Nanotechnology... What?

• What is the main point of contention between Drexler and Smalley?

The main point of disagreement is that Drexler believes and supports that nanobots can create more nanobots, where as Smalley disagrees and thinks that nanobots cannot self replicate because of having "fat" or "sticky fingers."

• What is at stake in their argument?

Both of them are interested in their own reputations, as well as the reputation of nanotechnology itself in the scientific world.

• Name a few strategies they use to refute the other side. 

 Both Smalley and Drexler attack each other's facts and credibility. They also use ideas from other texts that they (and others) would deem credible along with name dropping others who agree with their ideas.

• How does both Smalley and Drexler develop their ethos (provide an example)

Smalley established ethos by stating that he respected his opponent when he wrote "I believe the Foresight Institute you founded with Christine Peterson has made, and continues to make, very positive contributions to the advancement of technology on the nanometer scale. You have my respect and thanks." Drexler created credibility by stating that he wanted their debate to "result in broader discussion within the community, and in better understanding of molecular manufacturing as a strategic objective." Basically, he said that he wanted to be part of the larger conversation that was taking place in the scientific community.

• Point to at least one logical fallacy used on both sides and explain why it is fallacy (see GRs pg 17-19)

One fallacy that I found in Smalley's letters was the fact that he did not go as deep into the exact chemistry of his argument the way that Drexler did. Smalley made some hasty generalizations in his writing that he could not support because of his lack of detailed evidence. I could not find any fallacies in Drexler's letters.

• Which side to do you think was more convincing and why?

Drexler's argument was more convincing because of the depth of this understanding of the subject. He also countered just about every claim that Smalley made against his theories. It was also more convincing because of the fact that I could not find any logical fallacies in his letters.