Re: Poverty a subject

Posted by Pasti on Jan 30, 2004 at 23:11

Re: Poverty a subject (Kelly)

"Or...and I'm just throwing this out there...maybe you should consider how quickly you decided that you had a total stranger all figured out AND that it was okay to talk to that total stranger as if they were an idiot."

You know what they say, you walk like a duck...And from your postings, definitely you quack like a duck...:-)

"Wrong again, but excellent try. What my statement tells you is that ONE of the ways I keep myself up to date is from media sources like various science web sites. What else do I do? You don't know. But you assumed you did."

Let me see,elemetary psychology 101.You mentioned the most familiar sources to you,so chances are with a rather good probability that you use them the most.Sure, you might use other sources, but much less frequently, since you did not bother to mention them at the first shot.

But then physchology is a wasted science on you, isn't it?

"And the reference to Pons and Fleishmann and Cold Fusion is very good, Pasti. You give that anecdotal example in the same breath as you make your assumption that I get all my info from the media, thereby *implying* (with zero evidence) that I fell for Cold Fusion."

I am glad you didn't "fell" for the cold fusion.You know, it took about 4 months and one confrence until physicists were able to state beyond doubt that Pons and Fleishman were wrong, but I am glad that you were so enlightened to spot the hoax at once.
As I am sure that you spotted the hoax in the second one,no doubt.

I just gave you two archetypal examples of how news reporting in science can be, and was misleading. Better read more attentively before you open your mouth.You know, silence is of gold...

"Excellent technique! You seek to discredit me by unsubstantiated association."

You do that yourself,you don't need my help...

"Right back at ya. Ask her yourself. She makes it clear she is considering suicide."

It so happens that I know Amaranth much better than you, so gee, indeed, again I know what I am talking about.
You seem to have a strong inferority complex, hm, interesting.

"Assumptions, assumptions, Pasti. You make more than anyone I've ever met."

Assumptions?For you maybe, not for me.I am a physicist,whether you like it or not.

"Okay, Let's pretend that credentials are as important as you seem to think."

Are you thick or just playing dumb?You are the one who asked about my credentials;better read your post again.

"Let's also ignore the fact that basically what you are doing is committing the Fallacy of Argument from Authority"

It is called deductive logic, my dear Watson.You see,when you talked about the Nanotech, you used only the popular shell view, and no details characteristic to someone who actually works(ed) in the field (remember, I happen to be familiar with the lingo in the field, and with certain details).But when you talked about the cookies,you automatically formulated the argument in less general terms,more to the point, indicating certain familiarity with the topic.

So yes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (literally) to realize that you did not work in Nanotech, especially for someone with certain familiarity in the field.Whether you like it or not is rather irrelevant.

"But that is all irrelevant. I'm a science geek which trumps everything. Save your apologies for the physics community."

Science geek? I am not sure if that is something one can be proud of, but let's assume it is. Though usually real science starts where the "geekness" ends.
I don't particularly care what you are, as long as you are capable of articulate thinking.And you might be, but you haven't showed it yet.

"Think about what you said, Pasti. You were doing nanotechnology research regarding friction at the nanoscale. The fact that such research was being performed just ten or twenty years after Drexler's book received the initial reaction it did is freakin' amazing! The change in attitude toward the whole topic fits the definition of a paradigm shift."

Let's forget about Drexler for the moment, and let me give you the inside scoop the way I know it.
To make an STM tip you need a microscope,tungsten, hydrocloric acid, a gold wire, and a lot of patience.All these were readily available in early 1900's, so a 3 nm tip could have been built then without any problem.Tunneling became known in the late 40's while piezoelectricity and piezoelectric materials were known again since Pierre Curie.So most of the fundamental elements of an STM were available,say and let's be generous,by mid 1940's. And so was the scientific interest.By late 50's, transistors came into being (that was indeed what you would call major change), I think it was 1956 when the Nobel was awarded for the discovery of transistors, so by the early 60's, all major ingredients (albeit in a rather primitive form) for an STM, and AFM for that matter,were readily available.So nanoscale investigation was ready to start by the early 60's, and it started in the form of so called point-contact IV spectroscopy.And scientific interest was there.
It took however, 20 something, or actually 30 something years for morons like Jesse Ventura (he was banging his head against the walls literally at the time but nevertheless he is a mild archetype of the imbecile who has to decide about scientific development) and the likes to realize the business potential of nanoscale physics,and to start funding for the nanoscale tech and investigation. The DOE tribology programm started I think in '94 or '95.So what am I supposed to be amazed at?How long it took the morons in charge to evolve into sentient and approximately 2 digit IQ beings?It might be a major change for the Ventura-likes,but not for me.
So, as much as the inner scoop on this goes, the 30 years that are described by Drexler as natural are preposterously long in scientific terms, and are not exactly considered a source of pride except by the media and politicians.

"Yes, yes, and the actual concept of molecular manufacturing goes back to a paper written by Richard Feynman in 1959. The point is that when Drexler first said that the technology to actually do these things is achievable in the near term, no one took him seriously. Now they do, just a few decades later. That's a major change."

For who, mind you?Scientists did take him seriously, but the funding was lacking for the reasons above.Why exactly must progress always be judged by the awakening of the dumbest politician in the hurd,and not by the real scientific/tech potential at a certain instant?

The difference between our views is that you seem to be content with how much science evolved in the last 30 years, and consider it a major change.In my opinion,much more could have been done in these 30 years, and that is why I don't consider the present state in Nanotech as a major change.Not yet at least.As I said,in spite of achievements, there was no fundamental novelty involved,and there is still alot of work to be done (which could have been done by now, mind you)

"I disagree. The same people who 20 years ago were in stage 1 (completely impossible) are now enthusiastically pouring millions of dollars into research, a clear sign that they are in stage 3 (a good idea)."

You mean the morons I was talking about above?In this case we agree.But how about the results and applications? We could have been so much farther,by roughly 30 years...

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]