From: Devon White (devon@mail.thegreatwork.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 12:50:14 MDT
I love any problems that lead to a better understanding of the facts - even if it means our assumptions were nearly dead-wrong.
Scientific rigor makes me aroused.
All this talk about facts and good scientific method is really doing the trick. In keeping with another thread on this list, i'm wondering if there is anyone that has or would be willing to write an accessible update on the trajectories of cryonics, life extension, nanotechnology, etc. . . Any one of these topics or all of the above.
Like a one page Principia Mathematica: A summary of the facts as they stand and some of the major problems that need attention.
Reason's Longevity Meme is great for this type of thing in the longevity arena.
The best type of PR is based on facts. I mean, the fact that someday, some humans will live longer than we currently do - hell the fact that we live so much longer than our ancestors - is exciting! It seems to me that the best way to get people involved beyond this little circle is to promote the day to day facts. Tragedy and setbacks are great for this. They provide the drama and tension that's so emotionally charged for most people.
The Evolution Is Being Broadcast
Devon
>Giu1i0 Pri5c0 [mailto:gpmap@runbox.com] wrote,
>> You have a good point. I would not say that cryonics is lower in
>> plausibility now than in earlier years, rather that we have now a better
>> understanding of the difficulties involved, so that realistic estimates of
>> when cryonics patients may be revived have to be set later in the
>> future.
>
>Your entire posting sounds like this. You seem to agree with my basic
>point, but you wouldn't say it in such negative terms. The examples you
>discuss, cryonics, cancer, etc. are the same. We had predicted success much
>earlier. We now know the problem is much harder than we thought.
>Technology is racing ahead much faster, but we are pushing specific
>milestones back farther and farther with our newer knowledge.
>
>In short, I don't think anybody is really disagreeing with me. They just
>don't want to use negative terminology. They refuse to call these
>occurrences delays, setbacks, or failed predictions. They explain away how
>it was government technology, poor information, mistaken assumptions, or
>whatever. But my point remains. Predictions have been pushed back before.
>Current predictions may need to be pushed back.
>
>We can't jump on every hyped theory and then assume exponential growth from
>there. Sometimes there are delays, setbacks, and failures. Sometimes we
>have to find a different approach when one path doesn't pan out. This is
>normal scientific method and experimentation. However, many people here
>don't seem to understand this. There seems to be a mistaken belief that we
>only move forward, that things go faster and faster without delays, and that
>all scientific breakthroughs pan out and move into production. That's not
>how it works. Those are the faith-based promises of hype and PR, not of
>real scientists.
>
>My original point was merely explaining my frustration that there are some
>setbacks occasionally. This has since evolved into a further frustration
>that many people seem to believe that there are never setbacks and I am only
>imagining problems where none exist. Sometimes there are problems, folks.
>Pretending that they don't exist won't help us.
>
>--
>Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
>Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified
>InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC
><HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 12:59:21 MDT