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 - 07:39am Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14216 of 14232)
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.

13900 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Ls1Mbg3rKZc.0@.f28e622/15603

This passage is from Fundamental Neuroanatomy by Walle J. H. Nauta and Michael Feirtag . . . W.H. Freeman, 1986 ( Nauta wrote as a MIT professor - Feirtag from the Board of Editors of Scientific American ).

The passage is the last paragraph of Nauta and Feirtag's Chapter 2 - b The Neuron; Some Numbers

"One last conclusion remains to be drawn from the numbers we have cited. With the exception of a mere few million motor neurons, the entire human brain and spinal chord are a great intermediate net. And when the great intermediate net comes to include 99.9997 percent of all the neurons in the nervous system, the term loses much of its meaning: it comes to represent the very complexity one must face when one tries to comprehend the nervous system.

To understand workable human logic at all - to "connect the dots" - and do so well - and form workable judgements - we must face the need to "go around in loops" with a lot of different kinds of crosschecking. To say "no fair doing self reference" is like saying "no fair for a neuron to connect to anything but and input or an output neuron." It doesn't work that way, and can't.

Journalists, including journalists at the NYT, have fully mastered the art of "hiding things in plain sight" - and the prohibition on loops, and crosschecking - is a way to do that. The crossreferencing on this thread isn't accidental - and it shows something basic. With the crossreferencing shown - a lot can be knit together - both in terms of internal logic - and reference to external facts. It becomes clear enough to TEST . Not necessarily true - though, after a time "the odds of that" improve. Good enough to test.

Without the cycling - clarity is strictly impossible dealing with complicated subject matter.

rshow55 - 09:56am Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14217 of 14232)
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 failures of complex cooperation that people have most trouble with now - and the problems of peacemaking that we find insoluble now - involve complicated subject matter . I'm working to do a teaching job that I believe is necessary to deal with those problems. I think there's progress.

I've made a number of references to a piece of recieved culture that I believe is useful again and again - and one that shows the focusing of a series. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Similitude_ForceRatios_sjk.htm - which includes this:

“ . . Since the purpose of this volume is to develop and examine methodology, it is sufficient to make an example of one field of analysis. "

If discussion of the field were not impeded as it is - missile defense would be a sufficient field. But often - seeing similarities between many fields is useful - when important patterns repeat so often that they cannot reasonably be expected to be accidents.

In my opinion, unless certain key issues are handled better than they are handled today - problems almost everybody wants solved will remain insoluble.

Cantabb's asked some key questions - and I'm trying to answer them - in ways that can be useful.

Here are references to http://www.mrshowalter.net/Similitude_ForceRatios_sjk.htm that I believe are useful for organizing thought on issues that matter to me - and to the New York Times - and to the whole world.

14054 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Ls1Mbg3rKZc.0@.f28e622/15760 ( followed by an excellent post by cantabb.

14058 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Ls1Mbg3rKZc.0@.f28e622/15764

14060 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Ls1Mbg3rKZc.0@.f28e622/15766

14078-9 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Ls1Mbg3rKZc.0@.f28e622/15784

14083 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Ls1Mbg3rKZc.0@.f28e622/15789

Loop tests - and key questions: 14117 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Ls1Mbg3rKZc.0@.f28e622/15823

14143 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Ls1Mbg3rKZc.0@.f28e622/15850

IN NEGOTIATION PROBLEMS IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE WORKABLE SIMULATIONS OF THE ACTORS WHO WISH TO HAVE A STABLE COOPERATION - WITHIN PREDICTABLE AND STABLE LIMITS.

To get that information - generally - you need little fights - and enough controls that those little fights don't become big fights.

- - -

Sometimes - for demonstration - you need a lot of fights that ought to be little fights. Jorian talked about the usefulness of doing some jobs at "full scale." This thread is as large a corpus as has ever been put together for illustrating how human discourse and negotiation works. It says a lot about missile defense - and other things - and I think a lot has been accomplished, and more can be.

I'm trying to teach material that I believe people need for their own happiness and for their own safety.

Whether I'm right or wrong about that - with some crossreferencing it would be possible to support the idea that I really believe that.

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense