Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- From: ed ehrat <lambdamax01@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:38:24 -0000
Ojo,
Using "Orwellian" I was meaning that your statement seemed to assert
authority over nanotechnology and an unwillingness to deem anything outside
engineering as nanotechnology.
> "The engineers could share part of the work, but certainly not all of
> it, because it simply is not shareable."
This is confusing to me, how can you share part of the work if it is not
shareable?
> "The goal of science is to
> produce intersubjective knowledge,
> something which can be printed in textbooks,
> and which can be taught in schools.
> The goal of technology is to create artifacts.
> Technology depends much more on its surrounding than science.
> You can do science on some small deserted island, but not technology."
This is a very constricted view of science! I would argue that applied
science also has a goal of creating artifacts, such as treatments/therapies for
disease as an example. The technologies you mentioned (below) are precisely the
reasons for my abjection to your segregated definition.
> "And, what medical revolution are you referring to? Gene therapy,
> stem cell research, cloning, tissue engineering, high throuhput
> screening, ..."
The culmination of all these technologies (as well as some not listed) is
what I was referring to in regards to the impending medical revolution.
> "Science is about explicit know-how, whereas technology is
> partly about implicit know-how. Even if I read dozens of books
> about vehicle-manufacturing I would not be able to build a decent
> car."
Again, I can debate that this isolated view of science leaves many of the
interdisciplinary fields of scientific research/technology development in
nanotechnology limbo. Science is not simply biology, chemistry, physics, etc.
it has evolved into something much greater to include bioengineering, chemical
engineering, biotechnology, etc.
> "Now, what is 'soft-nanotechnology'? At this point we haven't
> even reached a conclusion about the meaning of nanotechnology."
By soft-nanotechnology I mean that there is something other than metals
involved, more specifically molecules such as DNA/RNA, proteins, and other
biological (soft) nanostructures used in combination with your apparent
definition of nanotechnology.
Sincerely
Ed
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,
whatever.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Next by Date: Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Previous by thread: Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
