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 - 02:09pm Jun 17, 2003 EST (# 12572 of 12576)
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.

The Two Cultures by C.P. Snow has been reprinted many times since 1959 (I used to have the 10th reprinting, from 1961, but mislaid it and got a new copy.) My new copy, from Cambridge U. Press, includes an introductory essay by Stefan Collini that includes this:

" In general terms, the most marked changes to the map of the disciplines in the last three decades have taken the apparently contradictory, or at least conflicting, forms of a sprouting of ever more specialised sub-disciplines and the growth of various forms of inter-disciplinary endeavor. But in one sense, these changes both tell in the same direction: in place of the old apparently confident empires, the map shows many more smaller states with networks of alliances and communication between them criss-crossing in complex and surprising ways. It is largely a matter of emphasis whether one regards these changes as indicating that, rather than two cultures, there are in fact two hundred and two cultures or that there is fundamentally only one culture. The difference between these two responses derives in part from accentuating different features of the idea of "a culture". The first concentrates on the intellectual equivalent of the microclimate , and hence on how a plurality of largely self-contained enterprises, each with its own idiom and reference points, sustain the ways of life of different professional groups. The second looks, rather, for the largest common frame, the ways in which the various intellectual activities could be said to take part in a shared conversation or to exhibit certain common mental operations."

People involved in writing Science Times are superbly placed to see things from both points of view. The best of them do, and shape the common culture in creative, beautiful, powerful ways.

That's been especially important to me, since I was dead clear, after indoctrination by D.D. Eisenhower, that there were operational defects in the "largest common frame" - that stood in the way of workable shared conversations. I aim to have those defects better understood, and of less practical importance.

rshow55 - 02:14pm Jun 17, 2003 EST (# 12573 of 12576)
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.

Lchic and I have have been bringing generalizations into focus to provide a more solid - more focused - more efficient - more graceful common culture. Pretty effectively, it seems to me.

E.D. Hirsh Jr. wrote an influential book Cultural Literacy: What every american needs to know. . . Houghton Mifflin

The preface begins with these lines:

" There is no matter what children should learn first, any more than what leg you should put into your breeches first. Sir, you may stand disputing which is better to put in first, but in the meantime your backside is bare. Sir, while you stand considering which of two things you should teach your child first, another boy has learn't them both." . . . . Samuel Johnson

" To be culturally literate is to possess the basic information need to thrive in the modern world.

Lchick and I are working to condense and clarify that basic information, where it needs to be understood for the first time, or sharpened and made graceful - as f = ma is sharp, graceful, and perfectly fit for the purposes it is reasonably used for.

6828-9 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ym2ZbsJQhPu.1351978@.f28e622/8333

If people could actually accept that the only "reality" that they can have - at the level of "knowledge" and belief is virtual - in the plain sense of "contained in their head" - - a lot would clarify.

We naturally develop different "little universes" of great complexity in our heads - as individuals and groups. When we start checking these "virtual universes" for consistency with respect to themselves - and with respect to facts in the world that can be matched against - and the process of "connecting the dots" continues - a lot can clarify. If more people were clear that their beliefs were virtual - and that the beliefs of other people and groups were also virtual - - we'd all be a lot safer.

Ways of focusing to truth about technical facts concerning missile defense have been much discussed here. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296 A key fact is that with enough crossreferencing - and application of consistency relationships - most things can focus - and sometimes new and important insights happen. Lchic has had some.

Beautiful pieces on virtual reality by Lchic - - http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/1190

MOI - a virtual creation made in my own image http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/1193

Lchic is a "virtual creation made in her own image" who shares several hundred thousand definitions - essentially exactly, with people in her culture - who is near-identical with many other people in many, many ways - and she (and other people) have a lot straight.

But mistakes can happen - they are not surprising - and the fact that they can be fixed isn't surprising, either.

Eisenhower drafted me, and told me to "go looking" - with some clear instructions - and I've had the honor of working with great minds - Kline and Lchic - and we've made some progress.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense