What is cryonics?? Do you think it will work??
Answers
Answered by
0
Cryonics is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community and is not part of normal medical practice. It is not known if it will ever be possible to revive a cryopreserved human cadaver. Cryonics depends on beliefs that the frozen body has not experienced information-theoretic death.
THANK YOU
PLEASE MARK AS BRAINLIEST
Answered by
0
The idea of cryonics has been branded "unscientific" in the past by a number of scientists who are privately religious people, and who would no doubt become highly irate if one were to attempt to smear (say) Christianity with the same label. There is considerable irony in this.
The problem is simple prejudice. There is nothing particularly epistemologically heinous about cryonics. Most scientists recognize that there are many non-testable aspects of human belief (religious and otherwise) which, precisely because they are untestable, are outside the purview of science. These ideas include much of what constitutes religion, philosophy, ethics, history, and art, as well as much of what goes into ordinary planning for the future. A person who had never entertained an idea that was not immediately testable (i.e., scientific) would be in a sad way indeed.
There is, of course, a very great difference between ideas that are not scientific (i.e., non-scientific), and ideas that are un-scientific. Un- scientific beliefs are those which can be tested, which have been tested, and which have failed the test. The idea that laetrile cures cancer, for instance, is unscientific. Many specific claims of religious faith healers have been found to be unscientific. In general, religious claims may be scientific, unscientific, or nonscientific, depending upon whether or not they are subject to scientific testing, and what the results of the tests are.
Many good scientists not only hold nonscientific religious beliefs, but also other nonscientific beliefs as well. Examples of nonreligious nonscientific claims (as noted already) are all claims which involve aspects of the far future. The idea that the stock market will crash in the year 2010 is a nonscientific one, for it is not testable at the present time. It might even be true -- it is just that science cannot say either way. Another example of a nonscientific claim is the idea that men will one day colonize the planet Mars. Scientists and other rational people are free to accept or reject such claims as a matter of taste.
What, then, shall we say about cryonics? Because it involves a guess about the state of science in the far future, the idea of cryonics is very similar to the idea that men will one day colonize Mars. However, because cryonics involves claims which strike deep at certain mental defenses against the idea of death harbored by many, cryonics is an idea usually rejected with an amazing amount of "scientific" rationalization by scientists who in truth have no better reason to ridicule it than the fact that they find the idea personally repugnant.
This causes curious results. It is hard to imagine a late 20th century U.S. scientist being subjected to prejudice because he (or she) believes that star travel will one day be a reality, or because he believes that Jesus was the son of God, or because he invested heavily in soybean futures -- yet these are all nontestable and nonscientific beliefs. Prejudice against a scientist who has decided to gamble upon the idea of cryonics, however, is a real possibility here and now -- especially in some scientific fields like medicine and cryobiology. The reasons for this are complicated and have been discussed before in these pages. They are very similar to religious and cultural prejudice, and involve cultural psychological fears associated with the idea of nonreligious resurrection, and (especially among women) certain fundamental fears of isolation from the community which the idea of cryonics may imply.
The bottom line, though, is that cryonics is not a fully scientific idea, even though a certain portion of its claims are testable and have indeed been found to be consistent with what is known of science in medicine, biology, physics, and other disciplines which relate to the subject. Cryonics is not unscientific, but neither is it proven. Thus, when we speak about the workability of cryonics, we are forced to speak in terms of guesses and probabilities in much the same way as when we speak of damage which may be caused by future earthquakes along the San Andreas fault.
Because cryonics involves thinking about the future, any logical way of thinking about cryonics must be in terms of probabilities. Such a probabilistic model might help to identify exactly where the difficulties lie in the potential workability of cryonics, and might therefore be useful as a way to facilitate discussion of these problems.
This essay is to formally propose that we begin this process. In order to construct a probabilistic model of the workability of cryonics, it seems fitting that we take as starting point similar speculative work in other areas of science. What follows is a preliminary attempt to do this.
The problem is simple prejudice. There is nothing particularly epistemologically heinous about cryonics. Most scientists recognize that there are many non-testable aspects of human belief (religious and otherwise) which, precisely because they are untestable, are outside the purview of science. These ideas include much of what constitutes religion, philosophy, ethics, history, and art, as well as much of what goes into ordinary planning for the future. A person who had never entertained an idea that was not immediately testable (i.e., scientific) would be in a sad way indeed.
There is, of course, a very great difference between ideas that are not scientific (i.e., non-scientific), and ideas that are un-scientific. Un- scientific beliefs are those which can be tested, which have been tested, and which have failed the test. The idea that laetrile cures cancer, for instance, is unscientific. Many specific claims of religious faith healers have been found to be unscientific. In general, religious claims may be scientific, unscientific, or nonscientific, depending upon whether or not they are subject to scientific testing, and what the results of the tests are.
Many good scientists not only hold nonscientific religious beliefs, but also other nonscientific beliefs as well. Examples of nonreligious nonscientific claims (as noted already) are all claims which involve aspects of the far future. The idea that the stock market will crash in the year 2010 is a nonscientific one, for it is not testable at the present time. It might even be true -- it is just that science cannot say either way. Another example of a nonscientific claim is the idea that men will one day colonize the planet Mars. Scientists and other rational people are free to accept or reject such claims as a matter of taste.
What, then, shall we say about cryonics? Because it involves a guess about the state of science in the far future, the idea of cryonics is very similar to the idea that men will one day colonize Mars. However, because cryonics involves claims which strike deep at certain mental defenses against the idea of death harbored by many, cryonics is an idea usually rejected with an amazing amount of "scientific" rationalization by scientists who in truth have no better reason to ridicule it than the fact that they find the idea personally repugnant.
This causes curious results. It is hard to imagine a late 20th century U.S. scientist being subjected to prejudice because he (or she) believes that star travel will one day be a reality, or because he believes that Jesus was the son of God, or because he invested heavily in soybean futures -- yet these are all nontestable and nonscientific beliefs. Prejudice against a scientist who has decided to gamble upon the idea of cryonics, however, is a real possibility here and now -- especially in some scientific fields like medicine and cryobiology. The reasons for this are complicated and have been discussed before in these pages. They are very similar to religious and cultural prejudice, and involve cultural psychological fears associated with the idea of nonreligious resurrection, and (especially among women) certain fundamental fears of isolation from the community which the idea of cryonics may imply.
The bottom line, though, is that cryonics is not a fully scientific idea, even though a certain portion of its claims are testable and have indeed been found to be consistent with what is known of science in medicine, biology, physics, and other disciplines which relate to the subject. Cryonics is not unscientific, but neither is it proven. Thus, when we speak about the workability of cryonics, we are forced to speak in terms of guesses and probabilities in much the same way as when we speak of damage which may be caused by future earthquakes along the San Andreas fault.
Because cryonics involves thinking about the future, any logical way of thinking about cryonics must be in terms of probabilities. Such a probabilistic model might help to identify exactly where the difficulties lie in the potential workability of cryonics, and might therefore be useful as a way to facilitate discussion of these problems.
This essay is to formally propose that we begin this process. In order to construct a probabilistic model of the workability of cryonics, it seems fitting that we take as starting point similar speculative work in other areas of science. What follows is a preliminary attempt to do this.
Similar questions
Political Science,
7 months ago
Hindi,
7 months ago
History,
1 year ago
Math,
1 year ago
Math,
1 year ago