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 - 07:07am Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 13996 of 14001)
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.

There's "nothing fancy" about learning to tie your shoes. Everybody learns that. Though it takes a while - and sometimes a long while.

People need to learn something that ought to be as "easy" and "obvious" as tying their shoes - and if people ever learn it - and for the world to survive, they have to - they'll forget that they didn't know it before. Who remembers learning to tie their own shoes? Though it was a big thing to you, and your caregivers - way back.

People need to learn

. How to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively.

There's been a lot of posting since http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.EPvqbPjoIv9.1906720@.f28e622/15386 , which starts

There's an unsolved problem in the world about end games - and it is a big problem.

and includes this: "For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions." I think people should be expected to learn those key questions - and learn what it takes to answer them - both in general and in specific cases - so that they can actually do it themselves, and help others do it.

When Thomas Friedman wrote The Lexus and the Olive Tree Understanding Globalization in 1999 - - he could have used ideas on

. How to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively.

- - - -

If only people knew how to do that ! If key people at The New York Times actually knew that - then I think the lessons involved could and would - diffuse.

But that may be much too optimistic.

Though the payoffs for complex cooperation are huge http://www.mrshowalter.net/Kline_ExtFactors.htm people have cognitive limitations - and some things, it seems, just cannot be learned http://www.mrshowalter.net/PiagetCognitiveLimits.htm

Though some wonderful teaching about human differences goes on in stories written by people who get published in the New York Times - though the lessons don't often get learned. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Killer_Bikes_for_Chuwit.htm

I need to do some condensing - and cantabb's comments, though I find them a little homicidal - are stimulating.

rshow55 - 07:07am Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 13997 of 14001)
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'm not sure I can ever summarize to cantabb's satisfaction - but I do think I'm working on new stuff. Wrote this recently - and think it bears repeating for emphasis.

Here was the CENTRAL thing Bridgman knew about calibrating and perfecting a measurement instrument.

. THE INSTRUMENT HAD TO PASS LOOP TESTS.

Different cycles or trajectories, ending at the same place, should yield the same final reading. This is the same test surveyors have applied for centuries. This is a kind of test applied again and again in the making of precision tools. Bridgman didn't invent the loop test. But he showed by example and forceful argument how fundamental loop tests were, and insisted that people understand.

Here are two questions:

Do loop tests work at the interface between math and the measurable world?

Are there things like loop tests that work in discourse?

The answer is "yes" - there are things about the answer people should learn - people have some of the difficulties they had"learning to their shoes" involved - and I think there are good reasons to try to clarify and teach these answers here.

lchic - 07:10am Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 13998 of 14001)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Cantabb - I checked out Sept 17th

and additionally the Sc list of opinion headers.

NO politics in other Science Opinion forums !?!

Take a closer look they are all politically loaded.

-----

Were the world 'in-step' and 'in harmony' there would be no need for MD systems.

Raises the question why isn't it in-step?

Suggests historical 'failure'

Begs the question 'How can the world work together as a positive force'?

How can world leaders work together to create a safer, more caring world that affords opportunites to all world citizens?

What's right/wrong under current circumstance and how can situations be effectively worked through to work out?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense