New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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?

gisterme - 02:56am Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9845 of 9856)

rshowalter wrote( rshowalter 9/24/01 4:59pm ):

"...Compacency is still strong, and the idea that key issues can actually be checked is too unacceptable..."

What a load coming from the king of checker-talker but not checker-doer. :-)

First of all, what makes you think "key issues" are not "checked"? Just what do you mean by "checked"? Please fill me in. Checked by whom...you?

You're trying to weave your false illusion as usual, Robert, making statements that refer to a presumption of guilt. That's clever but not very honest. The other problem with the approach is that only about 1% of the truly mentally challenged population of the US is dumb enough to buy that stuff.

The US people must be much different than wherever it is that you are from, Robert. If you knew them, you wouldn't expect them to pay any attention to the kind of silly stuff you write. Americans have a gift for simplicity and practicality of solutions. They have common sense, Robert. That's your worst enemy and, oh well, those folks have come, seen, heard and left. Got better things to do no doubt.

Were it not for a couple of old fahrts like myself and dirac, this forum would be the central and principal black-hole of boredom in the World Wide Web Universe. :-)

armel7 - 01:19pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9846 of 9856)
Science/Health Forums Host

Please take all talk on the terrorist attacks and the world response to

rebecca_nyt "A Nation Challenged" 9/25/01 1:19pm

Also, rshowalter, self-referencing old posts might not be necessary if you would post more sparsely and allow responses.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

rshowalter - 02:26pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9847 of 9856)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme asks some key questions about checking, and raises a fair question about the role I should have in checking. MD9845 gisterme 9/25/01 2:56am

And says I make cases in a deceptive way.

The two points are coupled. Both depend on a notion of a "right to speak." Let me respond to the second point first.

rshowalter - 02:27pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9848 of 9856)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme suggests that I'm being fraudulent in some of what I do. Since I've sometimes suggested similar things about gisterme , that's a fair question to raise. I don't feel I'm being fraudulent or unfair, but I'm sure I can make mistakes, just as other people can.

Gisterme says I make statements that refer to a presumption of guilt. In some cases that's true. Are the statements fraudulent, or in bad faith, or even inappropriate? I think that depends on the circumstances. And depends especially on who judges, and who I expect to judge.

I don't expect to be the judge, though I do express my own judgement. I expect others to judge. Do they see what I see? I point out a pattern, a relation, and things I believe count as supporting evidence or material. I say "It looks that way to me" - - and hope others do see what I see, or tell me why they do not. If I'm wrong, and see I'm wrong, I try to say so. And sometimes have said so. That's pretty standard in discourse.

I say, or mean to say "that's my opinion - - here's why it looks that way to me - - - I think this should be checked."

The question arises: checked by whom?

I think in an ideal world, it would be best if I wasn't involved in the checking at all - - but in the real world, think I might have a role. But checking certainly shouldn't be by me alone. I certainly shouldn't be the one to make the operationally final judgement. I'm not in any sort of "umpire" role on these matters. I'm arguing that there are mistakes.

In cases where questions of fact are crucial , there should be a reasonable umpire role. Because the stakes on getting a right answer are high enough to merit that.

Isn't that available now, in ways that are workable? Often it is. Under many crucial circumstances, it is not.

rshowalter - 02:31pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9849 of 9856)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For example, on lasar weapons, I've said, and I can show a lot of detailed citations where I've supplied details, that when you look at the design proposals now being supported, including quantitative details, and also and look at simple countermeasures, the programs suggested are extremely unlikely to work. By that I mean that I believe that, if the proposals are evaluated in terms of what can be done in the open literature, it would take a long string of "breakthroughs" -- some so large that they might be thought to be "miracles"

In one sequence of cases gisterme ignored my points, or responded in ways that were technically off point and wrong -- but said explicitly that she'd disposed of the points. Without somebody in the role of umpire - - I had no recourse. The stakes were pretty basic. If I was right - - the lasar programs were very unlikely to work. I believe, though it is only my opinion, that anyone placed and qualified to umpire the questions involved would have thought I was right.

- - - - - - -

gisterme asks:

First of all, what makes you think "key issues" are not "checked"?

Just what do you mean by "checked"? Please fill me in. Checked by whom...you?

I mean "checked by a process capable, in the specific case, of doing a reasonable job of umpiring - - a job of umpiring that can, itself, bear examination for credibility." That's not a standard you can define with perfect generality, but in particular cases, it is straightforward enough.

And there are plenty of examples, including very serious ones, where things have gone wrong, and stayed wrong for long times, for want of the needed umpiring.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense