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 - 06:09am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13949 of 13958)
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.

Showalter ... is it important to arrive at new - definitive - points - carefully ... why so? Do these new cultural 'dots' have to be 'right' from all perspectives?

I think that it is vital to go "round and round" when you're looking at new stuff because it is the multiple perspectives - the formation and rejection of many perspectives - that permits convergence - in a not so very slow focusing process - till an answer that works every which way you look at it - an approach that is canonical is found.

Because right answers are so sparse - and human logic, muddled as it is, is as good as it is - there's an excellent chance of converging on right ansers on problematic material if people keep at it - and do not simply cast the process aside because it "rocks some boats" or because it takes time - and involves mistakes and muddle in the process of focusing.

In the end - you want things so simple that it is useful and safe to teach them - the best of them - teach them to helpless people who are our hope - children.

For example - if kids knew, early, that the parts of math that work for practical jobs all link to a common core -

geometry . . . calculus

arithmetic . . algebra

interlinked "every which way" - they'd be able to construct mathematical understanding - for themselves - and guided by the culture - better than they do today. That sort of simple insight - or, if you will, search code - is useful and simple once it is found.

The hash and volume and muddle involved in the finding of it can be swept away - and the result - short, sweet, true, and useful, can be remembered.

f = ma

is a condensation - true in a clearly defined context - and it could have been found many, many centuries before it was if people has been more honest and careful about "connecting the dots" - and kept at it. Because, looking at data from many perspectives - and doing the work to relate the perspectives - f = ma is the right answer. Such answers condense.

That's a big point of hope.

They condense as well and surely as they do because things that fit together "every which way" are statistically very sparse - and a good way of seeing how sparse is to look at ratios of factorials.

rshow55 - 06:17am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13950 of 13958)
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.

When "the clues" or "the dots" are closely packed, and multiply reinforced - we "connect the dots" quickly, unconsciously, and well. For that reason - we all "figure out the words we know" - and with astonishing frequency - everybody figures them out the same. People reading this thread are likely to share the definitions of 50,000 words - more than 100,000 definitions, many very nuanced - and for the 20,000 or so most used words - we know them in the same way to an astonishingly high standard.

For new stuff, the "clues" or "dots" are not so tightly packed - the issues of choice are not well marked - things aren't so condensed - and emotions very often run high.

Sometimes there are fights. Sometimes there have to be. But if we're clear - they can be small fights. And if issues need to be resolved that count enough - institutions can be set up to sort out a lot more than is sorted out today.

A suggestion - that remembers status usages - but avoids a paralyis that is very dangerous today - even in science and engineering - was set out here:

http://www.mrshowalter.net/ScienceInTheNewsJan4_2000.htm

lchic - 06:19am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13951 of 13958)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

The UN speaches were interesting this week

The acknowledgement that 'within national boundaries' there are problems related to the welfare of young/people that require 'moral forcing' to resolve.

1648 may be made to move forward -- modernised at last after 355 years.

rshow55 - 06:25am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13952 of 13958)
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.

The things that need to be changed are ugly "every way you look at them" .

That is, from perspectives that people are willing to admit to, and explain in public.

There's plenty of room for progress. International law is being renegotiated. High time, too.

Search "Westphalia" this thread.

But there are good things about the Treaty of Westphalia that need to be remembered, and given high weight.

After a point - things depend on weights - there are no costless answers.

But there are costs worth paying. Though it takes work to find them.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense