New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (11114 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:30am Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11115 of 11126) Delete Message
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.

I think, pretty early on, kids would be taught that to describe anything well enough so that everybody involved can really know enough about it to do practical things with it - you need words and pictures and math together - and with enough views, connected well enough - so that things are clear.

( By math I means some way, that works well enough for the purpose, to answer "how much?" questions where they matter in the situation.)

Not that "full specification" is often worth it - or that people really need it all the time - but when getting facts straight about something physical really matters - words, pictures, and math together is what it takes.

Maybe that would be controversial, for a while. But people who worked at it would find out that these basic requirements for description are basic - and they'd come to understand them well enough so that they could explain them comfortably to kids.

To adults, too.

rshow55 - 05:33am Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11116 of 11126) Delete Message
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 people could really communicate about things at that tangible, factual level - they could sort out enough that they could cooperate about a lot of things.

Avoid a lot of fights.

And sort out a lot of things in ways they want to.

Without an ability for people to communicate at this basic physical level - how can you expect perfection - or adequacy - or safety - about "higher" things?

rshow55 - 05:35am Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11117 of 11126) Delete Message
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.

Question.

How many people - and how many groups of people - can communicate well enough for comfort, by these elementary standards?

I have my guess.

Wonder what other people would guess, after thinking about the question.

Seems to me that at this "low down" level - we often do a lot of stuff wonderfully well, but there's room for improvement.

In spots.

rshow55 - 05:39am Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11118 of 11126) Delete Message
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.

At this "low down" level of description - about "low down" physical things, and "low status" logical and physical relations there ARE things people can be SURE of.

That are "simply true."

Basic.

Worth knowing.

Not too many to teach.

lchic - 05:45am Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11119 of 11126)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

No schism - just ism

raising-ism

real-ism

relativ-ism

renewal-ism

revision-ism

revival-ism

More Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us