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.

cantabb - 02:02pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13916 of 13917)

rshow55 - 12:43pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13914 of 13915)

Wasteful, Incoherent, Nonsensical for one purpose may be Economic, Coherent, and Sensible from another.

But when there is ONE specified purpose, NOT difficult to see what's "wasteful, incoherent and nonsensical" for THAT purpose. And, the 'purpose' of this forum, as of others, is clearly stated.

Most rationalizations I've seen are lot better than this.

People have to do some switching.

"Switching": Of what? For What ? On What ?

What is the point of bringing up Ecclesiastes 3: 1-13 & the Byrds ?

I must admit that things are pretty muddled.

You can say that again ! And, MOSTLY BY you.

And it is hard to respond to one objection - while you're being showered with others.

We're NOT asking you to explain or justify the "muddle": Just try NOT to add to it [now that you say you recognize "the muddle"].

(One going beyond the obvious one, that cantabb surely knows, that this thread is an experiment showing how the internet - with work - can simulate some of the logic of the brain - and handle some things that haven't been possible before - especially if it is imagined as a prototype for what a staffed organization might do)

After all these years, NO longer an experiment ! WE know how the internet can help promote a discussion or "muddle" it. Or can be abused !

And so I go and think some things through - or try - and even have what seem to me to be coherent responses linked to science - and science directly linked to what's possible in missile defense - and I get clobbered from so many directions - that it is hard for me to see how I'm going to shake down a summary that could ever satisfy "the average reader of The New York Times."

In this, you're trying to merely rationalize your views and actions. If you feel "clobbered," join the club: Didn't you see attempts by some forum "regulars" after my FIRST post here just a few days ago ?

I would point out that, like other posters I often do set out short strings of meaningful thought - coherent and even cogent considered in isolation - and then I violate an "unwritten rule" and supply context explicitly .

A "string" of platitudes and cliches, I'd say. NOT even a coherent "string." The "context" provided is NOT "explicitly" -- it's diffused, often mixed with your biographical and other details -- none of which being important or relevant.

There are interesting logical consequences of doing that. Things can get clear enough to check if you check through enough interconnected context. Internal consistency can be clarified. Sharpened. Combed out.

What "logical consequences" ? The 'logical consequence' of ad infinitum posting of material totally irrelevant to the topic IS a big kitchen sink. A gross abuse of the forum purpose and posting privilege.

Repeating the same thing (misinformation or incoherence, etc), over and over is ALSO "internal consistency." BUT such things don't become true, over time. We saw a classic case of that 60 years ago.

.

cantabb - 02:06pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13917 of 13917)

rshow55 - 12:44pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13915 of 13915)

When people "think about things" - and "talk things over" that "boring" process goes on and on and on and on . . . and quite often it is useful.

Depends on the "things" that are thought and talked over. Irrelevant things are NOT 'useful' to the process, no matter how tedious.

But it is not the condensed form that people would want to read in a newspaper article - or a book - or an academic paper. Those are more condensed forms.

What most people interested in a topic need is something cogent and coherent, NOT necessarily 'condensed'.

Mostly, I'm working on the long - which is less valuable than the short - but comes first in the focusing process. Details - sometimes voluminous details, carefully crosschecked - are important when cooperation that actually works is important. Cantabb thinks this following is insignificant and inappropriate here - but I think it is both significant and appropriate.

The basic question was: What exactly do you think YOU are working on ?

And then, what are YOU trying to achieve (through your use of this forum) ? Based on the material available to you ('classified' or in public domain on the topic) what do you think YOU have that is special or "new" to offer ?

For stable end games - workable stable arrangements - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions. Especially if win-win outcomes are to be possible.

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

How do they disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

Nothing specific here, is there ? Meaningless generalities !

I think Eisenhower would have called this new:

HOW do YOU KNOW ? And, why that's important today ?

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated.

Diffused thinking prevents clear recognition of the "patterns," their nature and stability. So hampered, accommodating them "decently" is out of the question.

In terms of the values that I think have been exemplified by The New York Times in tolerating this thread -

Unfortunately !

... it seems to me that that statement is worthwhile.

See IF you CAN help make it worthwhile for NYT and the forum readers !

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense