Talk:Cryonics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Page vandalism/edit warring

The current version of this article states "It is, however, not possible for a corpse to be reanimated after undergoing vitrification, as this causes damage to the brain including its neural circuits." The citation provided for this statement is this article, which is obviously not credible; it's a pop science article that quotes a *single* scientist. By these standards it would also be justified to put "climate change is not caused by humans" on the climate change page, since there exist many scientists who hold that belief and have been quoted saying as much. Wikipedia exists to reflect the scientific *consensus*, not the beliefs of a single crackpot who managed to get quoted in a news article.

As the rest of the main page explains, and has been extensively discussed on this talk page, speculative statements about future technology are not proven and cannot be assumed to be true on Wikipedia. Yet that's exactly what this line of the article is doing; making an unproven claim about what future technology will be able to accomplish.

I corrected this error and explained my reasoning in the edit summary. User Bon Courage reverted by edit without providing any justification, which I believe qualifies as vandalism. KingSupernova (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry what is the "vandalism" referred to? What we have is fine: this is a fringe topic so per WP:PARITY the view of relevant independent experts is necessary to counteract the bullshit. Additionally, referring to Clive Coen[1] as you have is a serious BLP violation which is likely to need admin action. Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A quote by a single reputable scientist is credible and is considered sufficient by Wikipedia to determine that a topic is pseudoscience. Climate change was able to overcome this by solidly refuting any such opinions and developing clear consensus. Cryonics has not yet overcome this hurdle.JordanSparks (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This page is sorely out dated

Much of the reference to cyonics to being a pseudoscience are near 20 years old. Cyronics of organs for transplant is a fruitful area in 2023. Many similar studies refute the idea that cryonics is pseudoscience . Only that current technology and sciences are insufficient to achieve its goals and states clearly that future development of related sciences is essential. Under no circumstances does it rely on ideas outside of mainstream sciences. 2603:9000:9601:A809:9C55:84:E179:C6DF (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing this with cryopreservation. Cryonics is the idea corpses can be resurrected. And yeah, it's bollocks per multiple sources. Bon courage (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is breaking thread a violation?

Where can I find the rules?

Any update on my ticket (cit #5)? Thank you for volunteering your time. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The major Cryonics organizations (Alcor, Cryonics Institute, TomorrowBio) do not guarantee that revival will ever be possible. They only aim to cryopreserve with the current best methods possible with the *hope* that future technologies will be able to achieve that goal. Claiming that it’s “bollocks” is claiming that you can see the future and can say with 100% certainty that such technology could never exist. Which is obviously not possible for you or any other source to disprove. Kurtjames212 (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

By that standard we can't say with 100% certainty that we won't be able to revive a person without bothering to freeze them, say from a bone or hair sample. This isn't a convincing argument because relying on future uncertainty like this is an inherently unfalsifiable claim, which is the main hallmark of a pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair, i’m not here to make an unfalsifiable claim because I’m not making any claim actually, nobody knows if it will ever work. It’s just a procedure with no guaranteed outcome and none of the organizations are arguing future technologies will definitely revive a person. They’re just attempting to cryopreserve the body with the best methods available at the moment to try to attain a better likelihood of that. A true unfalsifiable claim would be “future technology will definitely be able to bring people back, prove me wrong” and to further quote a recent argument against the pseudoscience claim for you “ Cryonics does not reflect the criteria for pseudoscience. It does not claim to be a science but to be a medical practice informed by various sciences. It is based on empirical evidence, it uses scientific method, its research is in the context of standard science, it does not rely on anecdotal evidence, it changes with new evidence, it does not make vague or unverifiable claims, it does not appeal to authority or tradition, and it does make progress. Claims of pseudoscience are biased emotional expressions of an editor’s personal view.” Kurtjames212 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It does not claim to be a science ... it uses scientific method, That's trying to have it both ways. Claims of pseudoscience are not the personal views of editors, but those of the cited reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Using the scientific method doesn’t mean you’re calling something science, the scientific method is simply the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. Anyway obviously critics calling it pseudoscience exist but clearly so does the opposite so a less biased representation for the purposes of Wikipedia could be something along the lines of “ Cryonics is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community. Critics have referred to it as pseudoscience, or quackery, while it’s supporters have argued that nothing about the idea of repairing damage from cryopreservation contravenes established science” Kurtjames212 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Using the scientific method doesn’t mean you’re calling something science Saying that you're using the scientific method when you're not really a science is exactly what a pseudoscience is. And no, Wikipedia specifically does not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. When most independent sources are critical so too will be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Except its not false balance. Most sentiment towards Cryonics is positive. In the largest ever study regarding Cryonics 44% of the 1,478 respondents said “there’s a good chance cryopreservation will work” I’m not making that claim myself, I’m suggesting that the balance of people that view it as “quackery” is far less black and white than you’re suggesting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790260/ Kurtjames212 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We're interested in mainstream knowledge, not popular misconception. In the USA, don't more people believe in alien visitors than evolution? Bon courage (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok if that’s how you perceive it but it certainly shows there is not “false balance” when more people have favorable views on the subject matter than negative ones. Kurtjames212 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is only interested in mainstream knowledge, so the maybe ignorant view of supposed "people" simply don't count. Bon courage (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We weight things in proportion to how they are depicted in the best available sources (like peer-reviewed medical journals), not the opinions of random folks on the internet. 1/3 of the population believes in Astrology, but our article correctly states that it is a pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

do not guarantee that revival will ever be possible ← Current Alcor front-page: "Preserving Life - Cryonics is the practice of preserving life by pausing the dying process". No wonder our sources call this quackery. Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)