Missile Defense

The present is . For those beyond quantum limits, reality is ... that is, in a sense that is operationally important, reality is fixed, and independent of opinions.

The past, which is the sequence of present moments that are now past, must logically be fixed in the same way.

And yet, for real people, what we can know of the past is a construction.

What do we owe to the notion of "truth" in the past -- and why does it matter -- and how do we determine what to believe?

rshowalter - 11:18am Apr 26, 2001 EST (#2630 of 2632)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We do so, and can only do so, by matching what we think against what can be checked -- both checked for internal consistency, and against physical, multiply constrained facts.

Often this matching to clear focus - this matching to a confident focus - is impossible. Much in the past can never be reconstructed.

But on issues of importance, if we do the work, we can find out a great deal.

With the internet, which extends human memory, and human ability to cope with complexity, and with present searching capabilities, we can find out truth about the past much more completely than used to be possible.

It is possible, in human terms, to prove things "beyond a reasonable doubt" that could not have been established before.

If we work at it, and take our time.

And if we remember that, for such constructions, the only "logical operator" that is basic is "is consistent with."

Findings of consistency, again and again, from many statistically and causally independent connections, can "nail something down." Our trial law practice is based on this, and in competently conducted jury trials it very often works.

But only if deceptions do not stump us.

That means that we must be prepared to consider deception, including the possibility of widespread deception, rather than defer to it.

rshowalter - 11:21am Apr 26, 2001 EST (#2631 of 2632)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Some points about the Osprey matter:
rshowalter 4/18/01 10:24pm
rshowalter 4/19/01 10:32am

rshowalter 4/19/01 5:31pm

Can the military-industrial complex evade clear answers, and, in practical effect, lie to the American people? I believe that this affair shows, rather clearly, that it can do so, and shows the essential means.

Casts of characters are chosen.

Someone of "total authority and integrity" lies, or evades in a way that has the effect of a lie, and does so in public.

. And he is trusted.

rshowalter 4/25/01 11:50am

I believe that Norman Augustine recently got up on national television, and used his reputation to defend an indefensible decision about Osprey. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. He could, it he wished, get information to me showing that I am wrong.

If I'm wrong about missile defense, Augustine should know that, and should have many ways of showing many responsible people facts that show I am wrong.

On a sixty billion dollar program, there must be plenty of other people who have good evidence of the merits of the work done, and plenty of ways to establish that, even within the constraints of security rules.

Perhaps there is another explanation for these things, besides the one that occurs to me.

Using consistency checking, applied again and again, not only to what people say, but to facts, can determine questions as multiply connected as these. Determine them beyond reasonable doubt.

On matters central to world survival, a reasonable level of world peace, and the integrity of the United States, we should do so.

rshowalter - 11:30am Apr 26, 2001 EST (#2632 of 2632)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

This is serious:

China Denounces Bush's Comments on Taiwan by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-China-US-Reaction.html

Our world is now so messed up that "confusions about words" like this one could, under easily imaginable circumstances, end the world.

We should take care. George W. Bush, especially, should take care, and consider the moral obligations that go with his position.

If Bush did not know how the Chinese would react, he should have. So should his advisors have done.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense