Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!nexus.yorku.ca!gall From: gall@nexus.yorku.ca (Norman R. Gall) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: ** CALL FOR DISCUSSION ** Creation of newsgroup sci.skeptic Keywords: skeptic New Age parapsychology The New Science Message-ID: <8906150843.AA06294@athos.rutgers.edu> Date: 13 Jun 89 14:40:24 GMT Sender: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu Organization: York University Department of Philosophy Lines: 80 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu I have been personally shocked lately as to the promulgation of the so-called New Age in the media and in people's living rooms and discussions. Since there is even a newsgroup dedicated to it, I wondered if a skeptical group might not be called for. The idea would be that the group would be unmoderated and that issues of New Ageism and its ilk might be discussed openly and skeptically. What think you? Norman R. Gall -- York University Department of Philosophy Toronto, Ontario, Canada "It's only by thinking even more crazily than philosophers do that you can solve their problems." -- L. Wittgenstein _____________________________________________________________________________ [I think this is a great idea. Since I haven't posted it for a year or so, I append below Drexler's views on the subject of bogosity. This should NOT be taken as an endorsement of sci.skeptic by Drexler, simply by me. --JoSH +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The following material is reprinted *with permission* | | Copyright (c) 1988 The Foresight Institute. All rights reserved. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | This material is based on and builds on the case made in the book | | "Engines of Creation" by K. Eric Drexler. | | It is reprinted with the additional permission of the author. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ The Problem of Nonsense in Nanotechnology K. Eric Drexler MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (Visiting Scholar, Stanford University) bogosity (bo gos' i ty) n. 1. A false idea or concept; misconception. 2. Inaccuracy; opposite of veracity. [colloquial usage in artificial intelligence community; from bogus.] flake, n. -ky, -kiness. One who habitually generates, spreads, or believes flagrant bogosities. Nanotechnology--the field embracing mechanical and electronic systems built to atomic specifications--seems certain to suffer from an impressive infestation of nonsense. There is nothing novel about a technological field suffering from nonsense, but a variety of factors suggest that nanotechnology will be hit hard. The health of a field depends on the quality of judgments made within it, both of technical concepts and of individual competence. If concepts are sound and credibility requires competence, the field will be healthy; if bogus concepts prosper and credibility and competence come unhitched, the field will suffer. Maintaining the health of a field requires concern with the quality of these judgments. Trends in academic interest and media coverage suggest that nanotechnology will receive growing attention. This field subsumes several others, including much of molecular electronics and advanced biotechnology. Flakiness in this broad field will tend to reduce funding and to reduce the number and quality of workers. Similar (but lesser) effects seem likely to spill over into all fields that appear similar in the eyes of reporters, managers, and politicians. A consensus on sound ideas, however, will tend to have positive effects. If bogosities thrive, they will also tend to obscure facts, hampering foresight--and as I argue in Engines of Creation, foresight in this field may be of extraordinary importance. Our Problem: bogosity equals. . . Experience already suggests the problems we will face in the quality of the technical literature, of media coverage, and of word-of-mouth. In estimating the future magnitude of this problem, a simple model may be of use: In this model, the bogosity in a field equals the bogosi