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

[Brett Paatsch]

For some reason the exchange between Smalley and Drexler
reminded me of a story I read when studying research methods
in psychology years ago. I found the text book _Research Methods
In Psychology_ (1985. Shaughnessy and Zechmeisser) and include
the story below:

"Can The Null Hypothesis Ever Be Accepted As True?

When we take a strict approach to null hypothesis testing - that the
only acceptable decisions are to reject H0 or to fail to reject H0 -
we are essentially acknowledging the fact that it is impossible to
prove that something does not exist. For example -

if we were to propose that there was a monster in Lake Michigan,
you would be unable to prove to us that this was not so. Putting
ecological conditions aside for the moment, you might drain Lake
Michigan and show that no monster is there. We could simply assert
that the monster dug into the bed of the lake. You might then begin to
dredge the lake and still come up with no monster; we could argue
that our monster is digging faster than you are dredging. Becoming
more desperate, you might fill the lake with explosives, and after
detonating them, find no remains of the monster. We could calmly
propose that our monster is impervious to explosives. So long as
we were free to add characteristics to our monster, there is no test
that you could perform that would convincingly show that the monster
does not exist."

I disagree with those who think that Drexler is ahead on points in the
debate with Smalley unless points are awarded to Drexler because the
debate is now at least happening with more earnestness and engagement
than previously. I think it is encouraging that Smalley is inviting chemists
to challenge the molecular nanotechnology views and nightmares of
Drexler (as he Smalley claims to see them). Let the truth out, and more
to the point as it is politics that matters more than philosophy let more
of the voting public see more of the truth outed.

I suspect that I am not alone in not quite grasping all that Drexler has
said yet and possibly for similar reasons. I simply haven't had (or made)
the time to tease out the facts yet and I don't get impressed with what
MAY BE numerology however eruditely it is expressed - there are plenty
of other things to divert me. I own a hardcopy of Nanosystems and have
read several chapters of it. I'll confess my prejudice that I would be in a
minority
even on this list in having gone that far. I wonder how many others would
see
(accurately or otherwise - and POLITICALLY that DOES NOT MATTER
as the default is no or very little action in either case) Drexlerian
notions of
self replicating nanomachines as like the assertion that there is a monster
in
Lake Michigan in the story above. I wonder if others like me see the switch
from talking about enzymes in a biological paradigm (for which there are
existence proofs but limited ones) to taking about factories a mechanical
paradigm (for which we have no fully self-replicating existence proofs that
I
can see - human - biological intervention is necessary still for factories
to
replicate factories to my knowledge). I can't help wonder, even as I keep
an open mind, and am aware of my emotional bias towards molecular
manufacturing whether something isn't being dropped in the switch between
the two paradigms.

Regards,
Brett