![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
    (2330 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 07:51pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2331
of 2335) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
The problems of Russia, and the problems of dealing with the
horrors of the Cold War, and the miserable way it is continued, are
morally hard enough. Because much of the truth is ugly. But the
ugliness is not unthinkable, if one recognizes that one is not
dealing with contradiction, but complexity, then one is dealing with
situations where there is some hope of better action in the future.
The ugliness of the past should not be forgotten, and it must be
dealt with -- but it need not paralyze us.
Here is the essence of the most effective psychological warfare -
- you mess up a system, and can even shut it down, by telling lies.
Confusions based on lies and mistakes of any kind can disable a
system.
Any model that is much too simple can generate dangerous lies and
mistakes. And many of the models Russians and Westerners have used
to think about themselves, and each other, have been much too
simple, and morally cocksure, as well.
Russia has been the victim of some very sophisticated and
effective psychological warfare from outside, and has, to a
significant degree, been weakened by lies its own people and
goverment have told, and by a mass of confusions. . . . . Similar
things, to a lesser degree, can be said of America.
Some of the worst muddles involve military issues, and some of
the worst of these involve nuclear messes that could easily destroy
the world.
These things connect closely to the questions raised in connects
closely to the questions raised in almarst-2001
4/17/01 1:43pm and almarst-2001
4/17/01 2:09pm .
To adress these questions, I'm going to have to take a risk, and
deal with problems Dawn Riley and I have been working on at a level
where we've been thinking about them -- as patterns of concept
formation, patterns of thinking, in individual human minds, and in
cultures. I'll try to be as clear, and as testable, as I can.
I think a lot of things are much more hopeful than they've
seemed, but that there is work to do, and some hard thinking, and
some careful mutual apologizing, for things actually done, that will
be needed from a number of points of view.
rshowalter
- 07:56pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2332
of 2335)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
And, a major point, in my view, is that nuclear weapons are
obsolete menaces, ill controlled, with technical and human dynamics
that are ill understood.
They could easily end the world.
They ought to be taken down.
Carefully.
*****
I'll keep working.
baxter46a
- 08:06pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2333
of 2335)
Great work robert
You are a JOY to read
I will get back
with you on missiles in Russia and Uk
I like what I see.
rshowalter
- 08:13pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2334
of 2335)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm
Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact
sciences:
" beauty is the proper conformity of the parts
to one another and to the whole."
Good theory is an attempt to produce this kind of beauty in a
specific context of assumption and data.
Goodness can be judged in terms of that context, and also the fit
with contexts that, for logical reasons, have to fit together.
The beauty, and ugliness, of a theory can be judged, in terms of
the context it was built for, and other contexts, including the
context provided by data not previously considered.
Words, pictures and math (the symbolic the pictorial, and the
quantitative) have to fit together comfortably and workably, both as
far as internal consistency goes, and in terms of fit to what the
theory is supposed to describe.
Theories that are useful work comfortably in people's heads .
Both the "beauty" and "ugliness" of theory are
interesting, both notions are contextual, and cultural.
Ugliness is an especially interesting notion.
To make theory better, you have to look for ways
that the theory is ugly, study these, and fix them.
The ugly parts are where new beauty is to be found.
(A lot of people think I'm always pointing out
weaknesses, uglinesses, of other people's theories. The reason is
that the ugly parts provide clues to new progress -- hope that
new, more powerful kinds of theoretical and practical beauty can
be found.)
  (1
following message)
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
