New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
Thursday.
(413 previous messages)
rshow55
- 03:43pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#414
of 431)
Anything you're denying, in terms of arguments or facts, in any
particular articles?
almarst-2001
- 05:22pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#415
of 431)
Crude is the central subject of the world politics. Washington
came to the realization of that, when they launched the war in
Afghanistan, the final goal of which was to gain entry to the
republics of the former Soviet Union that are rich with crude and
gas. - http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/03/12/26942.html
rshow55
- 05:41pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#416
of 431)
Russia Assails U.S. Stance on Arms Reduction by MICHAEL
WINES http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/international/europe/12RUSS.html
. . . . . describes a situation much more dangerous than the one
Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov was hoping for in ORGANIZING THE
WORLD TO FIGHT TERROR http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/opinion/27IVAN.html
almarst-2001
- 06:16pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#417
of 431)
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." (Albert
Camus)
rshow55
- 06:25pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#418
of 431)
And alibis count. They can be undermined with facts.
Before a diversion, manjumicha2001 said this:
" I agree with you that NMD is a program that
is 50 years old and has proven to be terminally challenged by the
laws of physics. Having said that, however, I do not believe the
world turns based on merits alone."
MD399 rshow55
3/11/02 7:58pm ... MD400 lchic
3/11/02 8:03pm MD401 manjumicha2001
3/12/02 12:18am ... MD402 rshow55
3/12/02 8:19am MD403 rshow55
3/12/02 8:21am
Key points ! Note header.
rshow55
- 06:32pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#419
of 431)
MD404 manjumicha2001
3/12/02 11:50am . . . then raised a key question -- how to
prove -- (in the sense of persuade) the hopelessness of
current MD programs to the people who matter. Persuasion in
courtrooms, problematic as it is, offers some of the best
precedents.
Bias is an issue. For many, the MD programs work now -- they pay
their salaries.
wrcooper
- 09:43pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#420
of 431)
From Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, writing about
Martin Gardner:
How can we tell if someone is a scientific crank? Gardner offers
this advice: (1) "First and most important of these traits is that
cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues." Cranks
typically do not understand how the scientific process works--that
they need to try out their ideas on colleagues, attend conferences,
and publish their hypotheses in peer-reviewed journals before
announcing to the world their startling discovery. Of course, when
you explain this to them they say that their ideas are too radical
for the conservative scientific establishment to accept. (2) "A
second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly
strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which
manifests itself in several ways:
INDENTED QUOTE: (1) He considers himself a genius. (2) He regards
his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. (3) He
believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The
recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject
his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies"
for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to
the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. (4)
He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest
scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the
outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were
violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of
authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein.
(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many
cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.
We should keep these criteria at the forefront when we explore
controversial ideas on the borderlands of science. "If the present
trend continues, Gardner concludes, "we can expect a wide variety of
these men, with theories yet unimaginable, to put in their
appearance in the years immediately ahead. They will write
impressive books, give inspiring lectures, organize exciting cults.
They may achieve a following of one--or one million. In any case, it
will be well for ourselves and for society if we are on our guard
against them." So we still are, Martin. That is what skeptics do and
in tribute for all you have done we shall continue to honor your
founding command.
(11
following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|