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?

rshowalter - 08:04pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1144 of 1148)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here's a pair of guidelines, that Steve sets out for scholarly groups, that I think should apply to political and economic systems, too.

" Guideline for Scholarly Controversy: When two (or more) groups of empirically grounded scholars create conflicting solutions for a single problem, and this leads to back-and-forth arguments for decades, then it is likely that each group has some of the truth, but not all of it.

Corollary: When two (or more) groups of empirically grounded scholars have a long-continuing argument, an improved solution can often be found by reframing the problem to include the solidly grounded data underlying both sides of the argument.

The world views of the Russians and Americans each have some of the truth, but not all of it.

Reframings that preserve what works well empirically, for both systems, might well improve things.

Also, when a system as a whole fails, it doesn't necessarily make sense (for a social system, which is multiply articulated) to abandon and discredit all of it. There may be good reasons to preserve the parts that worked well. And may be good reason to be proud of all the parts of it that worked well in the past, and especially the parts that worked well consistently.

rshowalter - 08:22pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1145 of 1148)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In the West, more in America than anywhere else, the idea has been standard that conspiracies are somehow bad to talk about - that everything is the result of impersonal forces, or anyway, "nobody's fault" -- or, as a matter of convention, that's the way to talk about it.

. This pattern makes for some non-confrontational and smooth social conventions, and may be efficient for that reason, even in some cases where it happens to be wrong. The pattern may also very often fit reality. Even so, this pattern, as a doctrine, makes a social group vulnerable to real conspiracies, especially conspiricies involving things not to be discussed.

. . . . . . .

In Russia, and in Marxism in general, the idea has been standard that economic activity was based on decisions of people - and that these people, exercising social and technical power, determined outcomes.

. This pattern institutionalizes certain inherent tensions between the better off and the worse off, and may be inefficient because of these tensions, under some circumstances, even in cases where it happens to be true. But the pattern may very often fit reality, and give good guidance, as well. Even so, this pattern, as a doctrine, makes a social group vulnerable to misjudgements, when social interactions do not have conspiratorial explanations, as often happens.