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.

rshow55 - 08:51am Jun 11, 2003 EST (# 12470 of 12474)
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.

3934 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.6E36baoiedE.397002@.f28e622/4958 to 3945 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.6E36baoiedE.397002@.f28e622/4971

References that are merely cited don't show much, beyond the existence of a somehow "related corpus of material." Not unless they are also examined. References do serve to tell people where to look to find material thought to be connected with an argument or result. They say " you may, look for yourself, judge for yourself -- and I've looked HERE."

Hilary Putnam said this:

" We think because Newton somehow reduced the physical world to order, something similar must be possible in psychology. . . . . as we say in the United States . . . "I'm from Missouri -- show me! "

We're trying to take some steps in that direction. (Eisenhower thought steps in that direction were desperately needed.) Order, when it comes, is often simple. Simple enough to learn and teach. You don't get much more condensed than f = m a , a relation which (with Einstein's small correction) is perfect for what it does.

As of now, psychology is not, in Hilary Putnam's sense, "reduced to order."

In reading instruction, and in areas where questions like "missile defense" need to be taken to closure, there's room for improvement. Some of my sense that there's room for improvement comes from reading the following references.

3934 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.6E36baoiedE.397002@.f28e622/4958 to 3945 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.6E36baoiedE.397002@.f28e622/4971

Also doing some math work I was assigned to do by Eisenhower and his subordinates. When you think about how well people do a lot of other things (watch television, or talk, for instance) and think about how flexible human beings are --- it seems likely that there is a lot of room for improvement. Eisenhower thought so. Some people working on "animal mathematical competence" at Ft. Dietrick thought so. Reason for hope. And some things to fight shy of, as well.

rshow55 - 08:56am Jun 11, 2003 EST (# 12471 of 12474)
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.

Women are logically superior to men in some key ways. Lchic is not only the most facile, incisive mind I've ever "rubbed up against" - she also has, to a superb degree, every "feminine wile" and logical flexibility that I can imagine exists in the human species.

" There are two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works.

. . . . . Will Rogers

For closure - even if there has to be a 2" plexiglass wall between us - I'd like to meet her face to face.

lchic - 09:17am Jun 11, 2003 EST (# 12472 of 12474)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

PlexiG

http://www.lowencg.com/products/subs/substrates.asp?i=19

fredmoore - 09:54am Jun 11, 2003 EST (# 12473 of 12474)

This board is like a rerun of the Addam's family.

Rshow: Lchic ... you spoke French!

Lchic: That's PlexiG my petit miam.

Almarst: Let's shoot 'em, shoot 'em in the back!

Addam's Family:

Http://www.comedy.series.com/kookyfamily/whydowebother.html/badtaste=truth.asp?i=69\

Why thank you Cyberthingy!

Mr. Addddams ...... Arrrrrrrghhhhh....

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense