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

[Technotranscendence]

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 3:37 AM Brett Paatsch
bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au wrote:
> 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).

The particular design would make it much easier to demonstrate
impossibility.  Of course, even if a particular design fails, this does
not mean the general idea is impossible.  This would be akin to the
particular pre-Wright airplane designs that failed proving
heavier-than-air flight was impossible.  (Also, just like the airplane
analogy, nanotechnological construction is already done by non-made-made
things like enzymes.  Birds, insects, and bats already had
heavier-than-air flight before humanity.)

Smalley has also given specific reasons why he believes nanotechnology
won't work -- the fat and sticky fingers arguments, the that only
organics can do this construction in water (very close to the view that
only birds can fly which someone might have made prior to Kitty Hawk),
and the like.  These specific empirical claims are wrong and he should
know better.  In fact, all of this seems like the 10-leaky-buckets
Tactic -- the view that 10 invalid arguments somehow add up to a valid
one.  (I often see theists using this when defending their belief in
God.  They will, e.g., present a lot of arguments -- not necessarily
ten:) -- that are all invalid, but most people are not logicians, so
maybe the average person might see through a few of them, but still be
convinced by others.  Also, they're trying to use an analogy with
evidence: as evidence accumulates, usually an idea is made more
persuasive, but the same does not hold with invalid arguments.  It's
sort of akin to the view that if you have enough fictions, eventually
they'll add up to fact.)

I'm not claiming Smalley is doing this on purpose or has a bad
character -- or even that others who actually use the 10-leaky-buckets
Tactic are likewise bad people, consciously trying to use illogic to
support their claims.  I'm just saying this is how it appears,
especially given how sophomoric and easily defeated his arguments were.
(In fact, the only thing that actually supports his conclusion is that
we don't have nanotechnology now.  Of course, to claim something's
impossible because we can't do it at this moment is not a very strong or
compelling argument.  It would only convince people who either were
already biased in that direction or who did not understand the technical
details.  Sure, such people do exist, but I hardly think Smalley merely
wants to preach to the choir and the ignorant.)

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

I don't understand the use of "politically" in the above question.  Do
you mean that the science will drive the politics?  I don't think so.
In the short term, the politics will be based less on where the science
actually can do -- which can fall either way: Drexler could be right or
he could be wrong (Smalley can't be right because his argument is
invalid; at best, his conclusion might be right, but for different
reasons) -- than on who has more clout, even who can persuade more
people in positions of power which amounts to the same thing.

In a rational society, this wouldn't matter much, since science would be
a private endeavor and both Drexler and Smalley could carry on their
work: Drexler trying to build a nanoassember, any nanoassembler and
Smalley trying to prove it can't be built.  Actually, were the latter a
little more rational, he would make an excellent foil and help the whole
effort -- whatever is possible or whatever happens in the end.  (If
nanotechnology is truly beyond our capabilities, he might hasten our
acceptence of this view. If it is not, then he might help us to avoid
fruitless areas of research or to highlight specific problems that
enthusiasts might overlook.  Likewise Drexlerians would help him out as
well.  If nanotech is impossible, their continued looking for a solution
might refine our understanding of matter at that level by defining the
actual limits of our capabilities.)

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/