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 - 11:21am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14633 of 14638)

rshow55 - 10:04am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14628 of 14630)

Note the "all" [the “dots”/ “relevant facts”] above .

That's what your hype suggested. Having discussed this a few times already, I suggest you read one or more of my posts on this matter, if at all interested in clearing up our confusion on my position on “connecting the dots”.

You can't get them all - but you don't need to get them all - all you need is reasonable subsets of them - because so much connects with so much else.

You miss the point !

You still don’t seem to understand that the facts [“the dots”] need to be relevant and verified [NOT biased personal opinions or fiction or a custom blend of them all], and you’ve to “connect” them rationally if you want to see a picture rationaslly emerge -- just like a jigsaw puzzle. You seem to have a whole lot of difficulty in this.

The picture we see develop is obviously progressive – NOT just an endless rote of the same in a mindless version of “loop test.”

Despite our achievements in science, we know we don’t have ALL the facts on ALL the things.

What’s “reasonable subsets of the dots” ? The “dots” you like, a pick-and-choose process? I think what YOU consider “reasonable” is going to be LOT different from what most others would [Just a wild guess !].

In precision grinding - for instance for lenses -or precision metallic machinery or components - there's a great deal of " going round and round" smoothing out objects with respect to themselves - and there is also some periodic checking to external standards.

But that’s part of a different process -- to reach precision/accuracy, or improve upon it. In science, we do replicate experiments, see it confirmed (or not) by others independently. Here you seem interested in picking-and-choosing the facts/dots you like.

Both statistical processes and matching are involved.

What statistical processes you think are involved when you do NOT have facts/”the dots,” and what statistical analysis allows you to pick-and-choose your “facts” YOU like ? By poicking and choosing, you can derive any conclusion that seems “reasonable” to YOU. What specifically are you “matching” here ? Facts matching your interest ?

Internal consistency and consistency with a finite set of surface elements and intermediate abrasive grains is all that is ever involved in grinding. That's enough for it to work as well as it does.

You may be confusing things: In experimental science, we always talk about “grinding the data” – but that doesn’t mean ‘polishing’ it to suit ourself or our Rx. :)

Things converge. You don't need to know everything. But using different things - that - ought to be related - you can do a lot of crosschecking.

What do you really mean by “Things converge” here ? Converging to the point YOU have in mind or want by ‘polishing’/’grinding’ the facts/the dots ?

No body knows everything, or have ALL the facts ! But we have a rational approach to get a reasonably coherent picture, based on data that has been rationally obtained and verified -- And, here, I see a few things I suspect you’d difficulty with: rational, reasonable, verifiable, coherent !

If we reject mistakes - and keep sorting and resorting - for our purposes - a lot can and does converge if finding right answers is one of our key purposes.

How do you, or can you, ever know (or point to) the “mistakes” when you don’t know or can’t tell what specifically are you working on, and toward what objective ?

jorian319 - 11:22am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14634 of 14638)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

checking.... still checking....

AHA!

Cantabb & Bluestar are in fact Smith & Wesson.

Connect them dots, rshow!

Speaking of connecting dots, has anyone noticed how really fresh Dots tend to stick together (connect), but once they get stale, you can't get 'em to stick for nuthin!

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense