Nanotechnology

The main point of contention between Drexler and Smalley is the difference in opinion about if and how self-replicating robots could exist in our world. Another disagreement they come to is the issue of "Smalley fingers."

In these letters and responses these men are putting their reputations and the reputation of nanotechnology at stake. 

Smalley makes good points about how these robots could be created using atoms that would know exactly what to do and how to do it. But Drexler disagrees with most of what he says and uses scientific findings and other examples to argue against his points. 

Drexler uses his status in his field but also brings up how he won a Nobel prize and name drops a lot. He brings up how Smalley tried to dismiss his work by misinterpreting it in his publication in the Scientific American. He says that the information in Smalley's article is false.

Smalley creates ethos in his article through knowing a lot about the topic, using equations and bringing up the definition of basic chemistry. Smalley also puts in his article that he is a Nobelist.

Drexler is also a Nobelist and he states that in his letters. He also brings up all of the research he has done and how he studied and worked at MIT.

Smalley's fallacies have to do with the nature of his writing. He does not go in depth enough so Drexler has the opportunity to point out everything that was wrong and not defined enough in his article. 

Drexler's was defined enough and did not leave anything out so Smalley could not prove anything wrong. All he could do was disagree but he rarely did that.

I think Drexler is more convincing because of how persistent he is and how much evidence he has. He also keeps pointing out how Smalley's information is false which definitely affects my opinion.