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

[Hal Finney]

Brett Paatsch writes:

> 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.

I had a similar reaction.  Here is a posting I was working on about the
debate at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html:

One of the problems I often see in debates about nanotechnology is an
attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the other side.  (This is
actually a widespread problem in debates on all topics, but I think
it is particularly inappropriate with nanotech.)  In the online debate
between Drexler and Smalley, it seems sometimes that the issue is, "Are
the fat-finger and/or sticky-finger problems inherent to all possible
nanotech assembler designs?"  This puts the burden on the critic to show
that there are no possible designs which could evade a particular problem,
a virtually impossible task.

But that's not fair.  The big issue here is obvious: will Drexlerian
nanotech work?  Will we have the kind of revolutionary developments
described in Engines of Creation and Drexler's other books?  Will we
have self-replicating machines which can replace most of the world's
industrial capacity in a manner of, what, a few years? months? days?

These are extraordinary claims, and many experts in physics and chemistry
say that they are not credible.  The burden of proof here is obvious.
It is on the nanotech supporter, not the critic.  He is the one making
amazing predictions.  He is the one who must support his claims by
providing evidence in the form of technological plans and designs
sufficient to make a strong case that this will all be possible.

He can't just wave his hands and say, if one thing doesn't work, we'll
try something else.  He can't point to living things as an existence
proof (because Drexlerian nanotech's revolutionary properties go far
beyond anything possible with biology).  He needs to come up with
enough specifics to make his case.  The burden of proof is on him.
Supporters of Drexlerian nanotech must take on this burden squarely and
refrain from demands that critics prove that the technology is impossible.

Along these lines, let me ask a question.  In his open letter, Drexler
complains about Smalley's statement that assemblers will suffer from
the "fat finger" and "sticky finger" problems.  He writes, "I find this
puzzling because, like enzymes and ribosomes, proposed assemblers neither
have nor need these 'Smalley fingers'."

So I will ask, what "proposed assemblers"?  What is Drexler referring
to, a proposal for an assembler that doesn't have these problems?
My understanding is that we lack any designs for self-replicating
assemblers that would be sufficiently detailed to know that they will
work and not need "fingers".  If Drexler has an assembler proposal that
answers this question, I'd appreciate a pointer to it.

Hal