From: Doug Bailey (Doug.Bailey@ey.com)
Date: Thu Aug 13 1998 - 14:50:38 MDT
Robin wrote:
> Your claim and Saul's are compatible. Together they
> imply almost universal disbelief that nanotech will
> do what its proponents claim. I am fascinated this sort
> of disagreement phenomena. Why are proponents so confident
> in the face of strong skepticism, and why are skeptics
> so confident in the face of strong minority disagreement?
> How does each side explain the other side's behavior,
> and how does each side think the other side explains it?
It seems to have something to do with the implications of
a technology. The more dramatic the implications of a
technology are, the more heated (and irrational) skeptics
can be. Cryonics (the death of death) and MNT (material
engineering with far-reaching implications for society)
would have dramatic consequences. Where does this fear of
dramatic change come from? I'm not sure, maybe an
anthropologist or psychologist can explain it.
Usually, extremely polarized disagreements among rational
people arise from significant differences in their fundamental
assumptions or the focus of their assumptions. I'm guessing
that cryo-skepticism arises from the "alien" nature of the
implications of successful cryonics. I was discussing the
potentials of nanotechnology with someone recently and they
could not believe that cell repair technology could reverse
aging. It was not because they thought MNT was not possible,
but instead because they did not think aging was reversible.
Their view arose from their ignorance of the aging process.
Once I described the aging process to them they realized it
was a process that could, in theory, be reversed. I've found
lack information to be the biggest foe to enabling people to
accept many of the things we discuss on this list.
Nanotech skeptics are an interesting lot. Generally, most of
the loudest skeptics are scientists. Yet, their "nano-skepticism"
is very unscientific. Recently, I interviewed the superstring
theorist Michio Kaku, whose recent book "Visions" was very unfair
to nanotechnology. When I pressed him for the reasons why he
objected to the feasibility of MNT and he actually said
something along the lines of "I just don't believe you can get
instructions to molecular assemblers." It was readily apparent
to me that he simply did not think it was possible but had no
real scientific objections to support his view. For that matter,
no one, to my knowledge, has offered a significant theoretical
objection to MNT. I know there are some significant issues
concerning energy and heat but these are engineering problems.
The case Drexler lays out for MNT in "Nanosystems" has yet to
be attacked effectively. Yet nano-skeptics persist.
Generally, these type of disagreements aren't settled until
undeniable proof exists and one side can't discount the new
evidence or observations. Scientific history is riddled with
such situations. Until someone is actually revived you'll have
cryo-skeptics. Until a fully functional MA is built you'll have
nano-skeptics.
Doug
doug.bailey@ey.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:27 MST