[extropy-chat] Wired article on Drexler

[Sean Diggins]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

----------------------------------------
I was actually tackled off-list on this one, by Robert Bradbury.
I hope he wont mind me posting my response to him here.
Also, I thought there was still some argument regarding Drexler and his
ideas/theories among physicists, but I may be wrong.
I'm naturally skeptical, but I didn't join this list to be a wowser. I'm a
believer in the benefits of nano and I really want to live to see it become
a wonderfully useful technology used daily by all of us.
Here's what I said to Robert:

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury at aeiveos.com] 

Sean I believe said:

"And rightly so.
It falls within the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof"....statement which is rightly used by all skeptics."

*But* you fail to point out precisely which claims by Drexler are
"extraordinary" [and may thereby may be false.] I from a computer science
and biological background find almost all claims by Drexler to be true.
The only places I may be somewhat less certain involve the aspects of
molecular dynamics.
--------------------------------------------------------------

OK, I take your point. But, I wouldlike to say (and shoul have said) I'm not
a nano skeptic, but I share many of the fears and views expressed years ago
by Bill Joy.
(and also by Drexler)

-------------------------------------------------------------

>If you are going to cite
"extraordinary claims"
then you should damn well provide references.

----------------------------------------------------------
The references to which I applied the statement were contained in the
preceding "argument text". 

Ie "Smalley is saying, show me that it will work.  Drexler replies, show me
that it won't." This is something Hal wrote.....and it seems to be on the
money with respect to the piece he was quoting from. Maybe Drexler is right,
of course. I really hope he is, but I'm not a trained physicist. I've only
read as many white papers as I can understand, plus relatively "easy to
follow" books like Broderick's The Spike and The Last Mortal Generation. 

The statement made by Hal is the same as the statement made by skeptics when
assessing frauds and SCAMmers (ie So Called Alternative Medicine) such as
homeopaths. And in this sense, I agree with Hal. But if Hal's reading of the
two stances was incorrect, then my response was inappropriate. And sure, I'm
no expert on Drexler either, although I have followed his life and ideas for
many years. But I'm an audio engineer, not a scientist. Even so, I have
discussed nano and Drexler et al with a few close friends who are physics
professors. It is NOT a subject upon which there is wide agreement. That is
clear to me.

And hey, no need to scold me off-list. I quite capable of taking my medicine
in public.

-------------------------------------------------------------

>In my opinion if you read everything he has written (and I pretty much
have) he has met that proof.  If it cannot be recognized then you have a
problem of people not being sufficiently educated in the field to validate
the evidence in front of their eyes.

--------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest he has met the requirements of credible theory. As to
"proof", what exactly qualifies as proof in nano at this juncture? 

And yes, things will get worse before they get better. Bill Joy was not a
lunatic when he wrote his piece. There are many risks.
I'm personally unafraid and willing to forge ahead with it on every level,
but that does not change the fundamental truth of the statement I made.
Ie "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
I suppose the real question is, where does that apply to any of Drexler's
theories? 
If it does NOT apply anywhere, and he has satisfied science to the point
where none of his theories are regarded as extraordinary claims by anyone
who understands the science, I happily withdraw my statement.

BTW, I don't mind if you publish my response to the list...

Sean