Just because something matches a given notion doesn’t make it true even if there is a grain of truth to it. The article you reference (and the sequence to which it belongs) is a personal favorite of mine, and I’ve long had a deep appreciation for the point that politics messes with people’s heads inhorribleways. What you do not seem to grasp about the situation is that I’ve been arguing the politics of the matter because Melody has been arguing politically to begin with. Hypothermic procedures are “near and dear to her heart”, the personnel are “overgrown adolescents” and so forth. No, I don’t want her silenced—I want her false points refuted and her correct points taken to heart in and acted upon a measured and rational manner that corresponds optimally to the reality of the situation.
This wonderfully skepticism-oriented and anti-political defense you are giving comes across as, well, ironic, given her historical tendency to politicize the situation. That said, I absolutely don’t mind being criticized for being overly political myself (in fact I’d prefer it if it is true), provided the criticism is applied even-handedly to all equally guilty parties involved. The fact that you have not offered equivalent criticism towards Melody makes your (perhaps unintentionally) condescending tone much more of an insult than it would otherwise be.
On the topic of testable claims, it is first of all important to begin with agreed-upon, connotation-independent definitions of the claims that make sense in the given context and are specific enough to be falsifiable. For this purpose, I find it reasonable to define incompetence as doing more harm than good, relative to a comparable service that could be obtained elsewhere.
The claim that SA is “incompetent” might make sense if you use a different definition—but clearly by this definition it tests as false. The only equivalent services currently available are incredibly worse for a cryonics patient. Furthermore, this has always been the case in the past. If there were a competing organization offering top of the line stabilization services of a better nature, Melody’s claim could be true within the framework of this definition of incompetence, based on the evidence she has given. But at the present time, that would not be an opinion—or an emotional reaction—that corresponds to reality.
Even if the second is appropriate- you don’t care what it is SA and their like actually do, you just want cryonics to catch on and not seem kooky- then you should read some risk management.
I shall plan to take your recommendation to read up on risk management and group dynamics while paying attention to how this could be critical or instructive towards my approach to cryonics advocacy (and mapping of cryonics-related territory in general). However it would be false to say that my present defense of existing organizations implies that I don’t care about the stabilization quality they provide. I certainly do care, but happen to be considerably more enthusiastic about participating in incrementalprogress than the revolutionary overthrow of the only people who happen to be doing the job at present.
If you believe that the defense of currently existing services implies that the person defending them does not care about improving their quality, perhaps it is time for you to notice your confusion in this matter.
Just because something matches a given notion doesn’t make it true even if there is a grain of truth to it. The article you reference (and the sequence to which it belongs) is a personal favorite of mine, and I’ve long had a deep appreciation for the point that politics messes with people’s heads in horrible ways. What you do not seem to grasp about the situation is that I’ve been arguing the politics of the matter because Melody has been arguing politically to begin with. Hypothermic procedures are “near and dear to her heart”, the personnel are “overgrown adolescents” and so forth. No, I don’t want her silenced—I want her false points refuted and her correct points taken to heart in and acted upon a measured and rational manner that corresponds optimally to the reality of the situation.
This wonderfully skepticism-oriented and anti-political defense you are giving comes across as, well, ironic, given her historical tendency to politicize the situation. That said, I absolutely don’t mind being criticized for being overly political myself (in fact I’d prefer it if it is true), provided the criticism is applied even-handedly to all equally guilty parties involved. The fact that you have not offered equivalent criticism towards Melody makes your (perhaps unintentionally) condescending tone much more of an insult than it would otherwise be.
On the topic of testable claims, it is first of all important to begin with agreed-upon, connotation-independent definitions of the claims that make sense in the given context and are specific enough to be falsifiable. For this purpose, I find it reasonable to define incompetence as doing more harm than good, relative to a comparable service that could be obtained elsewhere.
The claim that SA is “incompetent” might make sense if you use a different definition—but clearly by this definition it tests as false. The only equivalent services currently available are incredibly worse for a cryonics patient. Furthermore, this has always been the case in the past. If there were a competing organization offering top of the line stabilization services of a better nature, Melody’s claim could be true within the framework of this definition of incompetence, based on the evidence she has given. But at the present time, that would not be an opinion—or an emotional reaction—that corresponds to reality.
I shall plan to take your recommendation to read up on risk management and group dynamics while paying attention to how this could be critical or instructive towards my approach to cryonics advocacy (and mapping of cryonics-related territory in general). However it would be false to say that my present defense of existing organizations implies that I don’t care about the stabilization quality they provide. I certainly do care, but happen to be considerably more enthusiastic about participating in incremental progress than the revolutionary overthrow of the only people who happen to be doing the job at present.
If you believe that the defense of currently existing services implies that the person defending them does not care about improving their quality, perhaps it is time for you to notice your confusion in this matter.