Skip navigation

Lost password? | Help

Notes on Logic:

Informal, Deductive, and Inductive

Nanotechnology and Emergent Properties

, , ,

With respect to composition, the usual heuristic is to attempt to model the higher level of phenomena on the basis of a lower level of phenomena (sometimes termed, "a dimension less than the one under examination").

With respect to nanoparticles safety concerns arise from surprising and unpredictable toxicological qualities on biological cells:

Their small size, large surface area, and unusual structures endow them with electronic, optical, and catalytic properties not found in their parent materials.

. (Aimee Cunningham, "Particular Problems: Assessing Risks of Nanotechnology," Science News, 169 No. 18 (6 May 2006), 280.)

Nanoparticles can be more toxic than the normally occurring larger particles, and, additionally, nanoparticles can exhibit novel electrical and catalytic properties which make them toxic in unpredictable ways.

Empirical research seems to be the method of discovery of the special properties of nanoparticles. By working from chemistry alone, or from physics alone, the properties of nanoparticles do not seem to be predictable. It seems promising that both sciences will benefit from another direction of discovery: examining seemingly emergent properties at a lower scale of phenomena.

Why Weaken an Argument with a Parting <i>ad Hominem</i>?

,

Apparently, in a recent issue, Nature, an international science journal, claimed that women were not seriously considered for the position for editor-in-chief of the journal Evolution. ("Societies spurn women editors," Nature Vol. 440 (2006), 974-5.)

Don Waller, at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, responds with a number of telling points, including these:

Of the past six presidents, three have been women. Our governing body has eight men and seven women ... five women were approached about their interest in the [editor-in-chief] position before Mark Rausher was appointed, and all declined. ...

("Nominees turned down Evolution job," Nature Vol. 441 (2006), 812.)

The refutation of the charge that women were not seriously considered is made. Why, then, did Professor Waller raise suspicion of credibility of his refutation with a closing ad Hominem?

I must also ask: why has Nature never had a female editor-in-chief?

(Ibid, 812.)

The tu quoque fallacy (charging the opponent with "being just like the person" the opponent is speaking about) is totally irrelevant to proving the falsity of the charge being made. As Wikipedia points out,

You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

("Ad Hominem," Wikipedia, (29 June 2006)<URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#You-too_version>.)

In this case, the fallacy is not a "you too" charge because of Professor Waller's denial of Nature's 0riginal charge of not adequately considering women editors-in-chief.
January 2010
S M T W T F S
December 2009February 2010
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30