If they're rubbish, a few relatively rich people get ripped off. After they're dead.
Yes, this. If cryonics had more of a social impact, I'd take it a bit more seriously as a debunking target.
it's hard to debunk something that says 'in the future, this technology may exist'
Yes! All the serious scientists I know who've responded to any enquiries say things like "Well, I can't say it would *never* happen, but it looks very unlikely to work for reason X and Y - though of course I could be wrong about those."
Aha - I think I may have sussed the underlying problem: Cryonics makes no verifiable predictions!
Well, they are I suppose in theory verifiable, but only by people who live another 500 years. And even then you could say it'll be there in another 500 years. For all practical purposes, you simply can't prove them wrong. The people involved in this conversation are in no position to answer the question of whether cryonics is possible.
That makes it very, very hard to argue against. At least with other forms of woo there are implications for the observable world that you could actually observe. You get plenty of argument about how to settle the question methodologically, of course, and what the data (or theories) actually are. Cryonics is not so much an Invisible Gardener as a Gardener Will Show Up Later, After We've Gone, No Really.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 05:20 pm (UTC)Yes, this. If cryonics had more of a social impact, I'd take it a bit more seriously as a debunking target.
it's hard to debunk something that says 'in the future, this technology may exist'
Yes! All the serious scientists I know who've responded to any enquiries say things like "Well, I can't say it would *never* happen, but it looks very unlikely to work for reason X and Y - though of course I could be wrong about those."
Aha - I think I may have sussed the underlying problem: Cryonics makes no verifiable predictions!
Well, they are I suppose in theory verifiable, but only by people who live another 500 years. And even then you could say it'll be there in another 500 years. For all practical purposes, you simply can't prove them wrong. The people involved in this conversation are in no position to answer the question of whether cryonics is possible.
That makes it very, very hard to argue against. At least with other forms of woo there are implications for the observable world that you could actually observe. You get plenty of argument about how to settle the question methodologically, of course, and what the data (or theories) actually are. Cryonics is not so much an Invisible Gardener as a Gardener Will Show Up Later, After We've Gone, No Really.
Right, I've spent more time than I meant to on this - I'm off to get a takeaway for supper. :-)