There’s always a way to estimate how likely something is, even if it’s not a very accurate prediction.
And mere used like seems kinda like a dark side word, if you’ll excuse me.
Cryonics is theoretically possible, in that it isn’t inconsistant with science/physics as we know it so far. I can’t really delve into this part much, as I don’t know anything about cold fusion and thus can’t understand the comparison properly, but it sounds as if it might be inconsistant with physics?
Also, the benefits of cryonics working if you invested in it would be greater than those of investing in cold fusion.
And this is just the impression I get, but it sounds like you’re being a contrarian contrarian. I think it’s your last sentence: it made me think of Lonely Dissent.
The unfair thing is, the more a community (like LW) values critical thinking, the more we feel free to criticize it. You get a much nicer reception criticizing a cryonicist’s reasoning than criticizing a religious person’s. It’s easy to criticize people who tell you they don’t mind. The result is that it’s those who need constructive criticism the most who get the least. I’ll admit I fall into this trap sometimes.
(belated reply:) You’re right about the openness to criticism part, but there’s another thing that goes with it: the communities that value critical thinking will respond to criticism by thinking more, and on occasion this will literally lead to the consensus reversing on the specific question. Without a strong commitment to rationality, however, frequently criticism is met by intransigence instead, even when it concerns the idea rather than the person.
Yes, people caught in anti-epistemological binds get less criticism—but they usually don’t listen to criticism, either. Dealing with these is an unsolved problem.
There’s always a way to estimate how likely something is, even if it’s not a very accurate prediction. And mere used like seems kinda like a dark side word, if you’ll excuse me.
Cryonics is theoretically possible, in that it isn’t inconsistant with science/physics as we know it so far. I can’t really delve into this part much, as I don’t know anything about cold fusion and thus can’t understand the comparison properly, but it sounds as if it might be inconsistant with physics?
Possibly relevant: Is Molecular Nanotechnology Scientific?
Also, the benefits of cryonics working if you invested in it would be greater than those of investing in cold fusion.
And this is just the impression I get, but it sounds like you’re being a contrarian contrarian. I think it’s your last sentence: it made me think of Lonely Dissent.
The unfair thing is, the more a community (like LW) values critical thinking, the more we feel free to criticize it. You get a much nicer reception criticizing a cryonicist’s reasoning than criticizing a religious person’s. It’s easy to criticize people who tell you they don’t mind. The result is that it’s those who need constructive criticism the most who get the least. I’ll admit I fall into this trap sometimes.
(belated reply:) You’re right about the openness to criticism part, but there’s another thing that goes with it: the communities that value critical thinking will respond to criticism by thinking more, and on occasion this will literally lead to the consensus reversing on the specific question. Without a strong commitment to rationality, however, frequently criticism is met by intransigence instead, even when it concerns the idea rather than the person.
Yes, people caught in anti-epistemological binds get less criticism—but they usually don’t listen to criticism, either. Dealing with these is an unsolved problem.