Talk:Cryonics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RFC: Written Policies versus Common Sense or Spirit

My intentions with this post: I have no intention to change anyone's editing behavior with this post. I'm not trying to promote any particular viewpoint or content. I don't necessarily expect anyone to change their minds about how the policies should be interpreted. This is a request for comments (RFC) from other editors regarding certain perceived discrepancies, in terms of the policy text. Please reserve your feelings or statements about individual editors, and please be civil. This is not about me or any other editor. If you don't enjoy discussing policy, then please stop reading here.

When I arrived, a few editors urged me to read the Wikipedia policies. So I took their advice and read them. When I found that the statements being made on this talk page did not always agree with the written policies, I was then told that "common sense" or "spirit of the policies" should be the overriding factor, even if those concepts demonstratably conflict with written policy. One editor told me that they think the way that the policy is written may not be clear, and changing the written policy should be explored. One editor told me that stating what I've learned in the policies constitutes wikilawering. Others have said I should simply trust the interpretation of editors that have been here longer than me, rather than trust the policy text.

You're mis-characterizing the criticisms other editors are making of your edits. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Rarely has any editor directly addressed the mentioned discrepancies. From a social perspective, I have an impression that it's considered socially okay to name the Titles of the policies, but it's not considered appropriate to quote any text from their Contents.

If we page editors haven't promptly responded, to your satisfaction, in sufficient depth to all of your arguments that your reverted edits complied with policy, keep in mind that everyone here is an unpaid volunteer just like you, and if people judge you're being WP:TENDITIOUS there may be unfortunately be a certain point where the other page editors are just going to ignore you, at which point you'll have to raise these questions in a different Wikipedia forum, escalate, give up, or figure out on your own why your arguments are fallacious. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to request your opinion on these four questions:

Question 1) Do the policies mean what they say, or do they mean what people think about them?

The question is too vague and rhetorical. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Question 2): Should the "slant" of an article be tilted in favor of the proportion that each viewpoint is represented in published text? Or should the slant be tilted in the direction of the attitude of the public, or the average scientist?
Policy text: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
Related Talk comments: "As I said above, 'pro-cryonics essays outnumber anti-cryonics essays'. However, the scientific and medical communities are hostile to cryonics. It's common sense to me that if the mainstream scientific community is strongly against something, NPOV dictates the Wikipedia article can't be in strongly in favor of it. If there's something that needs to be added to the WP:NPOV page to make that clear, please tell me what text would make that clearer to you and I'll go ask the page editors at WP:NPOV to consider adding that text in so that in the future people won't be confused about the topic like you seem to be. Rolf H Nelson"

Both are important. Note that "Published by reliable sources" != Number of essays in blogs or other non-RS Web pages on the Internet. The article should indeed strongly take into account "the direction of the average scientist"; WP:NPOV specifically states that "scientific consensus is the majority (sic) viewpoint of scientists towards a topic". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Question 3): Are biased primary sources considered an acceptable source, so long as they're being mentioned by unbiased secondary sources, or not?
Policy text: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Related Talk comments: "citation in this case means reality-based reliable source. Guy"

The question is too vague; many considerations come into play in whether a source is acceptable for a specific purpose. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Question 4): Is article content required to be notable, or not?
Policy text: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."
Related Talk comments: "WP should be full of notable, verifiable, accurate information, even if that means not everything sticks to the perfect letter of the policies. MjolnirPants"
-- Nome77 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, article content is required to be notable, by the English definition of the word notable (that is, it needs to be worthy of attention); see WP:WEIGHT. Article content is not required to be WP:NOTABLE. MjolnirPants view is correct, including the possible allusion to WP:IGNORE_ALL_RULES. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of this was dealt with here Talk:Cryonics#Appropriate sources and the meaning of NPOV WEIGHT. An article about cryonics of some length is justified because even though the number of adherents is small, like some cults, everybody has heard of cryonics. That an article about cryonics articulates detailed beliefs of cryonics should be no different than articles detailing beliefs of particular religions, which as previously discussed often contain voluminous references to religious texts. Here we need to draw a distinction between whether a source is scientifically reliable (often not the case for cryonics) or whether a source is reliable as a representation of what cryonicists believe. They are reliability about two different things. Article language is key: In an article about Catholicism, one could create a section called "History of belief in the trinity," but not called "Why there is a trinity." IMHO, mainstream sources should be used as much possible, but sometimes there is no substitute for citations of original "scripture" by cryonics thought leaders such as Donaldson, Darwin, and Ettinger if the article is to accurately represent what cryonicists believe. The important thing that I think all editors can agree on is that at the end of day, the article reader come away with the understanding that cryonics is a fringe field no matter what beliefs and claims are spun by cryonicists. Everyone knows that religions other than their own are fringe, but that is less clear for beliefs couched in the mantle of science unless the article makes this clear. That's why you need to be careful not to overplay things like the Scientists Open Letter. Cryobiologist (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. Cryonics has elements of science and faith. In this way, I think your previous example regarding fusion is a better analog for cryonics than religion. Everyone "knows" that useful energy can be extracted from fusion, because the sun does it every day. However, it's extremely difficult to do under low pressure conditions. Fusion can be achieved, but it's inefficient. Scientists keep getting closer to the break-even point, but so far, success has been limited and progress is slow. Cryonics is similar. We can already stop and start human life in the form of human embryos (embryos have been revived after 13 years in liquid nitrogen). Nature can already perform a similar "pausing and revival" trick with the freezing of Wood Frogs, (with a complete cessation of brain activity and heartbeat for months at a time). However, doing the same thing with human beings is a long way off, if it will ever happen. The only logic in the pursuit of present-day cryonics, is that it gives a patient time to "wait as long as it takes". So, there is some science saying that "it could theoretically work" (this part is not faith, it's just examination of scientific knowledge, examples from current medical technology, and nature). There is also is some religious-like faith in saying that "we hope it -will- work, so we're going to try it." I can see that finding a fair balance in the article between the science and the faith-based aspects of cryonics would be difficult. The challenge that I see here, is that very few people or editors understand the science, so how can they represent it? In the meantime, it has appeared that the scientific details have been mostly left out, or incorrectly portrayed as faith. Perhaps, it may simply be that the public is simply not interested in the science, and therefore the decision has been that it's best to leave it out. Still, there are many Wikipedia articles that "describe the science anyway", even if those sections are rarely read. Even the article on Home Fusion Devices has a considerable section describing the Technical Details of how the fusion is achieved. All this, despite the common knowledge that "cold fusion" (fusion in a room temperature environment) is almost universally considered fringe science. Maybe the reasoning there is to help educate the public on things they don't know, rather than only repeat what they already believe. -- Nome77 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore my previous comments about the science of cryonics. Some of the science is already included in the article. Thanks for telling me your thoughts. -- Nome77 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Theory - biology intro

Hey. so the theory section starts out with some statements about biology.

Currently this reads:

Long-term memory is stored in cell structures and molecules within the brain. In some cardiovascular procedures, the use of therapeutic hyopthermia where the temperature of the brain is brought down to about 18.0°C, people can recover after intervals of about 20 minutes but risk of neurological deficits increases at times longer than that, particularly among older and sicker people.

References

Both of these sentences are supported by their sources. With regard to time, the first one doesn't have a time limit, but I believe most people will read that as "living brain" and find it OK, and cryology-believing people can slide a "frozen" in there and be happy. In the second sentence, this too very closely paraphrases its source. All solid.

The version below a) makes open statements about time that are not supported by the sources: b) mixes together discussion of what we are doing in humans with animal research (based on old, primary sources), and we don't do that in health related topics. The quote from an outdated version of a textbook "We know that secondary memory does not depend on continued activity of the nervous system, because the brain can be totally inactivated by cooling, by general anesthesia, by hypoxia, by ischemia, or by any method, and yet secondary memories that have been previously stored are still retained when the brain becomes active once again" is especially... infelicitous, since at some point if you don't intervene neurons will die.

Long-term memory is stored in cell structures and molecules within the brain that do not require continuous electrical activity for persistence. In some cardiovascular procedures in which the temperature of the brain is brought down to about 18.0°C, people can recover after intervals of about 20 minutes but risk of neurological deficits increases at times longer than that, particularly among older and sicker people. Retention of memory has also been proven in other large mammals after cooling to +10°C, three hours of clinical death at +3°C.

References

- happy to discuss, but please don't edit war in content that is not supported by high quality sources. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

One sentence addition to Ethics Section; and missing Science/Research section(s)

Recently I added a reference from a scholarly journal to the Ethics section. The detailed reference was removed without any explanation beyond a single word, "undue". Certainly if one views anything as excessive, then one can and ought to remove what one sees as "excess", rather than removing in toto). I avoided a pun like "undo undue" upon reinstatement, but wish to open for discussion. Based on their recent 25 edits, the editor in question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexbrn#WP:CIVIL ) seems to be wanting to be a defender of hard science, an admirable goal to be sure. Given that my own Ph.D. is in such a field, I would, in fact, be the first to want to defend science

All of us however should at the same time remain vigilant to the quite unscientific instinct that's possible within any of us, to excessively prune away anything relating to topics one might find emotionally disturbing (of which, for many people, cryonics is very much such a topic). I intend to add also from peer reviewed research, among which some small but successful steps have taken place.

As for the Ethics section. If the concern is to separate Religious and philosophical reactions from Ethics, that is not something I would necessarily oppose. If the concern is about the "undue" (excessive) nature of adding that the author has a Ph.D. or including that the journal is peer reviewed, and such, I'm fine with removal of such individual portions, with one caveat. I may have instinctively and even somewhat overtly erred on the side of documenting the credentials of the author and nature of the journal, and Ph.D. granting university at which the scholar works...if only because of the rather puzzling, if not outright hostile, choices for the structure of the article -- lacking any section on successful experiments so far; in contrast, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing having a "prototypes" section; or the "early work" section here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface#Early_work Surely 1969 was very, very early indeed for brain computer interface. Very, very primitive. But noteworthy, and steps (even if very small steps) of science marching forward. The same is true for the admittedly and even evidently, very early nature of the science of successful cryopreservation and reanimation or revival or organisms, where successes are limited to simpler organisms (e.g. worms) or very partial proof of concept work for mammals, yet for the same reasons, a section listing the work so far (not exclusively including, but including, successes to date). For these reasons I may have been overcautious to document, perhaps more than needed, even for a journal entry on religious and ethical reactions.

But there does need to be a section for inclusion of recent (even if very primitive) research findings (not merely lacunary phenomena a la, "no one has so far been able to do X") published in peer reviewed journals documenting proof of concept or successes with worms, fish, and so on. Even those with a highly skeptical if not outright hostile POV to cryonics cannot maintain than we're adequately covering the topic by keeping exclusively to such sections as "Notable people" ; "Fiction" ; "Public Reception"; "Demographics", "Ethics"; "Legal Issues" ; "Practice" (which covers how many are cryopreserved and where and at what financial cost, rather than the practice of science including experiments published in peer reviewed journals); and the longest section "Obstacles to success" -- all without a single section to cover the actual science experiments which have been carried out. Skepticism is warranted. Skepticism is helpful. Inclusion of obstacles is useful, even needed information.

No less true is the usefulness of what can be done or has been done. Such milestones which outline for wikipedia readers where the "State of the art" is, where current capabilities are and what is known to be possible, and which scientists have been able to do, is also (more than) warranted; it's a glaringly needed part of an article on the science of the matter -- which is not the whole of cryonics, which includes sociological and other elements -- but the experimental science is very much part of the whole. For the science done in the lab with animals and the partial results and partial successes (and failure of course, when more notable than "I wasn't able to do this in my lab") there needs be a section for their inclusion.

Those editors adding, should of course make sure the quality is good, e.g. peer reviewed, and also that the findings are clearly explained (precise rather than vague). At the same time, those editors considering trimming let alone removal, ought to take the preceding paragraph into account so that overzealous removal does not come at the cost of hardly any (or no) mention of what human beings as of 2017 have, in fact, successfully accomplished in research on crypreservation and revival -- which is a good long way from being the null set.

At the very least, carefully detailed explanations in edit summaries, or a link to the Talk page, so that a discussion can take place and reasonable compromises or consensus be arrived at, it worthy of inclusion. (Incidentally the sentence "hose who believe that revival may someday be possible..." makes it sound as if revival has never been done with any animal -- the word "human" is missing; an oversight that would have probably not occurred were the current article to have already included the yes, quite modest, and yet far from trivial, partial successes with "lower animals")

The preceding comments on additions, and on those who may consider trimming new additions, goes also for new material beyond the science parts of cryonics; it goes also for such enhancements of the article as I've added from a notable scholar into the Ethics section.

To get discussion going: a) Any specific ways to improve (not erase) the phrasing of the ethics addition, would be quite welcome b) Should reporting of experimental milestones in the science be for now a subsection of Practice? Or probably better be its own section, a section whose name makes clear that it lists published peer reviewed, and the like, scientific findings? Looking forward to constructive discussions based on good faith, good will and readiness to find middle ground or consensus as this article, along with the science, evolves and moves forward. Harelx (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is an actual proposal here, let it be briefly stated. Alexbrn (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

A user, who it appears has a long history of controversial behavior on Wikipedia, felt that all of my numerous updates should be removed. Multiple sources were included and cited and cleanup made reading this article easier. If any one specific thing I added was problematic, I'm free to discuss it, but several hours worth of work were wiped out on a whim. Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion! Yes you made a dramatic set of changes. If you do that on pretty much any article in Wikipedia that has been around for a while it is ~likely~ that you will get reverted.

We can discuss issues one at a time. One of the problems, is that articles about procedures like this are generally structured per WP:MEDMOS. What drove the structure you chose? Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

VF: Not 'wiped out' and not a whim. Each of your edits is in View history, and can be resubmitted. That said, much/most/all of what you submitted had no citations or citations that are not up to medical topic standards. List of names of companies - not. Newspaper articles - not. BBC News - not. Science Based Medicine.org - not. I will finish with the observation that your changes to Cryonics appear to be the first time you have edited a medical topic, and thus not aware of the higher standards required. Jytdog is a highly experienced editor of medicine-related topics. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

FT/N

FYI, I have started a discussion on this topic at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

While we don't know if cryonics works, I think it would be more precised to say that the cryonics procedure is done on people / individual / humans, and not on corpses / cadavers. Maybe the cryonics procedure does kill the individual (and renders the body a mere corpse), but at the moment the procedure begins, the person has sometimes just been declared legally dead because of a Do Not Resuscitate order for example, so they are not a mere corpse yet at that point. -- Mati Roy (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It is only done on corpses (i.e. people that are already dead). Corpses are not people. We follow the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn: It is sometimes, and ideally, done on people. For example, this case was done through the Death With Dignity legislation (ETA: which doesn't mean that after the cryonics procedure, the person wasn't now a corpse, just that it wasn't a corpse when the cryonics procedure started). Otherwise, it is done after legal death, but often (and ideally) before information-theoretic death, and even before irreversible clinical death (I can provide more sources on request, but the linked articles should already have some). But rather continuing the discussion about whether "human" or "corpse" is the better word, what do you think about going with a more neutral expression like "human body"? Thank you for your time. -- Mati Roy (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your source does not support what you say (not that it is reliable/due). The view that a corpse is a person is an extreme WP:FRINGE one, which we must strongly avoid buying in to. "Corpse", "cadaver" or "dead body" are unambiguous, neutral expressions for the thing that gets put in the freezer. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I would not say that a corpse is a person; we agree on that. However someone that can still be brought back through CPR is not yet a corpse - using the word "corpse" in that instance is at the very least ambiguous. I can provide additional sources: "In DNR cases, a doctor or nurse will pronounce a clinically dead patient to be legally dead—even though a resuscitation effort could still revive them." (see Why Cryonics Makes Sense), "In cryonics, this is called cardiopulmonary support (CPS) rather than cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) because resuscitation after death has been pronounced is not desired (a do not resuscitate [DNR] condition)." (see Scientific justification of cryonics practice.), "For terminal patients with DNR ("Do Not Resuscitate") orders on their chart, legal death is determined when a qualified medical authority pronounces death based on cardiopulmonary arrest. In other words, the patient is legally dead when their heart stops beating. However, CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) can maintain life when the heart is stopped if done promptly. "Do Not Resuscitate" orders are necessary precisely because such heroics would inappropriately extend the dying process if implemented in a conventional medical setting. In the context of cryonics, though, DNR status allows a cryonics team to use resuscitation techniques to keep the brain viable despite occurrence of legal death." (see Cardiopulmonary Support in Cryonics). More information on this is also documented on the Do not resuscitate Wikipedia page. We might say that the cryonics procedure kill people (in the same way that not reanimating someone that has a DNR order does), but not that the cryonics procedure is always done on corpses (because it is sometimes done on people that could be reanimated (ETA: through CPR)). Given that you have more Wikipedia creds, I will refrain from changing the phrasing without your permission or the support from other editors at the moment. But I still think saying "bodies" would be more precise, and that saying "corpse" is misdirecting. Please let me know if you agree. Thanks for your time. -- Mati Roy (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Pretending that the bodies subject to cryonics are comparable to people needing CPR is spurious - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Especially if its head's been chopped off! Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard, I'm not "pretending", please assume good faith. I wasn't comparing cryonics to CPR (I invite you to re-read my comment); I was simply observing that cryonics is sometimes done on people that could be revived through CPR; that does not imply it plays the same role. Alexbrn, neuroseparation is sometimes part of the cryonics procedure. -- Mati Roy (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"assume good faith" does not, however, mean "accept excuses for pseudoscience". "Corpse" is (a) 100% accurate (b) what the sources say - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. William the Concurrer 20:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

I think the introductory sentence has a few issues.

"Cryonics is the low-temperature preservation (usually at −196 °C) of a human corpse, with the hope that resuscitation and restoration to life and full health may be possible in the future"

1. It doesn't mention the objective of cryonics. There's lacking scientific evidence that cryonics works, so it's fair to say that it's preserving corpses. However, the important / notable distinction about cryonics is not what they are preserving, but what they are attempting to preserve (even if it's presumably unsuccessful).

2. It's anthropocentric. About half of patients are non-human animals

3. It's only talking about body preservation. Almost half of cryonics cases preserve only the brain.

4. That the temperature is usually at −196 °C is not really important to what cryonics is. There are other temperature that are used and consider.

5. It's repetitive. "resuscitation and restoration to life" means pretty much the same thing.

6. and full health While presumably a lot of cryonics members do hope for that, that's not inherently part of what cryonics is.

I would therefore propose the following sentences:

Cryonics is the attempt to preserve a human or animal using low-temperature with the hope that resuscitation may be possible in the future.

--Mati Roy (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This is largely incoherent. Regardless, we stick to what reliable independent sources say, not the in-universe bullshit on corpsicle websites. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: For which statements? Statements 2 and 3 I have provided an external source (feel free to verify that I didn't cherry pick a source by doing a web search). Statement 4 I couldn't find an external source, but my point is we should remove that information anyway. 5 is more about the phrasing than content. 1 and 6 I can find a source, but I thought it was common knowledge. --Mati Roy (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Spelling

I don't know if this is the right place to address this, but I noticed that the URL says 'cyronics'. I'm pretty sure that should be cryonics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.145.207.139 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the article has the correct spelling. If it's a link from another site that is linking to this article, the link would need to be fixed on that site. -LiberatorG (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Some other sources

• Birx, H. James, ed. (2009). Encyclopedia of Time: Science, Philosophy, Theology, & Culture. Vol. 1. Cryonics: SAGE. pp. 249–251. ISBN 9781412941648. - Does not mention pseudoscience or quackery, but does mention dismissal by most and still fiction, but may be promising someday.
• Shermer, Michael (2002). Linse, Pat (ed.). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Vol. 1. Immortality - Cryonics: A modern Promethus: ABC-CLIO. pp. 365–369. ISBN 9781576076538. - Parallels to myths and religious pursuits; survey of fiction followed by medical, legal and economic perspectives
• Shermer, Michael (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (revised ed.). Science and Immortality: Henry Holt and Company. pp. 83–87. ISBN 9781429996761.

—PaleoNeonate – 23:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, good refs, I have noted them. IF they are not already should be included in the main article maybe - Theodorus75 (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Obstacles to success section

This section does not do a good job of summarising the obstacles. There are more than are described here that should be mentioned. Also for the sake of clarity I suggest we can split it up with each obstacle getting a little heading.

It also includes discussion of possible solutions to obstacles, which is not what this section is about at all! (they can go somewhere else) -

I will make a summary of what I propose - Theodorus75 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Some progress with this. Much more to do - Theodorus75 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarded with skepticism in lede

Quite possibly true. But this is a primary characterisation of cryonics at the top of the article with no counterbalance. It is also true that it is not 'regarded with skepticism' within the mainstream (?) scientific community, or at least, by credentialed scientists. This deserves a mention too for the sake of accuracy. - Theodorus75 (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If you literally can't tell those apart, you shouldn't be editing the article. Finding a few scientists who don't consider it nonsense is not sufficient - David Gerard (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really want to engage in this dispute, but keep in mind that we must rely on reliable sources for the views of the scientific community, not make speculation about what might eventually be possible or might secretly already be true. If you have a reliable source for some facts that the article is missing, please add it, but I suggest working on the body of the article before attempting to change the consensus-based phrasing of the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a bald assertion, and it's also likely false, and I have demonstrated this by presenting evidence of mainstream scientists who DO support cryonics. It can not be asserted "It is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community" clearly implying all of it David Gerard :) Therefore it either needs to be removed or amended to be more accurate?. The only way it could be true is if the scientists supporting cryonics are not mainstream, and a look at who signed the open letter I referenced indicates this is not the case - Theodorus75 (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As I've noted above, you've presented nothing of the sort, including one source that literally says "Scientists remain skeptical of the practice of cryonics" - it's frankly bizarre that you read it as saying the opposite - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being sceptical :) The statement though "It is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community" needs addressing for the reasons I give above. Let's start planning that. - Theodorus75 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You're citing sources that literally state the direct opposite of what you claim the sources to mean. This makes it seem that you literally don't know how to read sources, really shouldn't be proposing edits using sourcing you don't appear to know how to read, and are offering to create a huge amount of work for editors who can read sources until you can wear them down to getting your way. I urge you yet again to read the Arbcom decision referenced at the top of this page - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope my sources are mostly supportive of me (ie cryonics not quackery) which ones are totally wrong? I will try and replace them. Honesty not trying to wear anyone down, tho I'm being persistent I know :) If you wanna take a break let me know. Reading the Arbcom decision sounds like homework, I guess I will though, thanks for pointer again. - Theodorus75 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Theodorus75 I'll take another look at the sources later, but I don't think 'regarded with skepticism' is a bad characterization of the majority scientific viewpoint. If scientists were not generally skeptical of cryonics, this would be a much more popular field to go into. Even within the cryonics community, some skepticism is seen as merited regarding the contemporary practice, and informed consent mandates that people who undergo preservation be aware of the reasons for this skepticism. It also lacks the prejudicial quality of 'quackery' in my opinion. Being skeptical of an idea is not incompatible with attempting to validate it, improving upon it, entertaining arguments in its favor, or even acting upon it, assuming no better option presents itself. Lsparrish (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, fair enough Lsparrish :) however the majority scientific viewpoint might regard it with scepticism, or it might not, who knows? It sounds reasonable but it needs a study or survey to demonstrate this. Anything else is guesswork. The manually selected refs prove nothing. So the statement needs evidence, if not, then it needs to be changed or removed. Agree with you about the rest. Especially, quackery, which is just a lazy characterisation of the reality too - Theodorus75 (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE ideas do not need a gold-plated study to prove they are quackery. When at least one frozen body has been revived (under rigorously observed conditions), the idea may merit more than skepticism. Per WP:REDFLAG, multiple highly reliable sources would be needed to demonstrate that this topic is anything more than a scheme to make money. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Also, if quackwatch is not considered one of the best sources, WP:PARITY applies in relation to fringe topics. —PaleoNeonate – 13:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect, your comments indicate you know absolutely nothing about this subject :) e.g. cryonics is DIY and self help mostly for those doing it. And ofcourse there wont be a frozen body revived now, because right now is the middle of a multi century clinical trial ! - Theodorus75 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

