[extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Sun Dec 7 08:37:33 UTC 2003


Technotranscendence wrote:

> John K Clark jonkc at att.net wrote:
------[Brett]
> >> it is a mistake to think that the burden of proof
> >>  lies on Smalley.
> >
> > I disagree, I think the burden of proof is on
> > Smalley. Drexler is proposing a construction
> > machine, lots of such devices have been made;
> > to say it is imposable even in principle for this
> > particular construction machine to ever exist you
> > need to identify which law of physics it would
> > violate. Smalley has not done this and neither
> > has anyone else.
>
> I agree.  An analogy might prove helpful.
[snip]
> >> I think it was David Hume that said that
> >> extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> >> evidence.
> >
> > Yes, and the claim that a machine that
> > organizes matter in a certain manner
> > will always be imposable is extraordinary.
>
> I agree.
[snip]

Two questions then, one sort of scientific or at least empirical, the second
political.

1) What *particular* machine is being considered? (I think I'm just
paraphrasing Hal here actually, so perhaps better to answer Hal).

2) If neither Drexler (and associates) nor Smalley (and associates) were to
*accept* the burden of proof scientifically what happens by default
politically?

Regards,
Brett








More information about the extropy-chat mailing list