Drexler-Smalley Debate

1 The main contention of Drexler and Smalley's arguments is that Smalley believes highly in the concept of molecular assemblers and that they are the potential risk of nanotechnology whereas Drexler believes that there is no such problem and that Smalley is making the public conscious of a problem that does not even exist.

2 The stake in the argument is the public opinion of nanotechnology. In order for it to be accepted people must be sure that there is no risk involved in it.

3 Smalley uses numerical data to support is claim. They both use many statistical facts and studies. They also both list the criteria that they both believe in instead of completely disagreeing with each other.

4 Drexler shows his credibility in saying that he has a twenty year history of technical publications in the area of nanotechnology and that  he coined the term "nanotechnology". Drexler provides his ethos in using more statistical facts. It also says in Smalley's article that he won the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry which shows he should know what he is talking about.

5 Drexler uses fallacies in almost attacking Smalley's claims he calls his arguments discredited and speaks of endorsing a scientific review where he does not back up this statement to say exactly what view would need to be reviewed and why. Smalley, on the other hand, uses fallacies when he puts words into Drexler's mouth by saying that he imagines he can make a selective chemical-constructor without necessity of water, but does not describe what facts made him come to this exact claim.

6 Smalley's argument seemed more convincing because he had more statistical facts and questioning that made  it seem like he had more knowledge on the subject at hand. He also argued without discrediting Drexler or attacking him in any way. Drexler seemed more spiteful of Smalley, and therefore it made it more of a personal vendetta rather than if he was indeed correct.