Smalley vs. Drexler

• Drexler and Smalley each misunderstand eachother's concepst or refuse to acknowledge or change their ideas about nanotechnology and thier views on machinary and chemistry.
• Funding  for nanotechnology is at risk along with each of the scientist's credibility.
• Each use stratagies to refute the other side. They each go after the facts each presents, they use quotes to make each rubuttal seem trustworthy and the each treat the source fairly.
• Both Drexler and Smalley add to their ethos by suggesting and hinting towards the books they have written and the amount of time they have worked with this topic. They also talk of their past achievments such as creating the term "nanotechnology".
• One fallacy found was in Smalley's letter when he states,"If it is non-water-based life-form, then there is a vast area of chemistry that has eluded us for centuries". This is polarization because clearly there is not a vast area of chemistry that has eluded us, he is just exagerating and this shows when he follows with, " please tell us about this new chemistry". It is sort of a challange that isn't ment to be met.
• The letters by Smalley were more convincing because he explained everything well and called out Drexler in a manner that had the reader agreeing with him.