![[F]](13213_files/site.gif) 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.
  (13212 previous messages)
rshow55
- 05:42pm Aug 2, 2003 EST (#
13213 of 13267)
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 are both proud of the accomplishments
described and put in context in MD1999 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/2484
I'm also very proud of the contribution that I believe this
thread has made to the connotations and denotations of the
phrase"connect the dots" - a phrase more common and central
language and thought than it used to be.
9238 < http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/10764">rshow55
"Missile Defense" 2/23/03 1:51pm</a>
2346 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/2915
includes this:
I believe that Erica Goode has made a contribution
to the culture, and that this thread may have done so. I'm
only basing my jugement on statistics, and what I myself have
noticed, and may be wrong. But the matter could be checked,
pretty readily, by searching the net. It concerns the phrase
"connect the dots." -- and whether that phrase has gained in
meaning, and frequency, since Erica Goode's Finding Answers
In Secret Plots http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/weekinreview/10GOOD.html
. . which speaks of:
" a basic human urge to connect the dots
and form a coherent picture."
The idea that people have contradictions - and deal with
them by "secrets, lies and fictions" - some conscious, some
not - is one that I feel is essential if we are to get closure
in areas where closure has eluded us. That idea, like the idea
of "connecting the dots" has been discussed many time on this
thread. Here are places where some of that discussion happens:
3006 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/3745
3036 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/3784
3111 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/3885
3155 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/3941
Natale Angier piece: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/4115
We need both long and short statements: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/4168
3507 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/4423
3618 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/4562
3655 3658 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/4609
3736 -3739 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/4706
3995-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/5029
4052-4054 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/5100
Statistics and logic: 4166-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/5255
4249
4251-52 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/5372
4278-9 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/5407
Emergent properties: 4365-66 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/5517
Willful distortions: 5003 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/6310
5178 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/6510
Iraq and sincerity: 5573-4 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/6968
6000 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/7465
7000-7003 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/8521
7019 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/8540
7046-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/8569
7188-9 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/8711
7203 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/8726
7312-3 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/8835
7507 7510 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/9033
Repression links: 7803-5 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/9328
Repression - negative comment by gisterme : 7857
7858-60 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/9383
8419-21 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133256@.f28e622/9945
. . . .
If we had the courage to connect the dots more
carefully, and discard notions that "seemed to fit" yet
didn't - we'd be a great d
(54 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
| 
