception of a political objective.

Very true. Much of the more irrational skepticism, derives from political forces, but we have to watch out for confirmation bias (and anchor bias, etc...) as well. I have seen many entrenched scientists "dig in their heels" and go down fighting all the way to their grave without accepting new (and better) theories.