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.
(3903 previous messages)
rshow55
- 03:12pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (#
3904 of 3920)
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.
I feel that postings 1477-1479 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1641
are pretty clear - and related to questions that are
important, and have recently been discussed in the New York
Times - especially in discussions keyed on Finding Answers
In Secret Plots http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/weekinreview/10GOOD.html
and The Odds of That http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/magazine/11COINCIDENCE.html
The questions
" how do people figure things out?
and
" how does the process fail or
mislead?
have been central questions in philosophy for 2500 years -
and we can make progress here. Not on the broadest part
of the question of how human reasoning works - but on a
related question.
"What are the odds that we can figure
things out in more orderly, more useful ways?"
They are very good, and getting better. We can do MANY
things a LOT better - when we learn more about how "connecting
the dots" works - and how it goes wrong.
(Erica Goode's Finding Answers In Secret Plots http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/weekinreview/10GOOD.html
seems to have ignited a real change in the meaning and
frequency of the phrase "connect the dots" in our language.)
I'm trying to get things organized to explain some
simple facts that elementary school kids and teachers
should know -- and statesmen, too. I've blocked out the
explanatin in terms of reading instruction - an area of wider
interest and more lasting importance than the missile defense
boondoggle.
Both to explain how technical solutions that get
breakthrough results can be found and proven - - and
how the processes of finding these solutions can be learned
and taught.
And to explain how socio-technical aspects of these
problems are hard. Hard, but not hopeless. The social and
psychological difficulties with getting solutions implemented
can be handled more easily than they are handled now ---
because of thigs that lchic and I have worked out.
Missile defense discussion is relatively easy. If you
can't show that the missile defense boondoggle is a mess - it
is because, these days, you can't prove anything
in the face of opposition.
We can do better than that.
It is in the interest of many citizens, and many
politicians, to see that we do so.
bbbuck
- 03:26pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (#
3905 of 3920) 'I will change my tagline when the
strike starts'....8 days til strike, 4days to 25k, 5days to
us.open. 30days to fall.
Well as they say in the army, 'it doesn't get any better
than this'. Carry on sir, the crazy truck must have missed
you this week. Maybe next week.
lchic
- 08:01pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (#
3906 of 3920)
It's interesting the way the 'Primaries' are running in the
US
There's a move towards running with the candidates who
are 'believable' those who can be believed and are seen as
able. Newbies are being allowed through while politicians
flush with money power and rhetoric are ousted.
The newly known, seen to be believable, seen to have their
feet on the common ground are now chic!
Common ground, common understanding, common knowledge,
common ideals, common concerns, common realities - COMMON!
Suggests there's a move for 'truth', a move for a clean-up
of messes, a move to have people's reps who relate to people,
who aren't in the pockets of ....
A 'Wynne' Gut Feeling movement for common decency!
UNcommon!
lchic
- 08:19pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (#
3907 of 3920)
Competition isn't always the best way forward:
"" But the problem was that the companies were not
charities, said John Hilary, the trade policy adviser of
Save the Children UK. "They don't go into the countries with
thoughts of doing the poor a good turn." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=326262 the
summit was rushing to involve the private sector in
development. "Where multinationals are involved, they must
be carefully regulated to ensure social and environmental
benefits are realised. There may well also be circumstances
in which private-sector engagement is simply not the best
option in the first place"
(13 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|