Smalley vs Drexler

·         The main point in this argument is Drexler and Smalley's different beliefs about nanotechnology

·         At stake for both of them is what they believe the future is for nanotechnology and they want to prove that their different ideas about it are right

·         Both Drexler and Smalley agree with what the other is saying and then counter argue it.  They also cite different people which have a background in the area. 

·         Drexler develops his ethos by mentioning his working environment and how it is linked to nanotechnology - I have a 20 year history of technical publications in this area
Smalley continuously mentions pieces of work or different speeches he has given in order to build his ethos- You still do not appear to understand the impact of my short piece in Scientific American

·         There are times when both writers accuse the other of not understanding what they are saying; I believe this is a fallacy because these accusations draw them off track.  Instead they should focus on what the other person is saying and try and prove them wrong.

·         I believe that Drexler made his position more obvious in the argument. He was able to pin point certain areas of the nanotechnology that Smalley wasn’t able to.  They both seemed very interested in the subject but Drexler mad more points and was able to back everything up that he said.  He was also better able to counter argue what Smalley was saying.