ciphergoth comments on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by Paul Crowley

2010-02-17T10:55:25+01:00

Note that after a long discussion David has toned down the writing in the RationalWiki which used to argue that threatening to sue over the allegation of fraud is evidence of pseudoscience. He writes:

FWIW — on consideration, I’ve taken out the bit where I suggest that threatening to sue suggests they’re pseudoscientists, and just left it at the bare fact that they did, because of the use of the word “fraud” — David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by Paul Crowley

2010-02-16T15:58:11+01:00

Capital letters and writing things in red don’t actually make your case stronger, you know. Pseudoscientists also breathe and wear shoes, but they aren’t big red flags.

Do you really believe that a non-pseudoscientific business, accused of actual fraud by a major body in a related area, would be very unlikely to threaten to sue?

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by Paul Crowley

2010-02-16T15:50:05+01:00

Nonsense. Litigation was only threatened for the use of the word “fraud”. There was no attempt to pretend that legitimate questions about science constituted allegations of fraud, as there is with the BCA/Singh case; the specific bone of contention was the use of the word “fraud” in relation to the core business of Alcor. Hardly a business on the planet would not threaten to sue if they learned that you planned to brand them fraudsters as publically as possible.

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by David Gerard

2010-02-16T15:48:22+01:00

Pseudoscientists and businesses running on pseudoscience pull this sort of rubbish all the time. That’s why it’s a BIG RED FLAG.

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by Luke Parrish

2010-02-16T15:41:03+01:00

Calling it fraud is going beyond questioning the science.

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by David Gerard

2010-02-16T12:19:04+01:00

Luke, threatening scientists with lawsuits for questioning the science behind your business selling an exceedingly pricey product is a big red flashing sign saying <b>”PSEUDOSCIENCE”</b>. No two ways about it.

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by Luke Parrish

2010-02-16T00:50:30+01:00

David, accusing someone of fraud is materially different from questioning their science.

Fraud is a legal term that means people are being deceived into losing money. Unless there is proof or strong evidence for this, claims that it “borders on fraud” serve no informative purpose.

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by Paul Crowley

2010-02-15T22:07:54+01:00

Here’s how Alcor describe it, reproduced without comment:

Cryonicists also became intolerant of any public assertion on the part of cryobiologists that cryonics or its practitioners were engaged in fraud. Communications were sent apprising the Society that assertions that cryonics was fraud constituted both a serious criminal and civil allegation and that appropriate legal action would be taken if such allegations continued (cf. Series of letters from Robert Ettinger and Michael Darwin sent to the Society in the mid 1980’s: specifically Letter from M.G. Darwin to H.T. Meryman dated 21 April, 1982). As a result, by and large, allegations of fraud ceased.

Comment on Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics by David Gerard

2010-02-15T10:46:28+01:00

Threatening scientists who are about to speak out against your science is generally excellent and convincing evidence … that you’re a pseudoscientist.