Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nanotechnology Redefined


--0-1273968895-1135586294=:8534
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Ojo, Your going a little Orwellian on us I think. Can the engineers, as
inevitable participants in developing nanotechnology, share this work with the
rest of us? The accretion of engineering and science will certainly bring the
most immediate advances. The "soft-nanotechnology" will be pivotal in realizing
the impending medical revolution.
Ed

Oliver 'Ojo' Bedford <newsojo@xxxxxx> wrote:


I don't think this is a good way of defining these terms.
Following your line of thought, we circumvent the need for defining
nanotechnology by searching for the equivalent definition of
nanoscience. Thereby you imply that technology can be reduced to
science. I think this is wrong. Engineering is more than
applied physics (or less, depending on your point of view).
Successful science can be pursued with little more than a blackboard
and a piece of chalk, for technology you need machines (to manufacture
your products, to analyse them), raw materials, infrastructure etc.
The word technology contains a reference to art, an artisan does not
need to have a clearly defined understanding of the underlying
science, an engineer just has to make "it" work. Heuristics are
sufficient, whereas science, "real" science is always based on
fundamental axioms, from which all other laws can be deduced.


For "technology" the situation is different. Like biology
can not be reduced to chemistry and chemistry can not be
reduced to physics, nanotechnology can not be reduced to
the different scientific disciplines. Every field has its
specific context or boundary conditions and therefore concepts
which make perfect sense within one field are completely meaningless
in another.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
Oliver



_______________________________________________
sci.nanotech mailing list
sci.nanotech@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://venusia.golgothe.net/mailman/listinfo/sci.nanotech




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
--0-1273968895-1135586294=:8534
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV>Ojo, Your going a little Orwellian on us I think. Can the engineers, as
inevitable participants in developing nanotechnology, share this work with the
rest of us? The accretion of engineering and science will certainly bring the
most immediate advances. The "soft-nanotechnology" will be pivotal in realizing
the&nbsp;impending medical revolution. </DIV> <DIV>Ed</DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>Oliver 'Ojo' Bedford &lt;newsojo@xxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><BR>I don't think this is a good way of
defining these terms. <BR>Following your line of thought, we circumvent the
need for defining<BR>nanotechnology by searching for the equivalent definition
of<BR>nanoscience. Thereby you imply that technology can be reduced
to<BR>science. I think this is wrong. Engineering is more than<BR>applied
physics (or less, depending on your point of view). <BR>Successful science can
be pursued with
little more than a blackboard<BR>and a piece of chalk, for technology you need
machines (to manufacture<BR>your products, to analyse them), raw materials,
infrastructure etc.<BR>The word technology contains a reference to art, an
artisan does not<BR>need to have a clearly defined understanding of the
underlying<BR>science, an engineer just has to make "it" work. Heuristics
are<BR>sufficient, whereas science, "real" science is always based
on<BR>fundamental axioms, from which all other laws can be
deduced.<BR><BR><BR>For "technology" the situation is different. Like
biology<BR>can not be reduced to chemistry and chemistry can not be <BR>reduced
to physics, nanotechnology can not be reduced to <BR>the different scientific
disciplines. Every field has its<BR>specific context or boundary conditions and
therefore concepts<BR>which make perfect sense within one field are completely
meaningless<BR>in another.<BR><BR>Just my

thoughts.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Oliver<BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>sci.nanotech
mailing
list<BR>sci.nanotech@xxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>http://venusia.golgothe.net/mailman/listinfo/sci.nanotech<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV><p>
<hr size=1>Yahoo! Shopping<br>
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at <a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/footer/shopping/*http://shopping.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTE2bzVzaHJtBF9TAzk1OTQ5NjM2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFnBHNsawNob2xpZGF5LTA1

">Yahoo! Shopping</a>
--0-1273968895-1135586294=:8534--

.

Relevant Pages

  • 2008 ebooks share viewer
    ... Trade and Technology Policies: ... Engineering for Concrete Dams: Design, Performance, and Research ... Science in the Twenty-first Century. ... Statistics for Health Policy ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • ebooks share list 30
    ... Trade and Technology Policies: ... Engineering for Concrete Dams: Design, Performance, and Research ... Science in the Twenty-first Century. ... Statistics for Health Policy ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • ebooks share lits 285
    ... Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science ... CliffsComplete Shakespeare's King Henry IV, ... Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly Manufacturing Engineering ... Handbook of Dietary Fiber Food Science and Technology (Marcel Dekker, ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: THE MATRIX IS PERFECT MORE COMPLEX THEN THE UNIVERSE
    ... But it will subsume our science as well. ... What is populism? ... foreign countries on the condition that the *engineering* went to US ... their outdated technology, the *new world free market economy* ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: THE MATRIX IS PERFECT MORE COMPLEX THEN THE UNIVERSE
    ... But it will subsume our science as well. ... What is populism? ... foreign countries on the condition that the *engineering* went to US ... their outdated technology, the *new world free market economy* ...
    (sci.space.policy)