Talk:Cryobiology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Cryobiology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Fairness
A whole side in Wikipedia exclusively devoted to "cryonics" is a fair option for people believing in cryonics. Funny enough that these people call you "hostile" when you ask them not to use the "cryobiology" page for their purposes as well. - Andreas Sputtek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sputtek (talk • contribs) 11:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Characterization of Cryonics
It was written that
- Unlike cryogenics or cryobiology, cryonics does not fufill the prerequisits of an established science such as using accepted scientific methods. It lacks successful studies in the sense that an animal or human being has ever been revived after cryogenic storage so far. Another fundamental principle of science is not fulfilled which is reproducibility.
Saying that AIDS had been cured without evidence would be a violation of principles of science. However saying that cures are theoretically possible, and pursuing them, would not. So it's not really proper to characterize cryonics in the manner above. Cryonics is different from cryobiology because unlike cryobiology cryonics does not seek basic knowledge of nature. In that sense cryonics is not a science (but neither is most of cryogenics). Even as an applied technology cryonics is different from cryobiology because the efficacy of the technology for its final purpose cannot be demonstrated. However to imply that basic concepts of science are being ignored is not correct. 71.160.248.79 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edits by 134.100.96.110
134.100.96.110 has deleted references which provide readers with background understanding of the issues, including references to peer-reviewed journal pieces (text from a cryonics organization website). 134.100.96.110 should provide justification or at least some argument for this censorship here in the discussion page before imposing his/her views. --GirlForLife 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- References to peer-reviewed journal articles should be to PubMed, not to the pages of a cryonics organization. I have corrected the referencing, while preserving access to the full text. --GirlForLife 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of cryonics references as violation of NPOV
Wikipedia has a policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV). The fact that the Society of Cryobiology is hostile to cryonics is not proof that cryonics is not scientific, especially in light of the high representation of scientists within the cryonics community. Cryobiology cannot escape its association with cryonics, as is evidence by the denuciation of cryonics practice in bold letters in the Scientific Societies section of the Cryobiology entry. One of the references that was removed was written by a scientist in the peer-reviewed journal 'Medical Hypothesis'. To remove references to scientists and the science of cryonics from the Cryobiology page is strongly biased and in violation of presenting a fair and balanced view. We should hope that Cryobiologists have a capacity for fairmindedness (despite their opinions), respect the fact that Wikipedia has a NPOV policy and respect the fact that Wikipedia is an open-sourced reference that is not "owned" by any one -- including members of the Society for Cryobiology. --GirlForLife 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
