Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nanotechnology Redefined


In article <11r1cjm7f7o6nd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, perry@xxxxxxxxxxxx
says...

> >> So, I would conclude mechanosynthesis is a synonym for mechanochemistry,
> >> and of course be profoundly wrong in doing so.

> > Unfortunately, that point in language space was already taken.

> Eh, there are a number of words in chemistry that have multiple
> parallel meanings. This wouldn't be the first.

Bingo! There are a number of words in every discipline-- science,
engineering, and all the way out to literary criticism-- that have
multiple meanings. No term under discussin here will be the first, the
tenth, or even the ten thousandth.

Do please note that, contrary to Drexler's wishes or anyone else's,
"nanotechnology" is one of those multiple-meaning words, too, now.
Bringing in the 1992 textbook definition (and my copy of _Nanosystems_
is sitting beside my easy chair) is a useful starting point, but at the
end of 2005, it does not even come close to ending the discussion. So,
*one of the definitions* of nanotechnology is as you say.

Other practitioners, who are achieving experimental results, have other
definitions.

Drexler's and others' attempts to define nanotechnology to mean only
what they themselves mean has always struck me as all of narrow-minded,
futile, and counter-productive at the same time.

Narrow-minded because both science and engineering are experimental
disciplines of discovery, and asserting total control over the use of a
term whose products have not even been realized in even the most
advanced research lab is hardly a vision of discovery-- it's a false
assertion that the discoveries have already been made.

Futile, because very few people are going to be affected by the end
result of the breastbeating over the topic. At the end of the day,
people are going to use the terms however they want to until a community
consensus is achieved. Want to affect the consensus? Publish or
produce something important.

Counter-productive, because most people at the sidelines looking in see
these sorts of terminological disputes, and roll their eyes. It would
be lovely, I agree, if everyone meant the same thing when using the same
word. I will even admit that there is a funding-fed bandwagon effect
distorting the term, but it's little different in any sexy up and coming
field. I think the harm caused by the squabbling outweighs the harm
caused by the loose terminology. Drexler's own "zettatechnology" is
just such an eye-rolling term, the most common response to which is,
"Sure, whatever."

--
John S. Novak, III
The Humblest Man On The Net

.

Loading