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 - 08:04am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7356 of 7358)
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.

If you search gisterme on this thread, you'll see a lot of effort, I appreciate that effort, becasue it seems likely to me that gisterme is a ranking personage. I'm notating his 7339, 7340 now, 7345, 7346 in a while, and will be putting his postings in italics and quotes, my comments in indented bold.

gisterme - 03:20am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7339

"rshow55 1/4/03 7:47pm

""...People need to collect "the dots"

" "collect" doesn't make much sense WRT "dots"..."discover" might be a more sensible term since it doesn't imply moving them into one place...but let's not quibble over a word.

. Not a quibble. I am saying that "simply" moving the data and arguments into one place, where comparison and crosschecking can occur is VERY important. There are two related but separate issues - 1. mutual consistency of a data-argument set with an interpretation or model and 2. Constency of that interpretation or model with NEW data. A model or interpretation that stands up to both those criteria, from many different points of view - and with consistency to new data on a number of cycles may be wrong in some way or other (for instance, backwards) but there will be SOMETHING to it - the odds of such consistency happening by chance are tiny .

"...and connect the dots to form ideas...at the same time evaluating their ideas in terms of order and symmetry and harmony in the ways that make aesthetic sense to them when applied to the particular details of the case..." [emphasis added].

"Who doesn't do that, Robert?

. You're right that everybody does. I believe that the pattern is common ground, at significant levels, between ALL people. That makes it important, and I think I'm expressing the idea in a more focused, useful, and general way way than has usually been done. f=ma is useful in a context - and very simple and condensed. The idea that people are orderly, symmetric, and harmonious in their organizations - some way or other - is useful, too, I believe.

It's true that most folks who do may not think of such lofty terms as "order", "symmerty", "harmony" or "aesthetic sense" in doing so; but, that doesn't really seem necessary does it? When a person is happy with their idea, it has order symmetry and harmony from their point of view, even if they don't think of it those terms...and even if they are insane megalomaniacs.

. Yes, but when the reasons they like an idea are made explicit - useful things happen - ideas clarify, condense - become more orderly, symmetric, and harmonious - or the flaws are seen, and thought patterns improve. The idea of disciplined beauty that lunarchick and I have worked on has been about that.

One person's aesthetic sense of order, symmetry and harmony, can and has lead to the ugliest sort of disrder, assymetry, discord and death for millions of others.

o Stalin... Hitler... Hirohito... Chariman Mao... Pol Pot... Saddam Hussein...

See the point?

. of course - and I responded in 7347

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense