New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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.

rshow55 - 11:24am Apr 7, 2003 EST (# 11185 of 11187)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Many different viewpoints are important in different ways. Some show a fractal-like character, and show complexities that aren't necessarily (or even often) contradictory.

11052 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.CHUialHC6iL.882899@.f28e622/12603 refers to some wonderfully perceptive writing:

To Imagine Iraq After Saddam Hussein, You Must Think Like an Iraqi By ETHAN BRONNER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/opinion/04FRI4.html starts:

Every journalist abroad wants to tell his readers at home two contradictory things. The first is: "The people here may look and sound strange, but they are no different from you and me. They want security and dignity; they seek a better life for their children. What you share with them far outweighs your differences." The second message is the opposite: "Yes, people here hunger and hurt and love; yes, they enjoy ice cream and action movies. But if you think that by knowing that, you know them, you are mistaken. These people are very different from you."

Things are "very much the same" yet "very different." Similar in some ways. Different in others. Without contradiction.

If the similarities, and differences are certain and well expressed, these similiarities and differences matter in the particular ways they happen to matter, and the importance or unimportance of particular similarities or differences - or groups of similarities and differences - depends on circumstances - and can be very different for different circumstances.

Is there really anybody who doubts that? I don't believe so - but let me go on --

If one is trying to figure out the similarities and differences - with some confidence and some uncertainty about circumstances and meanings, these similiarities and differences seem to matter in the particular ways they seem to matter, and the importance or unimportance of particular similarities or differences is judged , or guessed , according to patterns that may be more or less clear - often according to several such patterns.

One my find this platitudinous - but can anybody doubt the points just above?

Here's a basic fact:

If many, many cases that seem similar in some ways are compared - and the differences between the cases are also noticed - the nature of the percieved similarity is likely to become more focused - more clear. Or, the perception of similarity may be seen to have been a mistake, and a previous notion of similarity may be discarded.

This sort of process can be applied many, many times - in many ways that are somewhat related, but somewhat different - to provide different tests for the percieved similarity.

For many different similaritities, different patterns of similarity, with different sets of differences to notice - can provide crosschecking - cross-connection.

So long as referents are CLEAR - and stably used - this process is very likely to converge - and for most things - the convergence is essentially identical for almost everybody who goes through the process almost all the time.

I believe, and have believed for a long time, that the criterion of clarity and acceptability - that most human beings use - the one that applies to the human brain and to animal brains, too - is something like the notion of "disciplined beauty" discussed on this thread and elsewhere.

People "connect the dots" - find patterns - in a large number (or large enough) number of instances similar enough to notice together. They keep trying to find patterns - and as the process goes on they very very very very very very often guess and often notice that their guesses are wrong and reject those guesses.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense