Talk:Nanotechnology
I am out everywhere that links to Scientific method. This old (by wikipedia standards), article has been stable for some time (2 months or so). Strong but valid critique of the article has not been responded to by any wikipedian: Even though it connects to 90 articles and 30 more Talk, User, and Wikipedia pages
I'm looking to see what work must happen after we write an authoritative scientific method. Up dating the understanding of wikipedians about scientific methods, by providing an authoratative article will improve the quality of thought, the quality of writing, the quality of npov and most importantly stop wasting time patiently dealing with people out of their depth like ,the innumerate, poorly trained pomo-ists, many working scientists, many university professors who are not fundamentalists of all sorts (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Logical Positivists, Scientific Reductionist Materialists, etc.)
I don't want the same debate carried out at a low level in every contentious article.All those diruptive influences can be directed to Scientific method. There needs to be a page like the replies to critics to deal with common, yet philosophically indefencible positions.
two 64.229.15.12
This page seems pretty rambling and incoherent to me. e.g., the jump into economic consequences without any logical pathway to it. I read those paragraphs and thought "wait, how did we get here? why would this happen?". Similar for other parts... -- Chris Armstrong
The most recent edit of the Nanotechnology article (on May 28 2003 by 161.114.1.183) seems totally out of place and irrelevant.
The original paragraph read: "The term nanotechnology was first used by K. Eric Drexler in his 1986 book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. and to this was added:
"However more recently it has been learned that the pioneering work yet to be realized M. Alan Swist is currently on the drawing board and looks very promising. "His concepts and ability to internalized the many minute details of this technology is simply astounding" - stated Matthew McQuires of Life Sciences International based in Dublin, Ohio."
If no-one disagrees I propose it be removed, or possibly moved to a more appropriate section of the article if it can be rewritten to be somewhat more specific. Nanobug 03:36 30 May 2003 (UTC) Update: someone (66.163.19.92) appeared to agree with me and removed it. Thanks.
Is it just me, or is "This would mean that after the enormous research expense of designing and constructing the first molecular robot capable of self-replication, the next trillion robots would on the order of an equal mass in vegetables" a very confusing sentence?
Factual Errors, Bias
I have two objections to this particular article. Perhaps they're unfounded, but I'd like to see if others agree with me.
The first stems from a statement made in the first paragraph:
"Physically, real nanotechnology relates to sizes of only a few atoms' width".
I assert that this a factually incorrect statement. The average width of an atom is of the order of a 100 picometers (i.e. 10^(-10), or one tenth of a nanometere)), so the width of a few atoms is really only a fraction of a nanometer. Sure, a lot of neat stuff is being done on this scale, but the field of nanotechnology commonly deals with processes that occur in size regimes orders of magnitude larger than this (i.e. tens of nanometres). This isn't just semantics; the point of this article is to provide general information about this emerging field, and in this context the description is far too narrow and limiting. Not only that, but what is 'real' nanotechnology? I doubt the author of that statement is qualified to describe what 'real' nanotechnology is; I doubt anyone can. The best we can do is try to describe what is actually happening in the field as a whole, and I think the current description is inadequate. I'd be happy to rewrite this, but I'd like thoughts on what I've said here.
My second objection concerns the Drexler focus of the article. It may very well be true the Drexler first coined the term Nanotechnology, but he's done very little else for the field in a sceintific sense since. Drexler's scientific contributions to the field of nanotechnology are weak. His main influence on the field has been through his Foresight institue, which has primarily been concerned with generating buzz about the field and educating the public about the potential good and bad of nanotechnology. Many people are not aware of the fact that many notable scientists (including several Nobel laureates, such as Smalley) take issue with many of the statements and visions given by Drexler, who as I mentioned, has not contributed substantially to the actual field scientifically. I think that given this controversy his role in this article needs to be toned down.
I'd appreciate a constructive discussion on this. Anyone?
-Russ G