Major Reversals in Science

It's funny, sometimes, how quickly opinions can change. Other times it's tragic how long it takes.

One only has to look at the sad story of Ignaz Semmelweis and his largely unrewarded lifelong struggle to convince the medical establishment about germ theory, sanitation, and saving lives to realize that truth can have a difficult birth.

Similarly, it took more than fifty years for the logical -- and correct -- idea of continental drift (now known as plate tectonics) to gain acceptance within the intransigent scientific establishment.

On the other hand, we're now seeing a rather rapid shift of opinion in favor of openness about radical technologies to solve global challenges. A good example of this is yesterday's article in the New York Times on "How to Cool a Planet (Maybe)."

Only a few years ago, as the article notes, proposals for giant space mirrors or massive numbers of seaborne reflectors were routinely ridiculed. Today they are being taken much more seriously.

It won't surprise us if, in just a few more years, scientists and politicians in large numbers start jumping on the molecular manufacturing bandwagon. With the pace of development as fast as it is and grounds for skepticism rapidly eroding, it's only a matter of time. But if you pay attention, you may notice that when it does happen, some of those new converts will claim to have been there all along.

The great scientist and ethicist J.B.S. Haldane described it best...

Four stages of acceptance:

1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
4. I always said so.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[michael vassar]

I think that this post reflects a fundamentally flawed understanding of the nature of the public/political dialogue and of how it progresses, and also of the difference between technological and scientific discussion and progress.

[Jan-Willem Bats]

Great insight; fantastic post!

Encore!!!

Encore!!!

[Nato Welch]

Haldane's list bears a vague resemblance the one of Ghandi's:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ghandi#On_nonviolence

Not to mention the old saw:

2. ????
3. PROFIT!

[John B]

Logical and correct theory of continental drift? Well, *NOW* it is, but it wasn't considered logical at the time, now was it? *wry grin* C'mon - continents? Moving? Ginormous bunches of rocks and suchlike, moving? That's a stretch.

(I've already had my say on politicians weighing in on nanotech...)

-JB

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Michael, I'm not sure where you're seeing discussion of public/political dialogue in this post.

Until recently, much opposition to MM was presented in scientific rather than technical terms. It was claimed that entropy, thermodynamics, quantum phenomena, etc. absolutely forbid MM from working. Now science has advanced and the objections have necessarily turned to technical issues. Of course, technical skepticism can also hold up a project...

Chris

Chris

[michael vassar]

The fact that opposition was presented in scientific terms tells you, or should tell you, that the opposition wasn't sincere or honest in inquiry. Short of building a nanofactory, or at least winning the Feynman Prize, there is NO WAY to convince someone who is unwilling to be convinced. Arguments with Jones and others where they explicitly said that they wouldn't be convinced without such demonstrations should tell you what you need to know.

For how long did "mere" technical skepticism hold up the solution of thousands of other revolutionary technologies and social policies, from ending the drug war to microcredit to congestion taxes to building adequate dykes in New Orleans to using tanks in WWI (or long bows in the hundred years war). For how long were Wall Mart, Southwest Airlines, Jet Blue, Trader Joes, Barnes and Nobel and Ikea possible before being implemented? How difficult are these ideas compared to MNT? How large were the conceptual and economic barriers to entry? And how about those to the adoption of mechanical farm equipment? To the establishment of harvesting companies that would have harvested crops FOR farmers using mechanica reapers and charging less than capital poor workers could have?
Semmelweis is the norm, not an exception at all.

[John B]

Michael -

How does scientific terminology indicate insincerity/dishonesty in inquiry? *curious look* If anything, I'd taken such inquiries as a serious indication of intellectual honesty - if you can fulfill the scientific method's requirements, it'd be a very powerful arguement!

-JB, confused

[NanoEnthusiast]

JB, I cannot speak for Michael; but I imagine how if you took the early criticisms at face value life itself would be impossible. Seeing as how both you and I are alive, the arguments against MNT based on purely scientific rather than technical grounds are wrong. A good example of a scientific argument against a device is perpetual motion machine. Any scientist could point to the laws of thermodynamics and pretty much shoot down your invention. There is not presently any general principle in science that you could point to disprove MNT in the same fashion. This is what is meant when MNT supporters say there are no showstoppers. If MNT is ultimately proven wrong it will be from something more subtle than specific laws; more like the complex interaction of laws.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

John, "With better tools I could deposit carbon programmably on selected diamond-surface locations" is not a scientific claim any more than "With better tools I could build a reliable self-driving car." Both are technical, not scientific. Neither one is falsifiable. Both are likely to be achieved (proved) at some point. A scientist (or an engineer) may be able to point out specific flaws in specific plans, but I don't think the scientific process per se extends to ruling on statements of engineering capability.

Michael, I think I understand now what you meant: that the public dialogue we have been engaging in *is* political (rather than scientific) because the supposed science is bogus. Is that it? If so, I broadly agree in many cases--that's not to say scientists aren't allowed to be skeptical, but they're not supposed to launch scientific opposition without a solid foundation, which they have never had. Is this what you were saying? If so, I think NanoEnthusiast pretty much agrees with us too, if I understand correctly.

Chris

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

On the feasibility of MM: We can be quite certain that MM can be done via selection of temporal sequence of operations (building heterogeneous polymers, e.g. RNA and protein).

The question is whether MM can be done via selection of spatial position of operations (building 3D solids in irregular and especially concave shapes, via deposition reactions at selected points on the surface). We have several arguments in favor:

1) Diamond can be built via a variety of reactions in a wide variety of conditions.

2) Silica can be built by enzymes underwater in intricate shapes (e.g. diatoms); it seems likely that the deposition reaction can be gated and positioned.

3) There are a number of other covalent solids if neither of those works.

4) Recent reaction simulations have shown that depositing a carbon dimer on a certain diamond surface in a certain sequence should work.

5) SPM work modifying surfaces at atomic level.

6) Other possibilities for covalent solids.

I've probably forgotten some.

Hm, the other question is: Just how high-performance a system can you build out of polymers? The biggest sub-question, as far as I can see, is: Can you design a set of mechanical components that can be dried out (to reduce fluid drag) and still work with low friction?

So there are lots of possible paths to MM. Someone who claims to know that all interesting/powerful paths are hopelessly flawed... is claiming to have done more work than they have actually done. In science, that would be considered fraud.

Let none of the above be taken to imply that I'm backing off from my belief that nanofactories based on diamondoid MM will be arriving before most of the world expects it.

Chris

[monty]

"Someone who claims to know that all interesting/powerful paths are hopelessly flawed... is claiming to have done more work than they have actually done. In science, that would be considered fraud."

who claimed this? the strawman or the bogeyman? you don't understand scientific fraud and do far toom much macho posturing and exaggeration.

at the same time you say that extracting carbon from carbon dioxide indoors will fuel a nanofac and improve mental health. very funny. what mnt step extracts carbon from CO2? how many grams of carbon is in CO2 in your house? would the oxygen high be worth putting up with the roar of the intake fan?

baad math and technical argument. are you a fraud or just wrong?

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

From that wiki page you quoted:
"Even on the rare occasions when scientists do falsify data, .... they intend to introduce a fact that they believe is true, without going to the trouble and difficulty of actually performing the experiments required."

Sounds to me pretty much like what I was describing. It's true that the denialists have not claimed to perform lab experiments. But they have claimed to have given sufficient thought to know that what they say is true.

The amount of carbon I breathe into my house is comparable to the amount of carbon I eat each day (a fraction is lost in skin flakes, down the toilet, breathing outdoors, etc.) 3000 calories = 600 g carbohydrate ~ 240 g carbon. A reasonable daily supply of building material; 100x as strong, it's comparable to 24 kg of steel or thousands of kg of motors and computers. As to noise, any modern central air system can pull air through a micron filter with reasonable noise. Just put sorting rotors on the fibers of the filter.

To grab carbon from CO2, I don't know what chemistry would be best, whether machine-phase or test-tube or biomimetic. But I'm not really worried that it's possible.

And I had thought all this through before I hit the Post button last time. It seems I put more thought into my throwaway lines on a blog, than some denialists put into blatantly flawed arguments published in national newspapers and magazines and books.

Sorry if it sounds arrogant to point out that some scientists have been making unsupported statements to the point of fraud. I don't know how else we're supposed to progress. Yes, obviously, lab demonstrations; that's a great strategy if you want to be running around in a panic when the first nanofactory suddenly arrives--from a country with a less insular scientific process.

Chris

[monty]

no ,you quoted from the "motivations for scientific misconduct" but not the definition section. read the page again carefuly. you still do not understand

i ask agaain!! !

"Someone who claims to know that all interesting/powerful paths are hopelessly flawed... is claiming to have done more work than they have actually done. In science, that would be considered fraud."

who claimed this? the straw scientist!!?

"Just put sorting rotors on the fibers of the filter"

the exagger-rotor!!

the rotor is but an idea. wthere are no designs and no simulatoins. why are you so sure it will work?how many atoms can a rotor extrat per hour? how many microsecnds will a rotor go before being fouled up?what is the error rate? do you know any of these things?

"It seems I put more thought into my throwaway lines on a blog, than some denialists put into blatantly flawed arguments published in national newspapers and magazines and books."

if you publishde good peer review articles you will get covered in magazines. if the rotor is so good, write an article about it.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Many scientists have said MM can't work. I'm surprised you don't remember this.

[Orlowski Zygmunt]

The conception of an energy is discreate one to the same as a imbecility. No one has seen the energy and no one has seen the imbecility. We are able to observe results of the energy and imbecility. At present we have got to few energy because we have got to much imbecility.

[Orlowski Zygmunt]

METOZ will be able to create A NEW KIND OF CLEAN ENERGY.
METOZ IN THEORY IS THE PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE.
My idea is very difficult for understanding. It is not difficult for engineer - mechanic, who knows very good the Pascal’s law and even-arm lever.

THE CLEAN ENERGY
The entire world is looking for a source of clean energy. I have discovered a certain paradox basing on which a machine called METOZ can be built which by harnessing the gravitation of our EARTH can produce clean energy.
The energy producing process is demonstrated in:
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/paradox.html
and can be very easily confirmed by an experiment.
I am also in possession of a set of calculations which prove that the METOZ machine:
1/ does not consume water / 39 A5-pictures /;
2/ does not consume compressed air / 39 A5-pictures /;
3/ produces energy to the outside = 4 839 kGm during a „swing cycle” /39 A5-pictures /;
/ this is a „weight cycle” = the centre of gravity of the water in the METOZ machine sinks ( downward movement ) /
4/ energy is produced / released to the outside = 44 600 kGm during the „straightening cycle” / 39 A5-pictures /.
/ this is a “pressure cycle” = the water mass centre of gravity inside the METOZ machine travels upwards (upward movement) /
Features: 1/; 2/; 3/; 4/, of the machine owing to appropriate dimensions of individual elements of the lever mechanism.
The METOZ has an even-arm lever of a 1.72 m length. The centre of gravity of the lever lies beneath the lever suspension point. The METOZ is equipped with two cylinders of a 1.6 m diameter each. Piston sidewalls do not contact directly with cylinder walls. The lever swing changes between 0 and 25 dgr
Figures ( 3 x 13 x 4 = 156 ) present temporary, consecutive action situations at intervals of . The middle figure presents the machine and the side figures the position of the left and right cylinder and the mathematical description of these situations.
In the past I have made two models, which confirmed the legitimacy of my theoretical assumptions concerning the METOZ machine. I have got photographs.
I am looking for a person who would be interested in my invention. I can offer ample information. I look forward to hearing from you.

http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/three_levers.html

13 - 03 -2005 Gdynia, Polska Zygmunt Orłowski
P.S. The term “gravitational paradox” use in this description relates to the mathematical and physical description of the action of the METOZ-machine.
THE EARTH GRAVITATION CAN BE THE SOURCE OF CLEAN ENERGY

=============================================================

By
Orlowski Zygmunt
Poland 2005
index html
COMMENTS CONCERNING MACHINE “METOZ”
“METOZ” is able to realize the cycle “deflection” and the cycle “straighening.” Both cycles are in accordance with current physic’s laws. “METOZ” as machine can not work and hand over the energy because it would be inconsonant to the law of conservation of energy.
I propose to execute the following intelectual process:
we have found ourselves in the Europe of XVII century. We know the trigonometry in the scope of being occured for “METOZ.” We know what is the even-arm lever and moment of force too. Just appeears Mr. Baise Pascal / 1623–1662/ and he publishes his hydraulics law with adequated experiment. All thinkers are sure that this law is correct and quite real. This time someone invents machine “METOZ”. Now turn up the following questions:
1/ why the implementation of the cycle “deflection” is impossible?
2/ why the implementation of the cycle “straightening” is impossible?Both groups: opponents and followers of bulding “METOZ” live in XVII–th century and they not know that:
a/ the idea of an “energy” will be introduced into science scarlerly in mid. of XIX century,
b/ the law of conservation of the energy will be exist scarlerly after 1847 y.
QVESTION!!!
WHAT KIND OF RATIONALY ENTERELY / ARGUMENT/ CAN BE DREAMED UP THE OPPONENTS OF BUILDING THE MACHINE “METOZ’ IN XVII CENTURY.
==============================================================
Please open GOOgle and klick metozor and after : index of metozor At is site that explains technical details in easy to understand language. example : http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/for_greenpeace.html or
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/energy_for_everybody.html
Everyone is able to build just the model of METOZ machine and test it. Please, have a look at http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/supplement.html Perhaps METOZ is some duplicating machine of a clean energy.
I am inventor and owner of Metoz machine invention. Everyone can take absolutely and legitimate the METOZ invention and build the Metoz machine. I can help only. I can not build METOZ. I am moneyless. Thank you for your time and interest.

[James Vassar]

Space mirrors and thermodynamics...

Space mirrors are possible. Now if you want to use nanobots to build orbital or moon factories to be powered by these mirror -- great.

But space mirror should still be ridiculed as commonly proposed -- as beaming clean energy to earth.

Do you want to cook the earth? You don't have to believe any other theory of global warming to se this one IF you think. Remember the earth is a partially closed system in terms of heat.

Hmmm...yes we could use giant electric thermocoolers to collect waste heat and beam it off into space via lasers -- but that doesn't sound to efficient or effective to me. Bad SciFi movie plot where you look for excuses to use new technolgy and engineering not because there is an intelligent need.

[James Vassar]

On topic:

I think the real question over which the political - nay religious -- squabble is being made is:

Is the engineering of MM within our technical grasp within the near future?

Indeed we may not yet know enough Scientific principles. Or we may know but may require many more decades to digest all of the implications of those scientific facts in order to advance engineering. While scientists are not engineers they still have room to speculate on feasibility in the near future - though it is still speculation.

After all many engineers (or even hybrid scientist -engineers) often don't fully grasp all the science behind their technology. Just as scientists often don't grasp how inventive engineer/technologists can be in workaround gaps in scientific knowledge. And science and technology often cause unexpected advances and setbacks in each other.

As an example the idea of manned rocket flight goes back to tales of early China. But we didn't have the math and bare astrophysics until around the late 1500s. And guess what? Knowing the rough math wasn't good enough. If you really want to get technical we probably had the technology to make a crude inelegant orbit launch in the later 1800s just as Jules Verne said.

Military rockets and chemistry and even metallurgy could have been adapted. But we didn't have the technique yet of processing modern solid fuel rockets (true they would have had to do it without carbon fiber shortcuts in 1800s).

The point is not only did later science and technology make it easier to accomplish manned flight - but the right concepts and actual techiques of combining all that had to come together.

And as we all know the Space Shuttle was still not really the brightest assembly of what was possible -- just the pedestrian goevernment sponsored juggernaut approach that got things done in a fixed time frame and political constraints. Personally I think iterative rounds of unversity design competitions over 20-30 years (with government suppplied economic constraints) would have produced more sound results.

[DT]

"To grab carbon from CO2, I don't know what chemistry would be best, whether machine-phase or test-tube or biomimetic. But I'm not really worried that it's possible."

and how would you use those to 'grab" carbon from co2?

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Biomimetic: Plants have no trouble.

Test-tube: The "Mars Direct" project has a reaction that'll make hydrocarbons from CO2 and hydrogen (plus energy, of course).

Machine-phase: Don't know yet. That's why I listed the other two.

Chris

[DT]

Mars direct used co2 itself, it didn't seperate the carbon, thats the tricky part. It was going to do all this in the martian atmosphere, not on earth.

So how do plants extract the carbon from co2? Nature isn't always a good example, nature does alot of things that we will never be able to do.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

DT, CO2 doesn't make very good rocket fuel. It's obvious that they planned to separate the carbon.

Martian vs. earth environment matters not at all.

Biomimetic means learning to do things the way nature does.

This conversation isn't very valuable to me anymore.

Chris

[DT]

The plan was to get a reaction between co2 and hydrogen to make methane, there was no plan to seperate the carbon. By using the Sabatier process. Apparently it has to be done in elevated temperatures.

The Sabatier process involves the reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures and pressures in the presence of a nickel catalyst to produce methane and water. Optionally ruthenium on alumina makes a more efficient catalyst. It is described by the following reaction:

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O

It was discovered by the French chemist Paul Sabatier. It has been proposed as a key step in enabling the manned exploration of Mars (Mars Direct) by taking hydrogen transported from earth and carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere of Mars to produce methane that can be used as a rocket propellant. This would result in a very considerable savings of weight which would have to be transported to Mars.

"This conversation isn't very valuable to me anymore."

How so?

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

DT, it seemed like the conversation wasn't getting anywhere. Perhaps the problem was simply a miscommunication.

To do mechanosynthesis with carbon, you need reactive carbon, loosely bonded to a tool tip, that can be transferred from a tool tip to a workpiece.

We don't yet know what carbon-containing feedstock will be best, though acetylene looks like a pretty good bet. CO2 looks like a pretty poor bet. Methane might be interesting at least as a precursor to other chemicals that are easier to handle.

When I say "grab" carbon out of CO2 I'm of course not talking literally. What I mean is get the carbon into a more useful molecule. CO2 is quite stable; we'd like a molecule that's a bit more active / higher chemical potential energy. My point is that there are at least two ways to move carbon from a lower-energy to a higher-energy molecule.

If you want to know the entire pathway from CO2 to diamond... well, sorry, it hasn't been worked out yet. But that doesn't worry me a lot.

Chris

[Orlowski Zygmunt]

P.S.
The conception of an energy is discreate one to the same as a imbecility. No one has seen the energy and no one has seen the imbecility. We are able to observe results of the energy and imbecility. At present we have got to few energy because we have got to much imbecility.
Thank you for your time and interest
It is something METOZ about.
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/not_for_idiot.html
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/cycle_str.html
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/work_deflection.html
http://www.metozor.nets.pl/metoz.htm
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/energy_exper.html
Thanks for understanding.