Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nanotechnology Redefined


I'm going to establish my position first by listing some points, then
address some of John Novak's points (way down below).

(1) The charter, such as it exists, for this group, is in J. Storrs
Hall's call-for-votes which is archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio/msg/97569cbbcd386b58

(2) The "List of Big Eight Newsgroups" summary line for this group has
been for many years:
sci.nanotech Self-reproducing molecular-scale machines. (Moderated)

(3) Newer, older, or alternate definitions of "nanotechnology" do not in
some magical way alter the charter and original intent of this discussion
group as specified in (1) and (2).

(4) Many words have multiple meanings. The meaning of "work" in physics
has a specific and fairly precise meaning, while the colloquial meanings
have little in common with the technical meaning (something I think
everyone can, ahem, work out). One of the first tasks of introductory
physics courses is often the disambiguation of these meanings. Deliberate
creation of multiple meanings for a word is clearly a counterproductive
endeavor for everyone but the poet, punster, or huckster.

(5) Attempts by literalists to disassemble "Nanotechnology" in hopes of
finding its "true" meaning are misguided simply because the subterms are
insufficient to disambiguate the term. The subterms could just as easily
be taken to disambiguate to:
a) Nanosecond technology: the technology of events on the order of a
nanosecond in duration.
b) Nanometer technology: the technology of anything on the order of a
nanometer in length.
c) Nanogram technology: the technology of anything on the order of a
nanogram in mass.
d) Nanodollar technology: technology development on a budget. ;-)

And so on. Obviously the term was, like many invented terms, not meant to
have its meaning discerned by a literal disassembly of its component
terms. But it was, and I don't think it was done by poets or punsters.

(6) What do Legos[R], large ball bearings, coins, and large gravel have
in common? Among other things, they are all between 1 and 10 centimeter
in size. If ball bearing developers created a term like
"centitechnology" to describe their area of research, it might be odd,
but odder (and more useless still) would be for someone to later apply
the term to uses of Legos, coin making, and gravel.

(7) In the same way that a "Centiscience" journal would be a mass of
articles of little or no overlap or use to readers in the Lego, ball
bearing, coin, and gravel communities, "Nanoscience" journals are an
inefficient collection of disjointed articles because of the nearly
useless form of categorization chosen.

(8) Notwithstanding all of the above, any post that could remotely be
considered relevant to the topics mentioned in (1) or (2) are considered
on topic here - whatever terms one wants to use. And since I may suffer
from lack of imagination at times and may overlook some tenuous link of
nanotech relevance I've tried to be open minded in what I approve (low
traffic levels help too!)

Now on to my replies to some of John Novak's points:

John.S.Novak@xxxxxxxxx, III <jsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Other practitioners, who are achieving experimental results, have
> other definitions.

In my humble opinion, if the results are in any way useful to the
creation or use of self-reproducing molecular-scale machines, then they
are nanotechnology as defined for the purposes of this newsgroup.

> 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.

Well, physicists don't assert total control of the word "work," but in
the narrow confines of physicists talking to physicists you'd find them
very "narrow minded" if some of their members suddenly started to use it
with a new meaning.

(I do wonder though: if I'm narrow-minded in using nanotechnology only
with the meaning Drexler first used, are people who dismiss that
technology as bunk broad-minded or narrow-minded? ;-) )

> 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.

Drexler published a few things using the term. So did a bunch of other
authors. They even held conferences, complete with published conference
proceedings - and experimental results were presented - all using a
common understanding of nanotechnology. All done over a course of several
years with no ambiguity in the term. While it *may* be futile to fight
the new meanings, we can't change the name of this newsgroup (though we
could abandon it I suppose) nor is it possible to go back and rewrite all
the old books and such that used Drexler's meaning.

> 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.

If it was just a dispute over useless terminology, I agree it would be
just an "eye rolling" squabble (though not terribly counter-productive in
my humble opinion). I'm not terribly worried about people on the sideline
- I'm more interested in making sure the people dispensing those funds
you mention really understand what kind of research they are funding.

The very existence of a squabble over terminology would hopefully cause
nanotech funders to look a little more closely at the criteria they are
using in dispersing their research funds, rather than rely on a term in
dispute.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what does "serialization" mean?
    ... >> already has close to the required sense of meaning ... > language is insistence on following vague usage. ... But when I discuss technology (not the ... Yes, you can reverse a car, ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: I think New Jersey got this one right
    ... Your mistake is in forgetting that words are merely vessels to convey the meaning of the author of the words. ... Here's a comment i made in reply to a judge's ruling on gay marriage last year: ... Spaceships and other technologies that we now have were 'alien' to 1947 legislators because they did not yet exist. ... Since they didn't exist, and since a spaceship doesn't duplicate modes of travel that did exist, we can't know with reasonable certainty what the legislators would have thought about them re constitutional protections (that isn't true of computers and repro technology, some types of which did exist in 1947, but lumping those with spaceships reflects confusion on the judge's part). ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: I think New Jersey got this one right
    ... the meaning of the author of the words. ... who ratified NJ's constitution in 1947, ... When it comes to modern technology such as AK47s, ... That's the best reason to interpret the document ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Maintaining the red color in wood
    ... there was an old comedy movie once that said in a fake ad ... This was one of the earliest attempts to define the technology and its ... As nanotechnology became an accepted concept, the meaning of the word ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: TV attached to PC?
    ... Language is conventional; things mean what we ... Their literal meaning isn't the point. ... what the new technology does. ... inventors or first marketers usually ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)