Talk:Cryonics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Page vandalism/edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

This page is sorely out dated

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

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

Is breaking thread a violation?

Where can I find the rules?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove Citation #5 (2024-01-29)

I read "The Skeptics Dictionary" and cryonics is not found anywhere in the book. Subsequently, I confirmed via search on the Kindle format there is zero reference to Cryonics. Citation #5, said book, needs to be removed from this article. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Errrrrrm.[2] Bon courage (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You were likely reading a different edition than the one cited. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No, same ISBN. I ordered both the physical book and the Kindle just to make sure. The citation (#5) needs to be removed. I'm new to this, not sure on procedure. How to handle? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You were reading the 2003 print edition? Because that's the one that was cited. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And if not, we can just correct the ref since this is something Carroll has written about. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the '03 print. 70.171.228.224 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the '03 print.

I have it sitting next to me on the table, and there's no reference to cryonics. I literally bought both the print and Kindle copies specifically to read the citation. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, then it sounds like we need to correct the cite, if Bon courage has another source for the statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response/investigation.

Since I'm new to this, can you set my expectations on how long the correction may take? Is it usually a days or weeks long process? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not really any rush, since this isn't a critically harmful issue. Bon courage indicated there's likely an alternative source, but it's a volunteer project, so hopefully we'll have that fixed in the next few days or so. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Few days, cool. A week, fine. Thanks for updating. (removal or new citation). I'll watch the process. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Bon Courage has updated the reference accordingly as of this morning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

I've read the updated reference. Another change is warranted to the citation.

"Cryonics" itself is not a business by definition, and the quote in the citation states, "A business based on little more than hope for developments that can be imagined by science is quackery. There is little reason to believe that the promises of cryonics will ever be fulfilled."

Sure, there are organizations in the "business of cryonics", but this article is not about business, and therefore, the quote is inappropriate.

I propose quoting Carroll's opinion based on the technology, which is more applicable to this article that an opinion on business. Quote follows, second paragraph:

"The technology exists to freeze or preserve people and that technology is improving and will probably get better." Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Cryonics only exists as a business, selling you the idea that you'll be thawed out and healed in the future. No one is freezing these bodies for free. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

With respect, that is a strawman.

Medicine exists as a business. Delivery services exists as a business. Even Wikipedia exists as a business, and the list goes on.

This article is not about business.

So, a 10+ year old quote from Carroll, who is a philosopher, narrowly focuses on business? How does that make sense?

If the editors feel the need to cite a philosophy PhD, then shouldn't the quote/opinion/citation focus on their specialty rather than a cherry-picked quote outside of their domain? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The quote is a representative sample of the source in question, which is in turn accurately summarized by our article. That's really all that matters for the purposes of Wikipedia. That you personally disagree with the source about whether or not Cryonics is a business isn't particularly relevant. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The sealioning here is evident. You stripped all the nuance out of my comment, reduced it to absurd degrees, then declared it a strawman.

My point was that the business of cryonics is to sell a lie. They cannot do what they promise, they're just fleecing people for money.

And now you're back on the "10+ year" bit, as if that's some damning bit of logic. It only exposes that you're not arguing in good faith, and I'm done interacting with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"My point was that the business of cryonics is to sell a lie. They cannot do what they promise, they're just fleecing people for money." Cryonics providers do what they promise: they cryopreserve people. Most of the cryonics providers are non-profit, and Cryonics Germany does it for free. Dogah (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

They're not freezing people for the hell of it.

They're offering an unproven service that is almost entirely faith-based.

Not only do you have to have faith that some future peoples will invent the second half of the process, you have to have faith that the first half is even being done correctly, because it can't be validated until the whole process is tested from start to finish.

That is not science, but it's being presented as science. It is pseudo-science. ApLundell (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if cryostasis revival is unproven, as long as it's not disproven. If you are buried or cremated, you will stay dead forever. If you want to stay alive, the most logical way is to be cryopreserved, because cryonics might give you a chance to continue living.

Not only future peoples will try to solve the revival problem. To prevent further injury from happening, many cryonicists are developing better preservation practices or rewarming practices right now. Dogah (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, By that standard we can't say with 100% certainty that we won't be able to revive a person without bothering to freeze them, say from a bone or hair sample. This isn't a convincing argument because relying on future uncertainty like this is an inherently unfalsifiable claim, which is the main hallmark of a pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Chopping the quote off there would be misrepresenting the source, which goes on to say that This seems like wishful thinking and without a complete isomorphic model of the brain it will be impossible to return a mushy brain to the exact state it was in before death occurred. MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Admins: Call to replace editors.

I need help from Admins with authority to change editors entrusted with this article. I looked back through the records and, on 2019-June-24, editor David Gerard fabricated false information with current citation #5. This could only have been an deliberate act, and per Wikipedia self-governance, is a gross violation that should carry severe consequences. Further, editor Bon courage expressed personal bias with a "bullocks" response on 2024-Jan-31 when someone else simply pointed out the page is sorely outdated. The other user is correct, this article is sorely outdated and the data has been willfully falsified. It needs a detailed review and rewrite, and there's a global community willing, able, and well informed, many of which will volunteer to collaborate on this article. What's the process to entrust this article with new, neutral editors? Entered into the permanent record this 1st day of February, 2024. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

**** Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion this is about advertising.

It is not a matter of advertising. It is a matter of fact. Information was deliberately falsified.

This is not a matter of advertising. This is a matter of fact. The information falsified, deliberately.

The Wikipedia community must self-govern, address gross violations, and find editors that will present truth.

Back to my original, unanswered question.

What's the process to entrust this article with new, neutral editors? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There isn't one. This is a volunteer project, you don't get to just eject editors because you're mad at them. Plus, dragging out a five-year-old edit in order to accuse an editor of "fabricated false information" is just ridiculous. Calling the page willfully falsified is a WP:NPA personal attack. Dial it down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks intended. I stated facts.

Fact: Information was falsified.

Fact: The information which was falsified could only have been done so willfully. My pointing this out is not intended to be a personal attack, it's an attack on the behavior of falsifying data, which I assume is a severe violation that demands some resolution.

Fact: As resolution, I asked for Admin support with finding editors who will write/maintain the article from a neutral point of view. I should reasonably assume the Wikipedia community supports truthful and neutral editors.

Thank you for responding quickly and professionally. If there are no Admins then, when violations occur, how do existing editors get replaced with truthful and neutral editors? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Skeptics Dictionary has an online edition and an (old) print edition. The content was in the online edition and the cite was to the print edition. This is at worst a minor clerical error, not deliberately falsified information.

You have fundamentally misunderstood how Wikipedia works here. Admins have no special authority over article content, they do not select editors to write and maintain articles. In fact there is no list of editors who have responsibility for any particular article - they are maintained by whomever happens to show up. There is a class of users called 'Admins', they are responsible for blocking vandals, deleting spam articles, and so on. They are more akin to custodians than kings of the wiki. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The information which was falsified could only have been done so willfully

And that's repeating the personal attack. Continue that, and I'll seek to have you blocked on those grounds.

how do existing editors get replaced with truthful and neutral editors?

First, see WP:TRUTH. Second, you don't "replace" editors. Either they got blocked for reasons like making personal attacks, or else you just calmly discuss changes and get WP:CONSENSUS. If you fail to gain consensus for your changes, you let it go and move on. That's it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ironically the user you are (stupidly) accusing of a 'gross violation' is David Gerard, who is ... an admin. Bon courage (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to make changes to this article, you can, you just need the reliable secondary sources to cite. Unfortunately this is a volunteer project and one can’t simply “replace” editors as there are no assigned editors; if you have a compelling source, it won’t be edited away. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)