Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
nextbigfuture.com
Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#2It's an interesting technique to claim that your opponent is worth rebutting but not worth linking to.
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#3It's an interesting technique to claim that your opponent is worth rebutting but not worth linking to.
It is indeed poor form but all you have to do is to follow the first link which will show you the one in question.
It's sufficiently vile and inaccurate (the guy's a small time Smalley who even ends his essay with a quote from that liar) that I can see why he refused to directly link to it. Plus since it's mostly a hand waving attempt to deny all of what Drexler has been saying, the author is not addressing the essay so much as pointing out why Drexler's proposition has never been tested (it's never been funded).
ADDED: On the other hand, I suppose all this is only fitting, given Drexler's belief back then that rational science policy was possible and his enthusiasm for mechanisms that would enable this. In the '70s and '80s there were clearly aspects of human nature he just couldn't wrap his head around.
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#4I'm having problems parsing this title.
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#5I'm having problems parsing this title.
How about:
"Billions of Dollars Spent on 'Nanotechnology' Were Really Spent on Ordinary Chemistry"
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#6http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.brian.l.wang
The Author is an MBA from Canadian universities!
What authority the author has to talk on this subject he isn't a PhD in Chemistry, Physics or or Chemical or even Electrical Engineering?
Locklin is an idiot neverthless.
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#7http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.brian.l.wang The Author is an MBA from Canadian universities! What authority the author has to talk on this subject he isn't a PhD in Chemistry, Physics or or Chemical or even Electrical Engineering? Locklin is an idiot neverthless.
Given that the topic is legislative machinations about (research) funding and the diversion of such funding, it would seem to be well within his formal education on the subjects.
If you look at his list of publications you'll see they probably assume the science and technology (and he does have a CS undergraduate degree) and focus on appropriate stuff beyond that.
And all that said, you don't have to be too familiar with the science and engineering that Drexler has proposed to know when someone is misrepresenting it as grossly as Locklin. Just like anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry and Drexler's writings could tell that Smalley's "fat fingers" (emphasis on plural) was a strawman, since at that time Drexler had never proposed multiple "fingers" for just the reason Smally pointed out (not enough room for them to fit; qualification because I don't know anything about the current DNA approaches that are exciting a lot of people).
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#8It's an interesting technique to claim that your opponent is worth rebutting but not worth linking to.
It is indeed poor form but all you have to do is to follow the first link which will show you the one in question. It's sufficiently vile and inaccurate (the guy's a small time Smalley who even ends his essay with a quote from that liar) that I can see why he refused to directly link to it. Plus since it's mostly a hand waving attempt to deny all of what Drexler has been saying, the author is not addressing the essay…
I've noticed that many non-scientists who have read Drexler seem to acquire a level of belief that has more in common with religion than science. Religious characteristics of this include:
1. Getting so angry about those who disagree with you that you can't even bring yourself to link to the thing you're supposedly rebutting
2. Using "Smalley" like it's a swear word.
3. A reversal of the usual burden of proof (Drexler likes to go on about how nothing he wrote has ever been proven wrong yet, but usually the onus lies on those who say something is technologically possible rather than those who say it isn't.
4. And of course, attributing a lack of success in proving their hypothesis to something somewhere between incompetence and conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment.
What I find most aggravating about the molecular nanotechnology folks, though, is that they're always complaining that research on MNT is underfunded and understaffed, but so rarely propose specific research projects that we could actually do.
You think it's possible to build a universal assembler? Heck, I'm willing to entertain the idea. But how do we get there from here? What specific experiments and calculations can we start doing right now that can get us closer to that goal? I suspect that any answers to that question are likely to wind up looking like the "ordinary chemistry" which this MBA guy is so quick to deride.
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#9The author does not explain why govt-sponsored nanotech research elsewhere (Russia, China) turned out just as fruitless and the same kind of rebranding enterprise as in USA.
Re: Billions spent on Ordinary Chemistry Was called Nanotechnology
#10HackerNews has ruined my ability to read articles like this.
I got one paragraph in, saw him call somebody an "idiot", and hit the back button. Comments here have shown that ad hominem attacks are a strong indicator of a bad argument, so I've been trained to filter them out.