Prerequisite / Read this first: Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence
Consider the statement "It is physically possible to construct diamondoid nanomachines which repair biological cells." Some people will tell you that molecular nanotechnology is "pseudoscience" because it has not been verified by experiment - no one has ever seen a nanofactory, so how can believing in their possibility be scientific?
Drexler, I think, would reply that his extrapolations of diamondoid nanomachines are based on standard physics, which is to say, scientific generalizations. Therefore, if you say that nanomachines cannot work, you must be inventing new physics. Or to put it more sharply: If you say that a simulation of a molecular gear is inaccurate, if you claim that atoms thus configured would behave differently from depicted, then either you know a flaw in the simulation algorithm or you're inventing your own laws of physics.
My own sympathies, I confess, are with Drexler. And not just because you could apply the same argument of "I've never seen it, therefore it can't happen" to my own field of Artificial Intelligence.
What about the Wright Brothers' attempt to build a non-biological heavier-than-air powered flying machine? Was that "pseudoscience"? No one had ever seen one before. Wasn't "all flying machines crash" a generalization true over all previous observations? Wouldn't it be scientific to extend this generalization to predict future experiments?
"Flying machines crash" is a qualitative, imprecise, verbal, surface-level generalization. If you have a quantitative theory of aerodynamics which can calculate precisely how previous flying machines crashed, that same theory of aerodynamics would predict the Wright Flyer will fly (and how high, at what speed). Deep quantitative generalizations take strict precedence over verbal surface generalizations. Only deep laws possess the absolute universality and stability of physics. Perhaps there are no new quarks under the Sun, but on higher levels of organization, new things happen all the time.
"No one has ever seen a non-biological nanomachine" is a verbalish surface-level generalization, which can hardly overrule the precise physical models used to simulate a molecular gear.
And yet... I still would not say that "It's possible to construct a nanofactory" is a scientific belief. This belief will not become scientific until someone actually constructs a nanofactory. Just because something is the best extrapolation from present generalizations, doesn't make it true. We have not done an atom-by-atom calculation for the synthesis and behavior of an entire nanofactory; the argument for nanofactories is based on qualitative, abstract reasoning. Such reasoning, even from the best available current theories, sometimes goes wrong. Not always, but sometimes.
The argument for "it's possible to construct a nanofactory" is based on the protected belief pool of science. But it does not, itself, meet the special strong standards required to ceremonially add a belief to the protected belief pool.
Yet if, on a whim, you decide to make a strong positive assertion that nanomachines are impossible, you are being irrational. You are even being "unscientific". An ungrounded whimsical assertion that tomorrow the Sun will not rise is "unscientific", because you have needlessly contradicted the best extrapolation from current scientific knowledge.
In the nanotechnology debate, we see once again the severe folly of thinking that everything which is not science is pseudoscience - as if Nature is prohibited from containing any truths except those already verified by surface observations of scientific experiments. It is a fallacy of the excluded middle.
Of course you could try to criticize the feasibility of diamondoid nanotechnology from within the known laws of physics. That could be argued. It wouldn't have the just plain silly quality of "Nanotech is pseudoscience because no one's ever seen a nanotech." Drexler used qualitative, abstract reasoning from known science; perhaps his argument has a hidden flaw according to known science.
For now, "diamondoid nanosystems are possible" is merely a best guess. It is merely based on qualitative, abstract, approximate, potentially fallible reasoning from beliefs already in the protected belief pool of science. Such a guess is not reliable enough itself to be added to the protected belief pool. It is merely rational.
NANOTECHNOLOGY IS A STRAWMAN AND A U.N. RACKET.
STRAWMAN
http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/definition/strawman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVvC7bj26aU&feature=player_embedded
...STRAWBOSS: No one has ever proposed picking up individual atoms, and what can be done in nature to transfer groups of atoms from one molecule to another.
Fact: As written in my 1999 - 2000 emails and as written in my proposed event....... planned for 3-21-2006, at the 'African-American Research Library and Cultural Center', my research and development of my interface formula and 'Astral (Fractal) Analog Attractors Subatomic Reactors', is specific in it's expression of enabling "analog attractors" which are used to attract or pick up individual atoms (and act on) "subatomic reactors". This can only be encountered and performed by my interface formula "Energy =Motive x Force".
The 2006 event proposal stated quote, This study will be an advanced understanding of new scientific discoveries such as fractal geometry, attractors, and quantum physics, as visitors seek the connection between these new scientific discoveries and Ancient Egypt's Sacred Geometry. unquote. As myself being the presenter and instructor of this workshop, it is would be reasonable to think I should know more than what can be understood all at once. However I never proposed anything to anyone in any commercial industry nor the commercial industry itself. 2006 Proposal http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!17!C8!0357B8537E1D/ITRC3/AARLCCITRC/
STRAWBOSS: original strawman drafted 3rd and 4th generation technology, Apps, Ipods, and all other new revolutionary forms of electronics that resulted in new interfaced operating systems since discovering the nano interface enabling nanotechnology since 2005.
Fact: When my copyrighted "analog attractors subatomic reactors" are added to my interface-formula "-/+Energy =Motive x Force" and both are interfaced and iterated it creates a new generation of technology. From my stolen and black marketed research is where all these ideas come from.
STRAWBOSS: No one has ever proposed a macro to nano interface. Nanotechnology is a strawman.
Fact: The formula that enables the interface that enables the nano interface that enables nanotechnology is my 1999 - 2000 copyrighted "-/+Energy =Motive x Force". Every aspect of the new revolutionary discoveries in the behavioral characteristics of the nano scale since 2005 are included in my copyright.
Message from the StrawMan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVVAAk5EE2A&feature=player_embedded
Before 2005 no new nanotechnology product ever existed or was ever heard of. And as you know that since 2000 I have had emails that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am the sole owner, author & designer of the formula th...at enables the interface that enables the nano interface that enables nanotechnology & my research & development of astral fractal analog attractors subatomic reactors that enables 3G, 4G, Wii, Apps. etc.
So-called nanotechnology actually takes my formula out of context since my technology is not limited to just the nano scale.
However, as explained in my 2000 copyright & recently discovered since 2005, on the nano scale "force" is equal to "distance & time" instead of "acceleration" as shown in the video below.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4CjZ-OkGDs
If left to a free world market my formula will destroy all mankind.http://www.logictivity.com/blog/nano-weapons-of-the-future/
My formula & research belongs to the Kings ministry & since 1997 has remained under the guidance of the governance of the Parliament of World Religions: Declaration Towards A Global Ethic as signed by my uncle H.H. King Oseijeman Adefunmi I. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/globalethic.html
In 2005 while planning my event at the 'African-American Research Library&Cultural Center' with Alicia Keys as the host, to promote my research, my i-formula was discovered & "hijacked" & black marketed by "Star", Troi Torain, host of 'Clear Channel Communications' 103.5 The Beat, 'Star&Bucwild Show' radio spy show scandal. This quickly became a conspiracy to black mail and frame me to steal my interface-formula.
The event included children workshop that explains my research & development of my formula for 'astral fractal analog attractors' & to inspire it's progress on the nano scale. http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!17!C8!0357B8537E1D/ITRC3/AARLCCITRC/
Unlike E=MC, my interface formula is the first formula that doesn't break down on the quantum level. My interface is the "Unified Field Theory" UFT Einstein looked for but never found.
in 2006 Jay-Z suddenly became a humanitarian & went on a MTV Documentary as the leader of a United Nations campaign to use new nanotechnology products to bring clean drinking water pumps to poor people in Africa.
This was in response to us & my formula. In response to the c.d. 'Diary of Alicia Keys'&'Tears For Water', Jay-Z titles his MTV United Nations Campaign 'Diary of Jay-Z, Water For Life'.
Diary of Alicia Keys, Tears For Water http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s5qXTKTGvk
Diary of Jay-Z, Water For Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbgz_mfj_0g
UN Watch Dog Report On Jay-Z Water For Life Campaign questions his motives & why he's suddenly posing himself as a humanitarian in what seems to be a scam,black mail,& corporate world corruption. http://www.innercitypress.com/unhq080906.html
In the clip below the ABC News Nightline reporter expresses doubt in Jay-Z's sudden amazing rise from Jay-Z To Mr. UN advisor on water. Jay-Z claims he chose water basically for the hell of it, but failed to explain anything else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gzm15nFdi0
5-3-06 Shawn Carter BKA Jay-Z, black markets my research by introducing himself to Bill Gates. Even the blog writer senses something odd. http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/103195.asp
5- 06 My mother tried to give me a letter she reiceved. It was a "thank you letter" that said 'thank you for being a great benefit & service to your community' I had not done anything to receive such a letter. The event I had planned never got off the ground. I've been harassed by the world ever since.
5-12-06 Star is arrested in NY for offering his radio audience $500 to stalk & scandalize 4yr old daughter of a rival DJ & endangering her life. This also happened to me. http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2007/12/hey-black-america-where-is-your-outrage.html
6-8-06: Jay-Z's introduced to HP & land an HP commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyI5OnECBoM
11-16-06: Jay-Z's introduced to Dr.Peter Gleick,Co-Founder of Pacific Institute&worlds water editor. http://www.pacinst.org/publications/online_update/dec_2006_online_update.html#headlines
Jay-Z Underworld alibis ain't matchin up BS catchin up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9eDdWCw2FE&feature=related
You're signaling poorly for this community.
For example, starting your post with an all-caps sentence asserting that something is "undisputedly" true makes you look like a crank. It might be obviously true, or indisputably true, but if it were actually undisputed then why would you need to point it out? It would be like saying "THE SUN IS UNDISPUTEDLY BRIGHT AND HOT". This statement is true, but why does it deserve the all-caps treatment?
Similarly, "challenging" people to dispute an assertion sounds like you're setting up your ... (read more)