My attempts to understand the role words play in the metaphysics of science continue. Follow along and read this critique of Nanotech by Scott Locklin.
Note that this essay could be interpreted as a critique about language. The argument is basically that nanotechnology is a buzzword associated with a sci-fi fantasy which is perpetuated in investor's minds as a way to source funding for work that would be otherwise indistinguishable from traditional chemistry and physics. The economic implications of poetics.
An artist must strive to become aware of the motivation for his interest in his subject of interest. Locklin seems interested in this as a way to improve science - to warn investors and scientists to avoid a subject that may be a waste of money and time. My motivation is to learn how truths are accepted when verifiable but independently meaningless experimental results are stitched together by a theory to add to the sum of human knowledge. To understand mind. Again, art parallels but does not directly contribute to goal oriented activity.
Note that I do not claim to be an expert in this area and can neither endorse nor discourage this viewpoint. Cause I'm too dumb! At least a quick read of the wikipedia entry on nanotech seems to support the basics of Locklin's arguement.
No comments:
Post a Comment