[extropy-chat] Wired article on Drexler

[Emlyn]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:04:46 +0800, Sean Diggins
<sean at valuationpartners.com.au> wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney"
> Sent: Sunday, 26 September 2004 2:35 PM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Wired article on Drexler
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> My opinion, as I have stated here before, is that when reduced to these
> terms, Drexler loses.  He has the burden of proof here.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> And rightly so.
> It falls within the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> proof"....statement which is rightly used by all skeptics.
> 
> 
> Sean

Why isn't all of terrestrial biology usable as proof? It makes a
pretty solid proof of concept as far as I'm concerned.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *