at the time I thought Drexler's arguments were compelling and that Smalley was out of touch and not taking Drexler's arguments seriously. Almost 25 years later Drexler's research program has gone nowhere, a fact that that the Wikipedia article doesn't mention but that I think is critical for evaluating that debate.
I'm automatically skeptical of people who make arguments that there is one way to interpret things that sound really pat
or the Lenzenweger-Claridge "debate" on schizotypy (categorical v dimensional) where Lenzenweger makes a case which is much more vivid and compelling than Claridge does because Lenzenweger wrote a monograph and Claridge edited conference proceedings.
So I am automatically skeptical about positions like the one in the paper above because I've been burned so many times by them.
3 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 13.0 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drexler%E2%80%93Smalley_debate...
at the time I thought Drexler's arguments were compelling and that Smalley was out of touch and not taking Drexler's arguments seriously. Almost 25 years later Drexler's research program has gone nowhere, a fact that that the Wikipedia article doesn't mention but that I think is critical for evaluating that debate.
I'm automatically skeptical of people who make arguments that there is one way to interpret things that sound really pat
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/honestly-its-probably-the-phon...
or the Lenzenweger-Claridge "debate" on schizotypy (categorical v dimensional) where Lenzenweger makes a case which is much more vivid and compelling than Claridge does because Lenzenweger wrote a monograph and Claridge edited conference proceedings.
So I am automatically skeptical about positions like the one in the paper above because I've been burned so many times by them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)
lol