1.) The main point of contention between Smalley and Drexler is whether or not nanobots can exist in the physical world and whether or not they can practically manufacture or molecularly assemble macroscopic objects.
2.) Besides their scientific reputations being at stake both are risking the possible future of Nano Technology. Smalley by Drexler's idea of Nano Mechanical Factories with Nano Assemblers and spreading fear of autonomous Nanobots that can communicate and spread like a new disease prevents potential funding for Nanotechnologies and jeopardizes current funding.
3.) Drexler Challenged Smalley's assumption that Nanobots would have "fat" and "sticky" fingers and provided a counter arguement against the need for enzymes and biological chemistry with his theory of mechanosynthesis. Smalley provided reasons as to why Drexler's reasoning was wrong and notes that Drexler has not yet given a well enough explanation for how to create and stabalize molecular bonds between atoms stating that Drexler is living in a world where the laws of chemistry do not apply.
4.) Smalley added to his ethos and tried winning the audience by agreeing with Drexler numerous times while all Drexler had to do was mention he received his Ph.D from MIT, coined the phrase "Nano Technology", and has been a leading authority on such since the 1980's, since which, he has written many books and articles on the subject.
5.) Smalley in his article "Nano Fallacies" actually used the slippery slope fallacy where he proposed the creation of self-replication nanobots would lead to the end of the world as we know it. It is a fallacy because Nanobots are not inevitably the cause of the end of the world, it is only a possibility. Drexler although provides a lengthy and scientific explanation as a rebuttal uses a logical fallacy in doing so. Just because Drexler uses scientific jargon to mask the fact that he is oversimplifying the facts does not mean he is providing a well thought out argument.
6.) I think Drexler provided a righteous smack down on Smalley. For a while both made good points and were toe to toe but as Drexler kept his composure and gave clear and concise points, Smalley rejects the ideas because they are from a scientific field unknown to him and lashes out on Drexler personally than attacking his argument. Drexler's thing about quoting a respected scientist (Smalley) was also really brilliant, for it made Smalley look like a Jerk.
No comments:
Post a Comment