My above comment was in relation to the current topic and Wikipedia policies. Or are you confusing cryonics with cryopreservation or cryosurgery? If not, what I see is an attempt to promote. Wikipedia articles should also avoid presenting WP:FALSEBALANCE: it cannot be a collection of equal pro/con opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 21:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Paleo, thank you very much for the clarification. Quackwatch is a bad source, it makes basic scientific mistakes and is not to be trusted I feel. Cryonics is human cryopreservation but with serious iatrogenic damage / biochemical injury preventing ROSC etc (if ROSC was present beforehand at all!), often in the context of multiple end of life co-morbidities, so I don't know what you mean about being confused? Cryonics is not cryosurgery, I know. Ofcourse WP:FALSEBALANCE agreed, the false balance here being what exactly? :) . Thanks - Theodorus75 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the problem. Cryonics might be DIY for some, but it involves paying large amounts to an organization (unless wanting to be preserved in a friend's fridge). Such organizations need positive messages at articles like this in order to generate more income. Enthusiasts or COI editors can end up becoming WP:SPA contributors promoting the idea that this article should show the world that cryonics is full of hope. That occurs here and in hundreds of other fringe topic articles. The answer is always the same: come back when multiple highly reliable sources have put a positive light on the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq, valuable thoughts, I do agree. I think what they do with their own money is their own business tho, as adults they can make a free choice :) Also, importantly, I certainly don't wish for this article to 'show the world that cryonics is full of hope' (I'm actually expanding a section showing its huge problems). That's not it's purpose. Being objective and neutral is. Slapping the bald statement "widely characterised as quackery", which is a guess, and likely incorrect, RIGHT AT THE TOP in the lede is not objective or neutral, it's there to create a particular impression. We might also, legitimately, think cryonics to be widely characterised as 'very very low probability', 'heroic', 'experimental medicine' 'nuts', 'brave', 'deeply misguided' etc or any number of characterisations. Why then 'quackery', when cryonics meets almost NONE of the criteria for quackery as described for example in https://www.britannica.com/topic/quackery. There is a consensus here to be neutral & fair, and one man continually blocks any attempt at implementing it. The quackery claim is simply too much, too partisan and without enough evidence to be in the lede. It needs to be removed from that position- Theodorus75 (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A common misconception is that WP:NPOV is about avoiding bias in the text, but it's really about reflecting reliable sources faithfully (and includes WP:YESPOV, etc). This along with WP:NOTFORUM means that we really should primarily be discussing sources. About the lead, a peculiar thing is that the first sentence is often what is shown as short description to mobile users or by search engines (although there also is wikidata and {{short}} descriptions today). That combined with WP:PSCI often presses for the inclusion of refutation in the first sentence (it's not always the case and is also subject to consensus). Even when it's not in the first sentence, since the lead is often short, if the body includes enough criticism that the lead must mention it, it's still quite visible. I'm not surprised not to find mention of cryonics in a short encyclopedia entry on quackery. On the other hand, there have been efforts to curb the promotion of cryonics because of ethical reasons (Britannica mentions this in relation to quackery). But if you find sources that conclude that impressive advances make cryonics more plausible, etc, please cite them. This may go in forum territory, but to answer about "what they do with their own money is their own business": what about people who get lured by false promises and wishthinking, then spend what could be family heritage there? That's one ethical consideration... —PaleoNeonate – 09:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that impressive new advances would need to be made, otherwise we are justified in portraying cryonics as nothing more than false promises and wishful thinking. In fact, it is considered by most adherents to be a bet against uncertain odds, and this is how the organizations websites advertise it (and is how wikipedia should portray it). No promise is made with regards to the outcome, false or not. Moreover, taking away one's freedom to make such a bet would be ethically problematic from both the perspective of both liberty and life -- neither of which a family heritage takes precedence over. Lsparrish (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be affirming the view that it's a "modern Promethus" (as Shermer below), something I don't reject. Does this exclude that there are unrealistic promises attached? It's not only sold as an alternative to cremation. Sources also discuss possible outcomes (that are now science-fiction) like long-term suspension for space travel, etc. There's of course a difference if the body was already clinically dead before preservation, however. There's a mix of religious and scientific hopes, it seems. If one's hope is eventual resuscitation when a future cure exists, this is where quackery is relevant: it's now scientifically, medically and economically untenable. Similarly, you have the liberty to refuse adequate medical treatment because you believe in a herbal cure sold as having magical qualities (and thus be victim of quackery)... —PaleoNeonate – 05:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The examples you give differ in extreme ways. Refusing a medical treatment because of a belief in an herbal cure means that one's life/health is put in danger. The burden of proof can be and typically is met through extensive clinical trials on both the herbal cure and the medical treatment. That's how we know it is quackery. With cryonics, there is no medical treatment that it can be compared alongside, because standard medical practice gives up at the moment of death rather than attempting preservation. Lsparrish (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Adherants" really isn't appropriate in this context. "Believers" is much more appropriate. We don't take the beliefs of believeers as reliable for sourcing for anything but those beliefs. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The terms are close in meaning, but I think "adherents" is more neutral and appropriate to the situation, as there is rational argument involved. The argument itself includes that cryonics is uncertain to work or not to work, but is the best available course of action. Lsparrish (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Roxy, the dog., and that goes for Non-Believers too :) c.f. believers and non-believers in evolution - Theodorus75 (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you actually saying? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you Roxy, the dog. - Theodorus75 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That’s very odd, as we appear to be across the net from each other in all aspects of this discussion. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a fallacy being invoked: "I believe cryonics works, but you believe it doesn't. Ahhhh, got you: we're just mirrors of each other" (see also "I believe bigfoot exists, the moon-landings were faked, the holocaust didn't happen, etc, etc). There must be a name for this fallacy? Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point Alexbrn  :) , but why is that relevant here? I don't think anyone knows if it's going to work. - Theodorus75 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that it isn't (or at least that that is unlikely). It's a false science. "Believers" in it are foolish (or quacks selling it). Those skeptical of it are rational. This is what the sources seem to say, and the stance Wikipedia shall accordingly have. NPOV and all that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You will perhaps be surprised to note that those signed up for cryonics are also skeptical in many cases. Anders Sandberg classified it as only maybe 10% likely to work. That's high enough to motivate people to do it, apparently. Lsparrish (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm wondering though, which parts of it are false science? - Theodorus75 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Read some sources e.g. [1]. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

hi Alexbrn I value your contributions here. Genuinely can't find what you mean. I can find very questionable application of science but no false science as such. Would be keen to include clear instances of this in the article. Can you name a few? Happy to do the research from that point - Theodorus75 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We use material from sources. Reanimation or simulation is an abjectly false hope that is beyond the promise of technology and is certainly impossible. If you can't find any false science in a piece called "The False Science of Cryonics" then I don't think I can help. Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Precisely 888 words. And mostly about why he reckons uploading won't work. I think a sub-editor must have added 'false science' as a title? I quite like it though :) cheers - Theodorus75 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Characterising cryonics

A majority(?) characterisation appears to be "between science and science fiction" see e.g. http://www.koreabiomed.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=2863 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sceptical that a puff piece on KrioRus is a good source to ascertain what a majority of anything thinks - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed :) I put a question mark after the word 'majority'. It has still been characterised as such tho it seems. What people think and feel about this matter is fascinating - Theodorus75 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

and read it again, not a puff piece, it's a straightforward account. I know you find it nearly impossible to be objective about this, but please do try a bit ;-) - Theodorus75 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Theo, would you please stop making personal characterisations about editors here, and concentrate solely on content discussion. Read WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks very much. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Roxy, the dog., You did notice the little smiley, with the wink thing? well, that means I'm not being serious. I would never dream of impugning the character of Mr Gerard. Perish the thought. Woof, woof, good night - Theodorus75 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I am adding these headings, other Editors can add theirs. Hopefully we can begin to build up an accurate picture of how cryonics is characterised after a bit. - Theodorus75 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Weird and hopeful
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/for-200000-this-lab-will-swap-your-bodys-blood-for-antifreeze/379074/

A speculative practice at the outer edge of science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25717141

Between science and science fiction
https://www.koreabiomed.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=2863

Rational
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25717141

Humanistic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11652342

Speculative science fiction
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5557/1015

Deserving of open-minded discussion
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542601/the-science-surrounding-cryonics/

Misguided
https://www.sciencealert.com/questions-you-should-ask-yourself-before-getting-cryogenically-frozen

Ridiculous
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/top-uk-scientist-calls-for-restrictions-on-marketing-cryonics

• What we don't want is a shopping list of every way it's been characterized. And in particular we don't want to have a lede which fails to mirror the article body (see WP:LEDE). Due weight can be given to ways in which cryonics has been received in the Reception section and only then can the lede be modified to summarize that. Alexbrn (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Alexbrn, what is the "reception" section? I assume you mean any beginning / introductory bit? - cheers, Theodorus75 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If you had read the article, Theo, you would know the answer to that question. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I did...briefly, but not had coffee yet so maybe i missed it. I will take another look :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait I see now, the actual article, not the WP:LEDE link. doh. OK :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a "laundry list" as such :) It's our duty as editors to "summarize, inform, and reference" as it says. - Theodorus75 (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Preservation injury section

This section isn't really about what it claims to be - it starts with recounting standard cryobiology, then veers off into "perhaps nanotech will save them!"

I tried to untangle it a bit. Needs more work.

To what degree could we do with a recounting of standard cryobiology? This should be entirely separate from cryonics practice - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you "injure" something that's dead? Alexbrn (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

yeah, changed it to "damage." I've shuffled around and reworded the sentences in these sections a bit - the cryonics practice section is a lot longer now. Could cryonics advocates please review this to check it's accurate? - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

brainpreservation.org

I don't think we want this as a source, and its president, Kenneth Hayworth, as a "a vocal advocate for brain preservation and mind uploading"[2] is not an independent source and any fringe views expressed would need context to establish weight. Similarly, it's nice that cryonics fans give each other prizes, but we need to be careful not let let Wikipedia buy into that credulously as though it meant something in the respectable world of science. See WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

He has a Ph.D. in neurobiology, did a postdoc in the subject at Harvard, and teaches as a Senior Scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Farm Research Campus (JFRC) in Ashburn, Virginia. He has a very long CV in very respectable journals. He's got the academic chops for neurobiology as well as anybody does. You may not like his opinions, but that's just One true Scotsman thinking. You're going to call him fringe no matter what, based on the fact you do not believe what he believes. That's sort of circular. And by the way, how are YOUR biomedical academic credentials? SBHarris 06:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. If he's published in "respectable journals" perhaps something there might be usable? For reporting on what he "believes" we would need some decent sourcing to lend weight. Cryonics is, in Wikipedia terms, a WP:FRINGE topic and the relevant WP:PAGs therefore apply. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics is a 50 year-old practice, not a theory. There are no "fringe" practices. We describe what people do. Go attack some religion or philosophy or art articles! You are arbitrarily defining cryonics as a "science theory" (you don't get to do that) and then deciding it's a fringe one, like Bigfoot. You don't get to do that, either. Finally, your last reversion was a very bad one, as it took out my paragraph work and all the rest. It basically said: "nothing you did was good." Very bad faith. My answer to that is to revert you. SBHarris 07:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It's strange how, with all those great credentials, nobody has done anything that remotely resembles brain preservation or mind uploading. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course very good brain preservation has been done. Had you read any of his papers (or others of very many other neuroscientists) you'd know that. No, no mind uploading, yet. And no artificial intelligence. Be smug. SBHarris 07:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Brain preservation in this context implies the ability to re-activate the "preserved" brain. Let me know when that has been demonstrated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but right now I'm only up to 500 neurons or so (C. eligans). But they do learn, and their learning survives cryopreservation. And brains slices function after preservation. Really, you remind me of the people who once said "only frogs have been cloned! (Let me know when you do a mammal). And "Yeah, computers finally beat humans at chess, big deal (Let me know when they kill at GO)." It's always something. SBHarris 08:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The point about cryonics is that people paying for the service don't want their brain slices to merely function after thawing—they want to be reincarnated with a functioning human intellect and intact personality and memories. Nothing remotely like that has been demonstrated. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the unreproduced result from the questionable transhumanist journal that did "peer review" within a single day, right? - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The point here isn't to debate the philosophy of science, or what mankind might do in the future. That would open up every single pseudo-science article to endless debates.

ApLundell (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is getting absurd and time-wastey.

A mere glance at Category:Pseudoscience reveals many things that are both fringe science and a practice based on that fringe science.

Just because someone acts on a "fringe theory" doesn't automatically elevate it out of that category.

You know this, because you previously used homeopathy as an example of a fringe science. ApLundell (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I used homeopathy as an example of a pseudoscience. It pretends to be a natural science, it has all kinds of promises and results, and nobody ever tells you "this really has a crappy chance of working." All those things DO happen in cryonics (go and sign up and see for yourself). Homeopathy also has a lot of fake studies showing efficacy in fake journals. People pay for a promised cure, not to be a paid-participant in a ("good luck, buddy") homeopathic experiment. Cryonics is a lot more honest than that, which separates it from quackery. You get a chance at a possible future cure, but nobody is running a bona-fide experiment as part of the process and it's not sold as a study. Yes, it costs money to get your body to the future undecayed, and Bill Gates has not stepped up to pay the bill for you. Hence, your life insurance must. Most of the people signed up for cryonics think its chances are poor (but not zero). The first person ever to be voluntarily cryopreserved (James Bedford) explicitly did it believing it would NOT work for him, but he wanted his body to be used for learning, so that one day it might work for other people (a bit like medical school cadaver donation). But he was a cryonicist (and after 52 years, his very fresh corpse is still in liquid nitrogen). Some cryonicists are signed up as first-aid, and they go in the same way you'd jump from a high floor of a burning building at night, hoping the blackness out there on the ground you can't see contains snow and not (ouch) pointy iron fences (Pascal's wager). And there is ALSO a fraction of "religious cryonicists" to whom no evidence either way would make any difference, as this was not a rational decision, but more like deciding to be Mormon. It not science-based for them. They simply have faith, as a tithe-paying Christian would. That's not "pseudoscience" whatever it is (no E-Meters are involved, as with scientology).

Cryonicists pay for storage (as little as possible-- there are calculations for that if you care to look), but nothing for revival, which is not part of the package. Cryonics as a practice is far more complicated than it appears in this completely biased "encyclopedic" article. Where the "experts" (on cryobiology) you use to pass judgement on it, know nothing about it! And YOU (and the Manchester Guardian) know so little as to use them as authorities. And where those brain scientists that actually do know about cryonics, you dismiss as being self-evidently FRINGE people. You think that's honest? How does that help this as an encyclopedia where you can learn something?

As for your use of the Wikipedia category "pseudoscience," it's not some magic last word in knowledge categorization, but something that some Wikipedia editor somewhere decided to make a list of. Here's how bad it is: Faster-than-light travel, and perpetual motion machines somebody has decided to put into category: science speculation, which is supposedly fringe but not pseudoscience. Although (unlike successful cryonics) both would violate known laws of physics. Still, Wikipedia decided to give them a pass on "pseudo." And again, it's not a matter of money. There occasionally is free cryonics (many reject it-- again you never told me why). There are people investing in perpetual motion machines and faster-than-light travel. So what? Why don't these subjects get stuck over in pseudoscience-- with John M. Doe, Ph.D. calling them fantastical nonsense?SBHarris 01:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest to remember that this is not a forum to exchange opinions on the subject. What exactly do you propose to change in the article and what WP:MEDRS sources do you have to support that? Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, it’s not clear that WP:MEDRS applies, for it’s not clear that cryonics is a medical vs. (say) a funeral or tissue-banking procedure. Or some handling of bodies like mummification, that has to do with religion, philosophy, or art. All of that depends on outcomes, which depend on the future, which we cannot know. But Wikipedia succeeds in talking about future-beliefs of groups all the time without managing to insult or lede-deprecate believers or guessers or would-be visionaries, and I think we could use those articles as templates for THIS one. What are you really going to lose?

Example one: Wikipedia has a long article on apocalypticism, which covers many religious and secular possibilities, all without managing in the lede to point out that many of most of these are not possible via that laws of physics as we know them, and that many of the believers of various varieties disagree with each other. And are Loonie Tunes if ever the term meant anything. Nor does it find the need to label any of this as fringe or pseudoscience (quoting some religious guy in some newspaper). Now how did WP manage to write this article neutrally and respectfully to all (although all can’t be right, and most are wrong). Well, because clearly there is not some small group of editors who have a pineapple up their rears about eschatology. So they let the article be written by those who know the various points of view, and the lede summaries that, and that’s it. No suggesting in the lede that all these people are nutcases. The more Wikipedia makes sure we know it, the more it looks very odd.

Example two: Wikipedia has a long article about the technical singularity (aka the rapture of the nerds), which is a kind of sub-genra of apocalypticism. And it even has an entire critique section with a lot of highly educated types saying it will never happen. FINE! But none of that is found in the lede, and if it were, it would be in-line criticism, not somebody echoing critics and speaking in the “Of course the sky is blue” voice, no in-line attribution, per WP:ASSERT and referencing somebody in some newspaper. The technical singularity is considered pseudoscience, saith Wikipedia. That’s not what you do in a good encyclopedia. So why again the respect to that subject in writing? Why no upfront need to say it's just plain blue-sky pseudoscience? I can only imagine that (again) no editor waddles around attempting to remove the pineapple of A.I. It just doesn’t really bother them that much, or the singularity, either. So there are no edit wars.

Example three: An extremely informative and respectful article appears on WP about mind uploading. Which (again oddly enough) has many intersections with cryonics. But again, this article has no bunch of people with stuck pineapples who guard it, so it’s actually written well. Nobody worries that the minduploaders are going to destroy society like gay marriage, so that something needs to be done to protect Wikipedia from the obvious quackery just around the corner, IF we take mind uploading seriously. (Can the Borg be far behind? No, just Facebook.)

So I’m asking that you use the rest of Wikipedia’s futurist articles as templates, and stop treating THIS one like it held some gonzo belief about the past, like holocaust denial or Moon landing hoaxism. Those are about the PAST. THUS, we can far more easily tell that they are crazy views of history (or the present), and I’m not sure in-line citations are necessary to say they are. Look, I’m a veteran of the wars on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy article, and that was bad enough.

So no, I’m by no means a SPA editor, but rather a Wikipedian of very large range and long standing—- so long that that I can remember Gerard shutting down half the ISPs in Utah, just to get at a newbie had been blocked by some powerful admin before he had the rules explained to him, and who came back as a sockpuppet that would not die (turns out he was rich and had actually met that anon admin and exposed her real identity, so that didn’t turn out well for anybody. You always get burned eventually for being mean.) And I watched three years ago as the editing of THIS article became so embroiled with opposition from just a few people that mediation and dispute resolution failed over getting a simple letter of support from 69 scientists referenced it--- although you’d think that would be encyclopedic. [3][4]

All of this suggests some really serious psychological push-back. And there will probably be even more, when one of the stonewalling editors THEN comes back from vacation where he is presently licking his nether-wounds after being told by ArbCom he was unprofessional for templating some editor with a FUCKOFF sign. [5] (Wound a bit too tight, there, Guy? I’m sure I’d never would have guessed.)

So what do I suggest doing? I suggest you all act like Wikipedians (ordinary ones who want to make an informative work), and threat this article like any Wikipedia article about the speculative future (interstellar travel), tell both sides, and in general quit acting like a bunch of church-ladies at a stripper convention. Cryonics is not the barbarian at the gates, and probably never will be a very big movement. [6]. It’s really not worth all the fear and loathing that just a few of you have wasted on it through all the years. If you’re right, what damage is done?

Holy Icy Weiner, Batman, suppose some people were having $130,000 mausoleums built for themselves? And were being promised eternal life with A.I. Zombie-Jesus if they did? No freezing, no cryoprotectant. Just decay and a whited-sepulcher. Would you go bananas if some scientists went for it? There’s something about cryonics that hits just a LITTLE too close to the bone, I think. Why not just admit it? SBHarris 06:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That's nice: This page is STILL not a bull session page. So, what exactly do you propose to change in the article and what WP:MEDRS sources do you have to support that? --Calton | Talk 06:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you having trouble with reading comprehension? There are very specific suggestions above to treat this article like other Wikipedia articles that deal with the future, such as Technical singularity,mind uploading,apocalypticism,eschatology, and so on. You can always tell when the other guy is losing an argument when he starts collapsing the opposition as being too long. Try that on AN/I sometime. SBHarris 07:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"I’m asking that you use the rest of Wikipedia’s futurist articles as templates" - well, the trouble there is WP:GARDEN. I went through the other transhumanist articles a few years ago de-gardening them a bit. It turns out that your argument, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is not considered a good excuse for keeping trash in an article. What your argument really says is that those other articles need harsh treatment of nonsense as well. Those articles do probably need de-nonsensification again - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Then start pruning and in your edit summary just say WP:GARDEN (sucka). As you should well know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be the most misused and contradictory essays (not policy or guideline) in Wikipedia. It really has no reason to exist, as it has been used by other sides of process, procedural and stare decisis disputes for years. It's a gigantic turd. If you want to go after the mind uploading article, be my guest. I've just been over on the pseudoscience page wondering why mind uploading it's not a pseudoscience. Especially since one of two cites that cryonics is, is actually a criticism of mind uploading (wups). And the other one only says cryonics is unlikely, not impossible. It's not faster than light. And that is stangely also not pseudoscience. You know, I think you-all on WP just made up that pseudoscience stuff to get rid of things you don't like. But the rest of your garden may have a few thorns. SBHarris 09:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"you-all on WP" I thought you posted up there about your credentials as a Wikipedian - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

By "you-all" I mean "you-all" who are guilty of the bad procedure of making up these special trial regulations for what you label pseudoscience (which is something like labeling something, like was once done with "witchcraft" or "unamerican"). I didn't see any of that procedural stuff happening, as I was at that time busy editing in chemistry and physics. But I would have opposed it, as it's a really dumb idea to have two sets of standards, which you apply based on labels, which get stuck to subjects without much thought or due process. And which stand quite differently from religion and philosophy and future speculation. ArbCom or whoever didn't think through the implications of that. I'll have more about what various scientists say about cryonics later. Ken Storey, Ph.D. (who you quote on other matters) is on record that cryonics is a "theology." Yep. Which should ideally set you back for some thought, and remind you of the swamp you've put your foot into. You might now finally be asking "Ummm-- what the hell does Ken Storey know about any of this, if he cannot even correctly use English?" Answer: not much. When you ask scientist X about philosophy Y, you might get nonsense. And when you get ignorant Wikipedians shoving this stuff in as "the sky is blue" you might get hypocrisy. SBHarris

"All of this suggests some really serious psychological push-back. "

As an established editor, I'm sure you'll recognize that one of the first symptoms of this is posting giant walls of text that are connected to the topic at hand in ways only obvious to the poster.

ApLundell (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I write clearly enough. I guess you threw out all your books years ago, or else you could pick up a volume and remind yourself in this digital age what a real "wall of text" actually looks like. Sad. SBHarris 16:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Corpses and severed heads etc

Editor Lsparrish commented "may be best to avoid in case people are easily confused. however, corpse is prejudicial wrt unknown future outcome of cryonics. body might be fine"

Lsparrish changed "human corpse " to "human body after death"

and

"corpse or severed head" to "body, sometimes only the head or brain, after death"

Both reverted

The changes were better because they were more encyclopedic, scholarly and neutral and thus allowed readers to consider the subject matter of the article with less emotion. As opposed to "severed head" etc which sounds, frankly, a bit strange and frightening. My question: what is the reasoning behind using the more emotional language. I am sure there is a very very good one, I just can't see it - Theodorus75 (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the more accurate descriptions are better than pandering to the supposed sensitivity of the reader. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, no pandering on the basis of supposition :) but not appropriate for the reasons I gave. - Theodorus75 (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Instead of replying in wierd riddles, why don't you try to be clear in your answers? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Less emotional language better, cheers - Theodorus75 (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is why "corpse" is better. A body can be alive (in which case freezing it would be violent murder). A corpse is just dead meat. We should use the unambiguous term (which has the bonus of avoiding buying into the Cryonics lie that "people" are being frozen). Alexbrn (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why 'body' and 'head' are even better. We must use the better terminology here. - Theodorus75 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you read my response? A "body" can be alive so it is an unclear term. What is frozen is always a corpse. We could say "dead body" but that word be more verbose. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did and replied earlier here - unfortunately that comment has gone missing so I will repeat by thanking you, that I value engaging in improving this article, by saying that Lsparrish was careful to say 'body's after death' and then politely asking if the melodramatic language of "severed heads" is acceptable here or not. I don't believe it is. I see though that you have responded partly to the missing comment already by suggesting 'dead body' is too verbose. Hardly, it's a mere two words :). I believe that the less emotional language used by Lsparrish must be restored - Theodorus75 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Best to be accurate. You may find it "emotional" but this is one of those (ultra-rare) occasions on Wikipedia where WP:NOTCENSORED is pertinent. The companies get the bodies, drill holes in the head, cut it off, squirt anti-freeze into it, and freeze it (often all ineptly). That's the reality as reported by RS and I'm afraid Wikipedia must unflinchingly report it accordingly. The wish to downplay the gruesomeness of the activity is a form of WP:PROFRINGE advocacy in line with the promotional language of the Cryonics industry, and we're not going to be buying into that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue with terminology regarding corpses is that it implies that a negative outcome for cryonics is a forgone conclusion. It is prejudicial, i.e. encourages people to approach the topic with their mind already made up. A person is free to believe cryonics will fail, but they ought to do so because of reasoned argument. There are possible reasons cryonics could work, in which case referring to bodies as unambiguously dead implies a false assumption. This isn't about sales tactics, it's simply avoiding committing a logical fallacy. Furthermore, 'severed head' is likely to be a gruesome and emotive image for many readers. This obscures the fact that the goal is not to preserve a severed head, in the style of Futurama, but the brain it contains, and in particular the structure of that brain. I do not believe encouraging people to view a scientifically based procedure like cryonics in horror movie terms is conducive to the mission of wikipedia, nor 'neutral' as you seem to believe. It places undue emphasis on irrelevant detail. Lsparrish (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Except, per our sources, this isn't a science-based procedure, it's likely quackery. You know, health fraud to extract money from suckers and innocent fools. A severed head is a severed head: WP:SPADE. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also note Theo, that no comments have mysteriously vanished. See the page history. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. This is why cryonicists really hate the Corey Pein article, which we should be using more of - it correctly reports Alcor's utterly inept incompetence after having done this for four decades. The others aren't much better - it's not an RS, but see this description of a KrioRus suspension - David Gerard (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite Alcor's 'bumbling', no representative of mainstream medical establishment has stepped forward to offer this service. Nor has Pein recommended that it start doing so. The clear implication is that he believes the wishes of patients like Kim Suozzi should simply not be respected. He even discusses the Dora Kent case as a reason to trust Alcor less, rather than more, even though he shows that he understands that euthanasia brings a preferable outcome. Quite reasonable for cryonicists to find this source disagreeable, regardless of their position on Alcor. It is a politically motivated hit piece written with the aim to destroy, not reform cryonics. Lsparrish (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"no representative of mainstream medical establishment has stepped forward to offer this service" - so why do you think that is? - David Gerard (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Because of an uninformed and unjustified social stigma against cryonics. Obviously. Cryonics is a niche market, due to this stigma, and unless the movement takes off, no substantial section of the medical establishment will become adapted to it. A typical cryonics organization only sees two cases per year. What profit-motivated mainstream medical clinic would devote attention to such a small market? The only way for that to happen would be if cryonics patients started paying much higher rates. Which is hard to justify for such an uncertain outcome. Lsparrish (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys - I mentioned the disappearing comment because I definitely thought I'd hit the 'publish' button and it included some very nice phraseology so I was a bit cross when it didn't show up, but it seems it was a glitch at this end.

Profoundly agree - no promotion of the cryonics industry here. And profoundly disagree - using gruesome or silly imagery is inappropriate. I want it replaced please. At the risk of sounding impolite Alexbrn & David Gerard we are not here to unflinchingly or 'flinchingly' do anything, including reporting the Pein article because of "four decades of incompetence", or because "cryonicists hate it' etc etc. This is an encyclopedia article. If you wish for this article to be about ANY of that stuff, which may be reasonable given the scope of the subject, then create a section with a clear heading and describe it. I won't stop you. The current strategy of sly anti-advocacy and slipping things in or stopping other things from appearing is frankly embarrassing to see. - Theodorus75 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You are describing reality-based descriptions, well-cited to reliable sources, as "sly anti-advocacy and slipping things in or stopping other things from appearing". This is not a problem with the article, the sources or the other editors - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No replacing anything I’m afraid, Theo. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard, I may have gone slightly OTT there, so apologies if I have. But as I have just said in my talk page too, tho I've got no problem with your 'anti' attitude (if such be the case) the somewhat campaigning tone of some fellow editors here is a bit off-putting to me. "severed heads" is quite clearly in there to 'make a point' - Theodorus75 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Theodorus75. See WP:FORMAL. It is not appropriate to use unencyclopedic language, even if pushing back against a fringe position. All opposition to cryonics should be described in prose, and not inserted into the text in the form of gruesome and emotionally provocative imagery. Let's use a formal tone. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that "severed" is a bit excessive, but I would also agree that "body" is too vague. We need to be specific. Using "dead body" is fine in my view, which is the same thing as "corpse" or "cadaver". Trying to tiptoe around that and suggesting that there is some chance of those bodies being not dead due to some miraculous future technology is pushing a fringe point of view. Retimuko (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any problem with "removed head" and "dead body"?

Those phrases accurately describes the issue. It clears up any confusion that the head might be preserved in situ, or that the body might still be living. And it's about as "emotionally neutral" as you could possibly get while describing a severed head and a corpse.

ApLundell (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You might use the term "legally-dead body." The problem with the word "corpse" is it's overly-general. A legally-dead body suggests that there are other definitions of death, and the body in question might only meet only one of them. Which is the case (indeed the whole point of cryonics). After all, a man whose heart has just stopped in a hospice and been pronounced legally dead by a doctor (or hospice nurse) is legally dead. And is, by this definition, a type of corpse. But probably revivable if anybody cared to do it. Legally dead is not some fact of nature, it's a point of law (like being legally married). It describes your relation to society, not your biological state. You can disappear for five years and your relatives can have you DECLARED legally dead! That doesn't mean your heart stops or your EEG goes flat. Legally dead means merely dead but perhaps not really-most-sincerely dead. That state depends on how good your revival technology is, and how willing the people around you are, to employ it. SBHarris 02:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I would argue strongly that "legally-dead body" in an expression of doubt that is justified only by a fringe theory. I think that would be in contravention of both the manual of style and WP:FRINGE. If "dead body" is unacceptable, then "corpse" should be used. ApLundell (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no "expression of doubt" in the phrase "legally dead." There is no doubt that the person is legally dead. What's the problem? It's surprisingly hard to define other kinds of death, if what you're after is some measure of "finality." But that's the problem with many colloquial uses of "dead." Many of them demand a knowledge of the future which is hardly justified in the present. Or do you know the future for certain? Tell me, is this tardigrade or spore or virus "dead"? Is this frozen embryo "dead"? This slaughtered pig head? This neuron from this brain from a "corpse" six hours old? Should there be any doubt? Why or why not? Or would it just be better to qualify the word, in order to qualify the state of our knowledge? SBHarris 03:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No, in this context going from "dead" to "legally dead" is indulging the fringe POV well beyond what is warranted, as are analogies to viruses or tardigrades, or attempting to invoke nonexistent future knowledge as a justification - David Gerard (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also agree with ApLundell that giving space to the notion of "other kinds of death" is fringe (there is also the secondary issue that invoking law raises the question of jurisdiction). Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Or do you know the future for certain?"

That's not how we do this. We describe scientific consensus as it currently exists. We don't insert weasel-words just because objective truth is unknowable.

As mainstream science currently understands the concept, those bodies are "dead". We don't avoid using that word because somebody at some undetermined point in the future might change the definition. That's true of everything.

(Debates about "death" in viruses and spores are irrelevant. Those beings are pretty well understood and the purely semantic confusion you allude to comes from applying concepts that are well defined in humans to beings with very different properties.)

ApLundell (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

“We describe scientific consensus as it currently exists.”

Ah! So that is why the lede paragraph of this article uses as citation for why cryonics cannot work, a statement by some journalist in the Guardian? No? Okay, so if something is “true” (or at least a consensus) it could be easy to find a cite for it. Could you please dig up some science consensus statements about cryonics and put them right there? I cannot find any. And yes, I’ve looked. Scientist A says it’s hokum and quackery. Scientist B is not so sure. Scientist C says it there might be something to it if it were done better (read the article that is here already). That’s not consensus. Nine out of ten cryobiologists who recommend some type of interment, say cryonics is quackery? Put it up. It’s your turn, as I cannot prove a negative. The citation onus is on you. We do not take our science consensus from The Guardian.

“As mainstream science currently understands the concept, these bodies are “dead.””

I’m not aware of “mainstream science” having any understanding of the concept of “dead.” Dead (no qualifier) is not a good scientific word, with (thus) a good scientific definition. Colloquially, it is the permanent absence of “life” and there are science problems with defining “life,” and “permanence” depends on the future, and present intent. Therefore, rather like “weight” or “matter” or “race”, or even “light” -- all words used loosely in English, are not by scientists unless with very heavy qualifications, as they aren’t actually science words (are "radio waves" a type of light? Well, yes. Or no. Tell me what definition of "light" we will use today). And in the death of human individuals (so that we might use their unquestionably living organs and tissues, and even cryopreserve same for later, like corneas), there has been medicolegal controversy on the question for 50 years, so it’s not exactly a settled issue with some sort of consensus. I am not untutored here: PMID 15586966 PMID 20457616 PMID 9311069 PMID 16356234 PMID 30584860 PMID 30584863

As for colloquial use, the problem is not that frozen people don’t fit the colloquial definition, but that they may fit it too easily. John Doe, who just fell over in the middle of the street with no pulse or breathing, is by some medicolegal definitions “dead.” Whether his condition is permanent or not, depends on what we decide to (or can do) with him. Is the condition permanent when he passes all technological possibility of present revival? Or not until? But what about future revival if we preserve him for that? “Permanent”, which is an inescapable part of the colloquial (though not medical) definition of death, is a hard word. We DO use a word like this depending on somebody in the future (whether minutes or centuries away), and not because they might change the definition but because they might take some action. The definition of “permanent” (alas) INCLUDES the future. “Permanent” means you (think you) know what will happen in the future. That is part of the word “death.” You get it like a prize in Cracker Jack.

I’m amazed at most uses of the word “permanent” even when not hidden and entangled in some other word. I would think trepidation would often be called for, don’t you? Is there anything “permanent” about Wikipedia, for example, save possibly its ill-will for its ordinary editors?

Should we use the word “dead” with all its permanent connotations, even if somebody freezes Mr. Doe? It would be like calling Mr. Doe a “criminal” for jaywalking in the middle of that street where he fell. Technically it may be colloquially true, but it really needs qualification to be honest.

“Debates about "death" in viruses and spores are irrelevant. Those beings are pretty well understood and the purely semantic confusion you allude to comes from applying concepts that are well defined in humans to beings with very different properties.”

I think we differ a lot in what “pretty well understood” means. The concepts are certainly relevant, and I notice you left out my example of a cryopreserved human embryo. Is that your honest method of debate-—leave out the hardest parts and pretend you didn’t see them?

There is also the quite different matter of death of person-hood vs. death of all “life” at every level. For example, a person may be defined as “dead” even while their heart functions. And even while their brain contains many cells that are still alive (and certainly their body, too). Now take a well-cryopreserved person, treated with the same solutions that one would use to preserve human corneas (say). Do you have any doubt that probably some of this man’s corneal cells are revivable? Thus not “permanently” deprived of vital function, thus “alive?” If the man is dead but some of his cells are alive, what about his brain cells? We have treated the brain with the same solutions that allow harvesting of live and functional brain slices in animals. So probably a lot of his brain cells are alive. How many does it take before the implied idea of “permanence” begins to weaken? An automobile is only as PERMANENTLY inoperable as its repair shop is incompetent. How good could the repair of humans one day get?

A pig head sliced off in a slaughterhouse and left for 4 hours, is colloquially dead. But many cells are alive. If you re-perfuse the head, you find that enough cells in the brain are (actually) alive and carry out synaptic and metabolic activities. The pig is still (colloquially) dead. However, all this should give one pause as to the idea of “permanence.” Had we done this to a whole pig (merely stopped its heart for hour hours) and recovered this much brain function, one might inductively wonder how much technology is still required to recover an EEG and finally an oink. And many scientists have wondered about this. [7]

So dead not being DEAD, is not a FRINGE idea, but something that warrants due NPOV space as a speculation, much like all the space Wikipedia gives to interstellar travel (which, in case you haven’t noticed, hasn’t happened yet). If the world “Earthbound” contained the idea of a “permanent” entrapment in the Solar System, would Wikipedia allow it to be routinely used? It gets worse: in the long lede on the Alcubierre drive, where is the needed statement from the Manchester Guardian that (in its opinion) the thing cannot possibly work? New laws of physics or types of matter or energy are needed. Clearly some group of Wikipedia editors is not threatened by the Alcubierre drive. So what is happening to the article on cryonics? Ordinarily you only see such unloving attention lavished on things when it’s personal, like some former convert (now deprogrammed) trying to hammer down scientology. What gives, here?

In short, my point here is that “dead” is a badly defined and very loaded word, much like “pornographic,” “underage,” “perverted” and so on. And weight and matter and light. We need not accept its baggage, any more than we do on Wikipedia with the other words (I hope not to be caught up here in a “purely SEMANTIC debate,” god help me. We know how useless and unproductive THOSE are.) SBHarris 05:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The burden of proof in not on some "science" to prove that cryonics does not work. Science, simply speaking, is a method of arriving at a reasonably reliable knowledge. It does not prove anything. The burden of proof is on proponents of cryonics to demonstrate that it works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Of course, it might be interesting to debate definitions of terms at the fringes of established knowledge, so "dead not being dead" is a fringe idea. There is plenty of evidence that the Earth is not flat, and people do not raise from the dead. Speculation about some unspecified and unverifiable future technology violates WP:CRYSTAL. Retimuko (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a mainstream scientific, practical definition of clinical death, used in medicine. Unless you can consistently revive people that fit that definition, the rest is speculation, futurism, science fiction, philosophy and faith. As for tissue cryopreservation, that's another topic, with another article. —PaleoNeonate – 08:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"Unless you can consistently revive people who fit that definition..." What? What does consistency have to do with it? Everybody who is now resuscitated has been clinically dead FIRST. Did you even read the article? SBHarris 22:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a heck of a rant to try to justify the idea that corpses aren't dead when we put them in the ground.

Do you also have similar issues with funeral and burial?

ApLundell (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, but none of this is a bright line. You might note historically that people DID worry that they might be buried alive (but seemingly dead) and actually George Washington devoted his final breaths to making sure his personal secretary Tobias Lear understood that he was to left out of the ground two full days before being entombed. In any case, the ultimate answer must do with information, and a person is probably something like any object-- not completely dead until the information is gone. As wacky as that might sound, the alternative is even wackier-- that death happens objectively at some precise instant after the heart stops, and that in theory you could figure out when that instant had occurred. Which is a bit like demanding to know at what precise instant a fetus becomes a person. And I don't mean some convenience, but some biological thing that happens. See sorites paradox for more, if you must. SBHarris 22:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

But none of that is a reason for giving the corpses in this article special treatment just because they're getting a fringe procedure done to them.

Other types of corpse disposal are performed on "dead bodies" and "human corpses", so why mince words here? Because of the fringe belief that they might be revived?

Introducing euphemism in this article would be using Wikipedia's voice to lend credence to this article's fringe topic. ApLundell (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please. Wikipedia uses "euphemism" (or whatever language trope happens to be most popular on any given topic) all the time. In fact, that's policy. Wikipedia doesn't make up the language or standardize the terms. Those who use them do, and Wikipedia summarizes-- or that is the theory. Which is messy in the breach, but let's look. To pick a non-charged topic, Wikipedia does not tell people what, or what is not, a "disaster." That's why we have a Space shuttle Challenger disaster article, but no Titanic disaster article (it's Sinking of the RMS Titanic with a redirect from Titanic disaster); these things count. In fact, if you look at lists of "disasters" (all man-made, BTW-- there are no natural disaster articles on Wikipedia for some strange reason), you find that many of the worst ones are not called disasters in their main Wikipedia articles. Why not? No logical reason. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide that for you. They get called (supposedly) what they are most commonly called (though I'd argue that "Titanic disaster" is the most common term, and lack of natural disasters makes no sense at all). There is some inertia, too.

In any case, Wikipedia likewise has many term-of-art articles like clinical death which exist for a better reason. They don't need somebody stomping through them and saying "Well, we're just taking about plain old DEATH, aren't we? Why do we even need this silly article?" We need it because we're talking about a select group. In cryonics, they may be just bodies to YOU (just as, say, Catholic priests are just men in funny dresses to ME), but they are part of an ongoing experiment to the cryonicists, and they don't look or behave like your average dead body in a great number of ways, and also care and plans for them are vastly different than other legally-dead bodies. Hence a need for new nomenclature. So cryonics has different terms for them, and Wikipedia should at least follow to the point of being informative and abstractive and synopsistic, etc (just as it does for priests). Which term, Wikipedia should respect as much as it does any English term of art, for that reason alone. After all (to take this back to bio-medicine), Wikipedia has an entire List of homeopathic preparations. Since homeopathy is far, FAR more clearly quackery than cryonics, why do we permit such a summary list of odd preparation names to exist at all, here? Call them what they are. Are these NOT just special euphemisms which lend Wikipedia's "voice" (you are making me laugh now at the very thought) to a "fringe topic"? Sure, by your logic. So--- just delete our list of homeopathic preparations, and redirect the entire thing to water. There you are. These may not be water to the homeopaths (those quacks), but it's water to you, and to me, and to most people. And to Wikipedia also, as Arbiter of Truth. So, linguistically flense it. So as to (again) avoid the powerful credence of the Voice of Wikipedia. Problem solved. No? SBHarris 01:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

break

I note the Society for Cryobiology refers to the material being frozen as "human cadavers or brains".[8] That would be fine too. What we need to avoid is any implication that the corpsicles are "patients", which is how the industry wants them termed. Alexbrn (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Cadavers" is also good. Any synonym for "corpse" that doesn't make an implication that they might be more alive than corpses normally are. ApLundell (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"stiffs"? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 01:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Another attempt at DRN

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Cryonics#Quackery_or_not. Note this is substantially the same as the one from a month or so ago - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks. It's specifically about "widely"this time. Cheers Theodorus75 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Fringe status

There has been some debate as the fringe status of cryonics. I think that we should all agree that cryonics is fringe, but per WP:FRINGE/PS, there is a "spectrum of fringe theories" that "merit careful treatment". In particular, we must decide if cryonics is a pseudoscience or a questionable science under the following definitions.

• Pseudoscience: Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

• Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

A PubMed search for "cryonics" returns 18 results, many or most of which take a favorable view of cryonics. There is a Medline indexed review published in the last five years called the case for cryonics. Even one of the most critical articles, call Nano Nonsense and Cryonics, says that the odds of success are "slightly higher than zero". This seems to be a fair representation of the scientific consensus on cryonics: It probably won't work, but it is also not a psudoscience. Cryonics looks like a clear-cut case of questionable science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"Regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community and ... widely characterized as quackery" seems about right per the sources. It's not our job to "decide" if it's pseudoscience or not: follow the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It is our job to decide if it is pseudoscience or not based on consensus of sources. Per WP:FRINGE/PS, questionable science may be described as pseudoscience by critics, but we should not describe a questionable science that way while WP:MEDRS sources take it seriously. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There are huge volumes of notionally "MEDRS" sources that take many pseudosciences seriously; homeopathy even has an entire Elsevier journal. We as editors are not equipped to determine consensus, and WP:RS/AC stipulates that statements about consensus must be explicitly sourced. Is there an actual proposal being made here? Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am proposing that cryonics be treated as a questionable science rather than a pseudoscience, as it clearly fits the definition. In the case of homeopathy, the consensus of WP:MEDRS sources call it pseudoscience. I have shown you a WP:MEDRS source that takes cryonics seriously. If disagree, find me a WP:MEDRS source that calls it pseudoscience. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Since WP:FRINGE applies wherever cryonics lies on the spectrum, the distinction is purely academic. Is there a proposal to do anything? Alexbrn (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I propose that 1) The psuedoscience category be removed. 2) The status of cryonics "merits careful treatment" per WP:FRINGE/PS. When discussing cryonics in text we should take the stance that science thinks that it won't work, but is open to the possibility that it might succeed. We can still mention that its opponents think it is quackery. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think per WP:REDFLAG we'd need multiple exceptional sources to say "science thinks" it might work (and no, a freewheeling essay by a philosopher in an ethics journal does not tell us what "science thinks"). We would also need to be clear not to confuse abstract arguments about theoretical possibility with concrete implications about the clown-like efforts of the current "industry". As to categories, are there any sources which discuss the pseudoscience question? Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are any scientific articles that discuss the pseudoscience question. I didn't see any in my PubMed search, but I don't think the issue is of that much importance since WP:FRINGE/PS tells us that questionable sciences are often described as pseudoscience by their opponents. In order to achieve the status of questionable science, there only has to be "a reasonable amount of academic debate". Even some opponents of cryonics will admit that the odds of success are "slightly higher that zero". There may be some disagreement about how close the odds are to zero between sides, but I am so far unable to locate a scientific paper that characterizes the odds of success as exactly zero. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I would reject such a proposal, for the record. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just added a source in which a cryobiologist says the odds are zero. I could go either way on the category. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This all seems very clear-cut to me. Opponents call it pseudoscience, but there is also academic debate. Anyone who wants to classify cryonics as a pseudoscience should try to argue that there is not a "reasonable academic debate" that it might work. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Where is the "academic debate"? Seems like a few people/quacks on the fringe and most of "academia" ignoring them. As with most fringe topics. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I submit this PubMed search. Also, the only available WP:MEDRS source argues for cryonics. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Search results are not sources, and PMID 25717141 is not WP:MEDRS for biomedicine as that is not the journal's field; it is an okay source for the authors musings on ethics. Alexbrn (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I submit all 18 sources in the PubMed search as evidence of academic debate. I challenge you to find one scientific paper which argues that there is no academic debate. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want Wikipedia to say there is academic debate, you'll need a reliable source. The good sources we have say it receives a "miniscule" amount of attention from academia, so that would appear to be the neutral way to frame how it sits there. Alexbrn (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is article one article. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

... which nowhere says there is an academic debate. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It is about the debate. The 18 sources from the PubMed search engage in the debate, which makes the evidence for it. Primary sources, but evidence nonetheless. Reguardless, the burden of proof is on you. If you want to classify cryonics as a psudoscience, you would need a source stating that there is scientific consensus that it is a pseudoscience. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You can't make stuff up sourced to search engine results. As to pseudoscience we only need a reliable source saying it is to say so ourselves. We do not need a source saying there is "consensus", unless we want to assert consensus WP:RS/AC. This raising of the bar to require WP:RS/AC is a WP:PROFRINGE gambit that has often been tried here. It is bogus. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC says "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors". This supports my argument, not yours. The default assumption is debate: the burden of proof fall on you to show consensus. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We're not wanting to make a statement about "academic consensus". Such a thing is extremely niche. The "default assumption" is that we follow the sources. FWIW, I'm not sure cryonics is a pseudoscience: quackery, nonsense, fraud, and religion are maybe more appropriate terms. Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The term that you're looking for is "questionable science". While some individuals have called it a pseudoscience, we lack the sourcing (for academic consensus) to call it a pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice. I would like to note that there is a category called "fringe science" which has a subcategory called "scientific speculation". We certainly have the sourcing to place cryonics is one of these. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, looking at sources, I have changed my mind. Prof. Jens Karlsson[9] says not just that cryonics is a pseudoscience, but that it is generally viewed as such - and he should know. That seals the deal so far as I am concerned. I'll update the article accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The cite that you liked to does not contain that information. Perhaps you used the wrong link? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The link was to show who Karlsson was (not some random dude). The citation is to him quoted in the Chicago Tribune, which is now in the article. Progress! Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly! I’m afraid you can’t hang much on the basis of some hearsay statement of one scientist about his own beliefs, to some reporter. “Everybody generalizes from a single instance. Or at least, I do” (Steve Wright). Are you REALLY going to use that as a WP:RS source for what is and what is not, a "pseudoscience"? Please.

The closest statement I know of a PRINTED and OFFICIAL position of a cryobiology organization on cryonics, is the position statement of the Society for Cryobiology on Cryonics: [10]

The last part of it says:

The Society does, however, take the position that the knowledge necessary for the revival of live or dead whole mammals following cryopreservation does not currently exist and can come only from conscientious and patient research in cryobiology and medicine. In short, the act of preserving a body, head or brain after clinical death and storing it indefinitely on the chance that some future generation may restore it to life is an act of speculation or hope, not science, and as such is outside the purview of the Society for Cryobiology.

There is no mention of pseudoscience. It basically says more work is necessary. In fact, the CfS's definition of “science” is rather severe, as it would exclude all planning and experimentation for anything before it works. Which would be bad news to people building things like LIGO or the LHC (before they succeeded). Planning to send people to Mars, I suppose, would be an act of hope and not science, according to this. Bad news for NASA. But still, you can quote the above for the fairest statement of what a large number of cryobiologists are willing to own and put one of their society's names to. SBHarris 22:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're getting that out of that statement. To me it reads like they're disowning the entire concept of cryonics; declaring that it is not a science and is outside the realm of possibility as understood by their field of research. If anything, that statement pretty is about the same as them saying that it's quackery. And you suppose incorrectly. If NASA announced that sending man to Mars was outside the realm of science and none of their business, then your analogy might make some sense. But they don't say that. NASA and other space agencies have had active plans and programs to send man to Mars, and all research indicates it's possible given enough resources. There's a big difference between "possible with today's technology but prohibitively expensive" and "we have no reason to believe it will ever be possible, but hey, we've been wrong before." Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What is it you don't understand about The Society does, however, take the position that the knowledge necessary for the revival of live or dead whole mammals following cryopreservation does not currently exist and can come only from conscientious and patient research in cryobiology and medicine. Does that sound like they are saying it's impossible in principle?? And if you don't like Mars landing, I gave you the example of interstellar travel. We haven't more than a few hand-wavy ideas of how to get humans to other stars, but you'd be laughed at if you said the idea was non-scientific or pseudoscience or just plain forever baloney. In fact, if we ever do it with humans in present form, it may take a really good method of suspended animation in the ultracold. And those people are going to look very, very dead. "All research indicates" that. You use the inductive term very cavalierly. Until a thing is DONE, what "all research indicates" for the future, depends very much on who looks at it.SBHarris 01:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

We've got expert cryobiologists on the one hand saying it is impossible, and on the other hand we've got some non-expert sources and random Wikipedia editors who reckon it just might work. Who can tell me which view our article is going to favour? Alexbrn (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. Here is a cryobiologist (B. Wowk) and a neurobiologist (Hayworth) who think it may work and is reasonable. [11]. I actually know an even more famous cryobiologist still "in the closet" but he will eventually come out. Some of the Society for Cryobiology's administration are actually cryobiologists but don't advertise it. Why swim uphill against what is essentially bigotry? The SfC used to kick out cryonicists. No more. The Roman Empire used to persecute Christians. Then they tolerated them. Then finally got a Christian emperor (wups). Times change. SBHarris 05:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If people were taking money to build an FTL drive or a Perpetual Motion Machine, I wouldn't hesitate to label their activities pseudoscience. There is no rule that says we must wait "until a thing is done" to make that determination.

In fact, I'd say that the biggest warning sign of pseudoscience is people making that exact argument!

ApLundell (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but those things violate laws of physics. If you can reanimate a human embryo from liquid nitrogen, and have it grow into a perfectly normal baby, I would think that at the cellular and metabolic level, you've gone quite some way. Clearly you disagree, but this is no FTL. It's more like a V-2 where we need a Saturn V (Hey, Werner!). Money, by the way, isn't always an issue. One cryonics company (Alcor) actually offered to cryopreserve several science fiction writers who criticized them, for nothing. These men had all argued that the money was too much for them. With that excuse gone, they all had to confront the real reasons. Heinlein turned out to be religious, and was afraid that when "the roll was called up yonder, he wouldn't be there." Asimov thought he'd published every worthwhile thought he ever had, and wanted the rest destroyed (and knowing some stories about Dr. A-- I quite understand). Frederik Pohl finally admitted that the future scared the crap out of him and he didn't want to wake up in a real version of Age of the Pussyfoot. Arthur C. Clarke said simply he couldn't bear to be ripped from his social milieu, an "exile in time." A lot of these people were more honest than many (finally). A surprising number reject cryonics not because they don't think it will work, but are half-afraid it might. When it is done to a family member, they want them thawed and burned. Why do they care? SBHarris 05:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" (Carl Sagan). So Yes, while it's theoretically possible there may be interstellar travel in the far future, what we've got now in cryonics is the equivalent of people selling tickets to Alpha Centauri with the spacecraft being a dumpster with fireworks lashed to it. It's theoretically possible in the far future there may be some kind of deep-sleep/suspended animation; it's just possible it may even be called "cryonics". But this article is about the here-and-now barbaric quackery of the cryonics reality, as relayed in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As relayed in RS? What? Newspapers where they look for minor screwups, but have no idea what the quality metrics are? 21st Century Medicine just won the prize for small animal brain preservation. What are you going to do when they get though analyzing the histology of the brain of a cryonics case done as well as possible, and find no histological defects, in much the same way as the mouse? That would be a strange result for "barbaric quackery." Because this kind of tissue preservation is very difficult indeed. Hence the prizes. SBHarris 05:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Newspapers or other sources relaying the views of expert cryobiologists yes. From them we learn cryonics is pseudoscience, and that for it to work the laws of science would need to be overturned. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A statement from a cryobiology institute trumps any statement from an individual cryobiologist. The statement said: 1} The knowledge necessary for the revival of live or dead whole mammals following cryopreservation does not currently exist and can come only from conscientious and patient research in cryobiology and medicine. 2) In short, the act of preserving a body, head or brain after clinical death and storing it indefinitely on the chance that some future generation may restore it to life is an act of speculation or hope, not science, and as such is outside the purview of the Society for Cryobiology. They are rejecting cryonics on the basis that it is speculative, because we do not know at the present if such technology will ever exist. People were calling the moon landing quackery as late as the fifties, and would actually have been quackery at that time to sell tickets to the moon to be redeemed if the technology became available to go there. Nonetheless, the idea that we could go to the moon has been in the realm of speculative science since Newton. Cryonics violates no known scientific laws, and even leading skeptics think the odds of success are greater than zero (Shermer calls it "borderlands science"). Controversial activity like this will draw claims of pseudoscience from critics, but while a criobiology organizations has issued an official position statement saying that the technology might exist one day, it should not be labeled as pseudoscience. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that's ridiculous. You can't seriously claim that the Society for Cryobiology not using the word "pseudoscience" in a statement that repudiates cryonics that strongly constitutes them saying it isn't one - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The institute stated that the knowledge necessary for the revival of live or dead whole mammals following cryopreservation could come from conscientious and patient research in cryobiology and medicine. Their statement suggests that cryonics is a fringe or questionable science, which is in line with the statements by Michael Shermer, who is the director of The Skeptics Society. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And not using the word "pseudoscience" still can't be twisted into a claim that they're saying it isn't one - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You're really getting stuck on that one line, while ignoring the rest of the statement. Read as a whole, the statement is basically saying that the society takes no position on how people choose to dispose of their corpses. Just look at the previous sentences: The Society recognizes and respects the freedom of individuals to hold and express their own opinions and to act, within lawful limits, according to their beliefs. Preferences regarding disposition of postmortem human bodies or brains are clearly a matter of personal choice and, therefore, inappropriate subjects of Society policy. It takes some gymnastics to read this disavowal as some kind of assurance of the scientific integrity of this project. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

They disavow cryonics as practiced, but explicitly state that it might be possible with "conscientious and patient research in cryobiology and medicine". They are calling cryonics speculative, questionable, and fringe, but their statement is inconsistent with a lable of pseudoscience. This statement supports the classification of cryonics as a questionable science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think you're just trying to read too much into a really short statement that isn't even about the question you're trying to answer. This is not an announcement on their position of the viability of cryonics, or about whether it's a pseudoscience or questionable science or whatever. It's just them saying they take no position on the issue of whether people should be freezing their corpses. This really can't be used as a source for whether or not cryonics is a pseudoscience because it doesn't even address that issue. It's already used in the article as a source for a statement that it actually supports: that they believe freezing your corpse is a personal choice. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If cryonics is a pseudoscience, there is a zero percent chance that it will work. The statement says that cryonics might work with future (scientific) research. It is relevant. There is a difference between pseudoscience and questionable science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to do some in-depth analysis of this single-paragraph announcement to try and decipher some kind of position out of it that simply isn't there, then that's original research. At this point, you're just doing your own interpretation of a primary source. If the Society of Cryobiology had some position on whether or not cryonics is a pseudo-science, they'd make themselves clear. And I disagree with your interpretation. "Can only come from" does not imply "can come from". The first gives no indication that it is possible, it just says that if it is, it will be through this means. One could say that time travel, or perpetual motion, or discovering the True Name of God "can only come from" careful and conscientious research. That doesn't mean any of those things is remotely possible, just that if they ever do happen, it will be through the means of careful research. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

They are calling cryonics speculative, questionable, and fringe, but their statement is inconsistent with a lable [sic] of pseudoscience

Am I missing something? The statement does NOT say "speculative", "questionable", OR "fringe", but DOES say "not science": how the hell does this NOT make it pseudoscience instead of science -- questionable, fringe, speculative, or otherwise? --Calton | Talk 13:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

How? Because for the term “pseudoscience” to apply in the usual sense, you have to have something masquerading as a science (by which we mean a natural science, not a general practical science like political science) but which IS NOT ONE. Not a bona fide natural science. For any reason, including ignorance.

“Science” remember, is a tricky word—there’s a larger definition which means just “knowledge” as “reduced to a algorithm, and not an art.” Such as “I have concrete-finishing down to a science.” But by the word here in bioscience we mean “natural science” which is both method and body of knowledge. Ordinary praxis is not natural science. An engineer or physician is not automatically a scientist, although of course the search for new knowledge can take place within almost any practice (so there are both engineers who are also scientists, and physicians who are scientists—- but not ALL of them). You start doing science the moment when you start to look for new knowledge in the proper way, (and publish). You can do natural science whenever you do an experiment.

This causes some confusion with cryonics, as it looks like an experiment, in a way (with anybody not participating part of the control group). But it really is not set up that way. If anybody chooses to look at cryonics with the scientific eye, they need time and outcomes measurements and grant money and the proper point of view, as in any sociological natural experiment. But cryonics is not primarily an experiment. It’s more basic.

Cryonics generally does not *claim* to be a science like physics. Or even a well developed technology like medicine. It’s simply a practice, more like first-aid. You accidentally cut off a finger using a chain saw far up the mountain, and you put it in a bag with ice and go off down the mountain hoping you can find somebody who can re-attach it. If it’s even reattachable. You don’t know. The future will tell. Hope is involved. That’s not science you’re doing, there, but it is a LOT like cryonics. It’s not pseudoscience, protoscience, fringe science, or any kind of (natural) science. The article would be improved if it just described it using other language.

And, no, cryonics is not magically made into a pseudoscience because some cryobiologist quoted in some newspaper says it is. He’s simply wrong (and is clearly not a philosopher of science). If I called Christian Science a “pseudoscience” I’d be wrong too— by virtue of misunderstanding English. And they even use the word. Just not in the way that allows me to judge them for it, as I have misunderstood what is claimed.

The money in cryonics plus the input of biology tempts one to employ the word “quackery”, but that’s fundamentally wrong also. The money in cryonics is for storage—nobody contracts or promises you’ll get fixed at the other end. An analogy might be a hard drive you fry so badly that no company you can find can recover any data from it. At that point you can throw it away, or else put it in a dry container and store it (hoping technology for disc recovery improves). If somebody charges you money to do the last (store the presently worthless junk), whether they are frauds or not depends on what they promise you. So don’t call them names until you read the storage contract. The advertising amounts to "See for yourself if there's still data there!" Does physics forbid it?

Having said all that, I propose to write a better lede and simply define cryonics as Webster does: the practice of [cryopreserving] a person who has died of a disease in hopes of restoring life at some future time when a cure for the disease has been found. Some people think that such hopes can be based on present scientific knowledge, and others do not. Fair enough? SBHarris 06:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You're made your point very clearly, and at great length, and have been repeatedly told that others disagree. I think you should probably read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before you embark on any major changes to the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No, misleading readers is not fair enough. The article needs to highlight the fact that cryonics is based on a false hope. Of course anything might happen. However, articles do not say that apples fall down but might one day fall up. Articles are based on what is currently known—there only two things currently known about cryonics: (1) it is expensive; and (2) it is pseudoscience. See WP:REDFLAG about why gold-plated references are not needed to prove that a dead person is dead. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, and the claim that cryonicsts are not pedalling their stuff as "science" is false. From Alcor's web site front page, literally, they state "Cryonics is the science of using ultra-cold temperature to preserve human life".[12] Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, I believe that word is being used there in the larger sense of "science" as any knowledge or practice (library science, or the science of flat tire repair) and not meaning "natural science" like physics. I'll send Alcor a note suggesting they change it to "practice" to avoid misleading people.

