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 - 08:21am Sep 28, 2003 EST (# 14077 of 14080)
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.

Incoherent? The passages look coherent to me.

Here's a fact - a fact that isn't so important to know if explosive fighting without end is the objective - but a fact that is important to know if stable resolutions that pass reasonable tests of fairness are to be achieved.

For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions.

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

How do they disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated.

But if these patterns of agreement or disagreement are NOT known - then situations that involve disagreements are inherently unstable.

That may be an "old and obvious" result. But an important one that people don't seem to know (or seem to forget) when it most needs to be remembered. It may be a simple thing to know. But useful. Knowledge of how to tie your shoes is a humble thing. But useful in its way, too.

I'd like to set out better answers to (i) - (iv) above - but not if cantabb is in the position of "judge, jury, and executioner."

Look at cantabb's last few postings - look at how he functions as " judge, jury, and executioner. "

I think he's making my case for me - and it is an important case. I repeat it from time to time - because the case is important.

11678 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.BHUkbWa3JBZ.2370521@.f28e622/13288 includes this:

On Jan 4, 2000, I made a posting on Science In the News suggesting an institutional response to such problems. There are enough of them, that we need institutions to handle them.

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

It would even help if there were some institutional changes in journalism - including the journalism of The New York Times . The New York Times needs better institutional responses to the challenge of checking for validity. The Blair case makes that clear, and a good deal associated with this thread ought to support the same point.

10798-99- http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.BHUkbWa3JBZ.2370521@.f28e622/12350 cites some extensive discussions lchic, almarst, and I had on journalistic issues that seem pressing now.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense