3 ms·

why summarize and criticize a book published in 1986?

by spot 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago
Not that I necessarily agree with this particular summary in everything, but the point of summarizing something it to make it easier to digest the core of the argument before criticizing it. For that to work you have to have a really good understanding of the subject matter though, and I think he does Drexler great disservice when he says "He seems to lack the imagination, and of course, the physics to figure out what a real nanosized doodad might look like.". That to me is the hallmark of someone with an ax to grind rather than an objective reviewing of a book written quite a while ago. Of course Drexler didn't have the physics to figure out what a real nanobot might look like, nobody did, and nobody does. Drexler could not have easily foreseen some of the obstacles a direct translation of mechanical concepts would encounter, but there are more ways to skin a cat, and biology seems to have found at least one of them. Now it's up to us to find either another path or to harness biology to produce those structures that we can not produce by direct means and to build up a library of tested components to do our 'nano engineering' with. I see Drexler more as a visionary than as a 'hard applicable science' guy and that's the way to approach his book. If you're looking for a 'ready to build' nano bot or a hard treatise on nano engineering you're not going to find it, if we had had that at that time then we wouldn't be where we are today. Incidentally, I think that the 'proponents' of nano tech have done a very bad job at raising expectations (Drexler among them), I do believe that long term nano technology will become a reality and will become a mainstay of our technological arsenal. Just like electronics, which were practically non-existent one hundred years ago are today.
- spot 16y ago
  i understand what summary is for. what i don't "understand" is why he chose as the target a book that's 24 years old in a fast moving field. actually i do understand: it was a strawman! i agree with your assessment.
  - slocklin 16y ago
    This is a non-moving "field." It is nothing but a marketing word for third rate research on things which used to be called "tribology" and "chemistry."
- slocklin 16y ago
  "Of course Drexler didn't have the physics to figure out what a real nanobot might look like, nobody did, and nobody does." Well then I fail to see how anyone can justify calling this a technology then, when there ain't even any physics to describe it.

why summarize and criticize a book published in 1986?

by spot 16y ago

why summarize and criticize a book published in 1986?

Not that I necessarily agree with this particular summary in everything, but the point of summarizing something it to make it easier to digest the core of the argument before criticizing it. For that to work you have to have a really good understanding of the subject matter though, and I think he does Drexler great disservice when he says "He seems to lack the imagination, and of course, the physics to figure out what a real nanosized doodad might look like.". That to me is the hallmark of someone with an ax to grind rather than an objective reviewing of a book written quite a while ago. Of course Drexler didn't have the physics to figure out what a real nanobot might look like, nobody did, and nobody does. Drexler could not have easily foreseen some of the obstacles a direct translation of mechanical concepts would encounter, but there are more ways to skin a cat, and biology seems to have found at least one of them. Now it's up to us to find either another path or to harness biology to produce those structures that we can not produce by direct means and to build up a library of tested components to do our 'nano engineering' with. I see Drexler more as a visionary than as a 'hard applicable science' guy and that's the way to approach his book. If you're looking for a 'ready to build' nano bot or a hard treatise on nano engineering you're not going to find it, if we had had that at that time then we wouldn't be where we are today. Incidentally, I think that the 'proponents' of nano tech have done a very bad job at raising expectations (Drexler among them), I do believe that long term nano technology will become a reality and will become a mainstay of our technological arsenal. Just like electronics, which were practically non-existent one hundred years ago are today.

spot 16y ago
i understand what summary is for. what i don't "understand" is why he chose as the target a book that's 24 years old in a fast moving field. actually i do understand: it was a strawman! i agree with your assessment.
- slocklin 16y ago
  This is a non-moving "field." It is nothing but a marketing word for third rate research on things which used to be called "tribology" and "chemistry."
slocklin 16y ago
"Of course Drexler didn't have the physics to figure out what a real nanobot might look like, nobody did, and nobody does." Well then I fail to see how anyone can justify calling this a technology then, when there ain't even any physics to describe it.