And yes, I get that others disagree. When I edit medical articles WP editors disagree with me all the time. When they are shown wrong, then I hear **crickets** As for gold plated references that a dead person was dead, if that were always true we'd only need one article about death. Certainly no article about clinical death, because those people are dead (end of story). So, by analogy, it's not quite so simple. It more like Romeo and Juliet. Remember what happened to Juliet? In Utah some 30 years ago, they pulled a little girl out of cold stream in which she had drowned more than an hour before, and was still submerged. A century ago, she would have been dead. Simply dead. However, the Utah doctors had a heart-lung machine, and refused to give up. SBHarris 01:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your philosophizing and analogizing is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the content of this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and the response to losing an argument being "I'll ask Alcor to change the web site" is most amusing. For the avoidance of doubt the Cryonics Society specifically refer to cryonics as "the science of using extreme low temperature to preserve and restore life" and its founder claims that while cryonics "used to be seen as science fiction ... Now it's becoming science fact".[13] Pseudoscience is, by [our] definition "statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method". That is exactly what we see with the cryonics "industry". Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, that was one hell of a lot of words to say "I got nothin'" in answer to my question. --Calton | Talk 06:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider that I lost the argument about Alcor's website, for I know the person who wrote the lines, and I know perfectly well he doesn't think cryonics is a natural science. He is a scientist and knows the difference. It's a language problem and will be dealt with. As for "The Cryonics Society" they are a very different entity: an ad-site which doesn't do cryonics, but will take your money to give you information about it. As though you couldn't Google it. They have no address. These people are not EVEN flaks. They don't represent the industry, but only themselves, in the process of taking your money for information you could get from the people who actually do practice cryonics. Probably the poor and uninformative state of the Wikipedia article, which comes up on Google first, actually helps these people. Be proud of that. SBHarris 07:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A WP:COI. That explains it. Anyway, while you go looking for your true Scotsman, remember that Wikipedia is a reality-based project. Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Now, now. Assume good faith. I'm in no sense a WP:COI. I'm not paid to be here or edit here. If the WP article on cryonics is deleted, it affects me not in the least. I do admit to being a subject matter expert. Which WP encourages to edit. Though God knows why, as editing within your own SM expertise is just bound to cause anger-management and blood-pressure-problems. SBHarris 07:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:PAID editing is the most egregious form of abusing a WP:COI but as the guidelines makes clear, any external relationship may constitute COI. I'd suggest if you're in the position where you know who is writing particular text on Cryonics web sites, and can pick up the phone to get it changed, then there is an external relationship here that needs managing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah? Aren't you the guy who writes articles on international standards, about the standards that during the day he helps to standardize? Let's pretend you worked for Alcor and wrote about Alcor standards. Hmmm. But I have no such analogous position. My salary doesn't come from them. I have zero authority over their advertising. My interest here is as a volunteer, just as (I hope) yours is. If I talk to Alcor about advertising it is about the same as customer service with a small plumber, and they are the plumber. I am also a physician and physiologist. That doesn't give me a COI about medicine or physiology.SBHarris 08:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You know the people, you can request changes to their material and (you say) "it will be dealt with". As WP:COI makes clear you don't have to receive a "salary" to have a COI. I've had my time at WP:COI/N. I suggest you now need to abide by our WP:COIADVICE and stop editing this article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Alexbrn :) I read all this just now. Hence the reversion I made. It's not pseudoscience. That's clear to all objective parties. Cheers Theodorus75 (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be suffering a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I've weighed in on this section yet. I've been waiting for things to die down a little before adding more to the discussion, as it has been a bit heated of late. I would of course support the motion to remove the pseudoscience label. Fringe science sort of fits, depending on what you mean by it. It is the case that cryonics is not popular within the scientific community, as could be said of most demographics, but I don't see a lot of evidence that it is regarded as outright pseudoscience. Even highly critical sources like Schermer have typically elected to label it things like 'borderlands science' or 'science fiction' rather than water down the term 'pseudoscience' for this purpose, and it's clear to see why. Lsparrish (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hoppe Reference

In this added reference in support of "characterized as quackery", the quote seems misleading as excerpted and may not constitute support for that statement. Here is the full paragraph it is excerpted from:

Indeed, where the discussion at some point centres upon what the best interests of JS are it seems clear that it must be ever so slightly more in her interest to preserve an opportunity of resurrection, albeit enormously remote, than it is to be interred and decay irreversibly. It seems clear that there is very little sensible argument which would allow the Court to deny her final wish. The mere fact that we feel the promises made by the cryopreservation industry amount to a most grievous form of quackery is insufficient to justify an interference, just as we do not have to like or agree with the reasons why adherents to some religions used to refuse blood transfusions. (source)

My reading of this is that Hoppe (the lawyer discussing the case) is not taking a personal stance, nor quoting a medical authority, but discussing a hypothetical stance where one claims that cryonics is 'a most grievous form of quackery', in order to clarify the court's decision as correct even under that extreme assumption.

See the cited court case EWHC 2859, which may be of interest for other reasons. Lsparrish (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Should that one be removed Lsparrish ? - Theodorus75 (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We should give some time for a consensus to build among the other editors. I think my interpretation is pretty obviously correct from a neutral perspective. I have also contacted Hoppe via twitter, and he has clarified that this was simply trying to illustrate a point about how irrelevant the majority's opinion on the matter of its outcome is to the permissibility of the practice. Lsparrish (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's a medical ethicist literally calling "the promises made by the cryopreservation industry amount to a most grievous form of quackery" in a BMJ source (and yes, BMJ blog posts are edited). There is no credible reason not to understand that that cite is to a medical ethicist literally calling "the promises made by the cryopreservation industry amount to a most grievous form of quackery". It's really not difficult to understand that that's what's happening here - David Gerard (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is another case, by the way, where both of you appear to be actually unable to understand the very clear language used in a source to support a particular point. This is not a level of competence that suggests you should be trying to examine sources at all - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Since you bring up the matter of competence, I would highly recommend reading that page yourself. In today's world we have an epidemic of people who just google sources and don't consider their meaning. I'm discussing this in good faith. Context matters. Who is Hoppe, and why is he using that particular wording? It appears he is a biomedical professor of law, meaning his phrasing should typically be considered from the perspective of a lawyer making an argument. He is discussing a court case, furthering this perspective. However, we don't have to guess at his intentions because I took the liberty of asking Hoppe to clarify his wording on Twitter, since he is active there. Here is his reply:

I‘m illustrating the point that, on the face of it, it makes no difference to the question of the practice’s permissibility whether the majority reject that a it has any meaningful purpose whatsoever or not. (@nillshoppe on twitter)

Clearly, he is echoing a hypothetical social majority perspective for the sake of illustrating a point. Lsparrish (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice investigation Lsparrish :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And yet, the reference still stands as making his point: it's quackery. And the tweet doesn't in any way negate that: it's talking about a legal point. I've restored the reference - I think you'll need more than bizarre misreadings to claim the reference doesn't say what it very clearly and explicitly says - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What you are doing is essentially misquoting. The source clearly did not intend to take a position on the matter, rather he described a position (one that you strongly hold, apparently) in order to address its objections from a legal standpoint. Please stop edit-warring and allow more neutral parties a chance to weigh in on this matter. Lsparrish (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What he said precisely supports the claim: that it is characterised as "quackery". That's what the plain words in the cite mean. I note you also didn't link the actual Twitter discussion, including your question - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Lsparrish did link to it I think? I clicked the link and saw the question etc. Not sure why you think he didn't. Also, "What he said precisely supports the claim". That's not true now is it - Theodorus75 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Lsparrish's interpretation of my article is correct. It is intended to be an illustration of even the strongest possible (and even emotive) objection not making a normative difference - Nchoppe (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

cheers! The actual usage is for the quote "the promises made by the cryopreservation industry amount to a most grievous form of quackery" as an indication of cryonics being regarded as "quackery" - did you mean here to express that cryonics was regarded as "quackery", or not to? thanks :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and for the volunteer work you and the other editors are doing here to create this fantastic resource. I admit that I find the discussion a little bit baffling. The sentence in question says that (I paraphrase) "the promises made by the industry amount to quackery" and not "cryonics amounts to quackery". Whilst I appreciate that the onus is on my to be as clear as possible, I still feel that the sentence construction makes it clear what is referred to as quackery. In addition, the context within the text shows that it is meant as the illustration of an extreme position in order to test the normative effect even such an extreme position would have. As a lawyer and academic I would also expect readers not to read my analyses as an expression of a personal opinion, but of the systematic dissection of a topic and the related arguments. I hope this helps to clarify things. Kind regards! Nchoppe (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We are grateful to Nchoppe for taking time out from his busy schedule in order to assist us in our work here. I hope his careful words will also inject some scholarly detachment into the proceedings :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone is confused: As Theodorus75 notes, I did indeed link to the Twitter discussion above, in the same blockquote where I referenced it. I did not reference it without linking to it as David Gerard suggested. For whatever reason, not only has David Gerard (who, in addition to adding this cite, has repeatedly expressed his own strong opinions about cryonics being quackery) not only neglected to remove this erroneous cite, but reverted my attempts to do so on two occasions. One of these occasions (July 1) was after Nchoppe's clarifying remarks above. After the first time he reverted, I removed again and recommended referring to Talk for the reason why. This was reverted by Alexbrn, who then proceeded to add further prejudicial wording to the article. Three other editors (Calton, McSly, and Retimuko) have re-added the cite (and Alexbrn's prejudicial wording) without apparently consulting the Talk page to see why it was removed or commenting here on why it should remain despite the author's repeated clarification. I am hopeful that this situation will resolve itself, but as it stands, the cite is erroneous and should be removed. Lsparrish (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think on balance it is correct the Hoppe reference should be removed. It only indirectly supports the quackery claim as it invokes a hypothetical situation where cryonics being seen as quackery is an aspect to a decision. There are ample other sources here to satisfy policy requirements. However the neutral wording (what is called "prejudicial") is great and should stay! Alexbrn (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus appears to support the removal of this misleading quote. The inclusion of prejudicial wording and whether it qualifies as quackery are a different discussion entirely. Lsparrish (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone brave enough to try to remove it again? :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hoppe reference again

Why has this been put back? The man specifically came here and said that's not what he meant did he not - Theodorus75 (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you know that this was him? We are citing a reputable source. He might consider publishing a correction or get it retracted or something that can be verified. Retimuko (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem (looking at it more closely) is that the source doesn't quite support the quackery text. I'd support its removal now. We have plenty of other sources, so the article text should remain as-is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Alexbrn, that's sensible - Theodorus75 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Retimuko , are you suggesting someone was impersonating him? - Theodorus75 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am suggesting that Wikipedia editors are anonymous. We cannot possibly verify, and must not even try to find out who is who according to policies. We must go by reliable secondary sources. Retimuko (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks Retimuko, understood. In this case, your good point aside, it was definitely him tho. I think you may chat with him elsewhere and verify his discombobulation :). Anyway, the Hoppe ref gotta go.... just because it's got the word 'quackery' in it doesn't mean it's saying cryonics is quackery, its meaning is distinctly different - Theodorus75 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I left a message on the user talk page pointing to information on how to confirm identity if wanted. —PaleoNeonate – 02:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The man coming by and discussing it here was irrelevant to the argument for removing this misleading cite, so it's not important whether he verifies his identity. It should have been gone already. I'm mystified as to why it keeps getting added back in. Lsparrish (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:V issues?

I have tried to add an initial couple of sentences of additional information that might help readers understand how cryonics is characterised. This was:

In the scientific literature it has been called "A speculative practice at the outer edge of science and it is also noted that it is "viewed with suspician".. In the popular press it has been called "weird and hopeful". In the healthcare industry it has been refered to as being "etween science and science fiction". In the general technical press the depictions have included that it is "deserving of open-minded discussion" or that it is "Misguided" amongst others.

Reasons given by Alexbrn for deletion was "wild original research" and then "WP:V". Theodorus75 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Exactly. Or have I missed something? Please quote the text in the first source which supports "In the scientific literature it has been called ...". This just looks like editorial spun around a handful of primary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Concur with the reversion and Alexbrn's reasons. This is an encyclopedia article, not a place to post personal essays or fragments in essay style - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Alex and David are correct. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No, this content is perfectly acceptable. It's in the same style as found elsewhere. I will attempt to re-add it. Theodorus75 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is plainly fringe advocacy, it stays out. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I note my question was not answered and the OP has declared their intention to edit war. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:GF in this context. The section you objected to was referenced with a journal article with the text "A speculative practice at the outer edge of science, cryonics is often viewed with suspicion" right in the abstract. Your question may have been confusing to the OP. Note that it's a medical ethics journal, so it doesn't carry the weight of a cryobiology or neuroscience journal, but more than say a newspaper article. Lsparrish (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The section that Alexbrn reverted regarding characterization looks fairly unobjectionable to me on WP:NOR and WP:V, as well as avoiding WP:PROFRINGE, although I'm not sure we need another entire section devoted to it. Could be merged under reception. We might not need more popular press stuff, but if we are going to talk about popular press references to it being things like pseudoscience or quackery (discussions elsewhere in Talk), this may be necessary to avoid problems with WP:UNDUE with respect to those specific, highly unusual characterizations. Lsparrish (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)