![[F]](14117_files/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums
 Science
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.
  (14116 previous messages)
rshow55
- 11:11am Sep 29, 2003 EST (#
14117 of 14122)
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.
13959 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.cWwGb0fGJES.2563523@.f28e622/15665
to 13963 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.cWwGb0fGJES.2563523@.f28e622/15669
deals with the work of P.W. Bridgman , Nobel prize
winner - and his emphasis on loop tests
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? I've felt that these are important
questions - felt that the answers to these questions have to
be affirmative - and have been working - with lchic -
to get these questions much clearer than they have been
before.
There are good reasons to do that - and good reasons to do
that here.
Reasons that involve with science - and all other issues
where complex understanding is necessary.
Peace making is an example where these questions are
important.
A major reason for the crossreferencing I've been doing -
has been to show and focus internal consistency - and
relate it to links to external references.
The idea that discourse is self similar - in a sense
fractal is not new. But it has seemed to me that if one
wants to get closure it makes sense to do as Bridgman
insists - and go around loops. Fractals never close.
Fractal Images http://www.softsource.com/softsource/fractal.html
http://www.softsource.com/softsource/m_cndl.gif
http://www.softsource.com/softsource/m_pine.gif
http://www.softsource.com/softsource/m_pine.gif
http://www.softsource.com/softsource/m_trieye.gif
Control systems out of adjustment oscillate uncontrollably
or diverge - like fractals - they do not close. But things can
be adjusted so that order, symettry, and harmony for a purpose
are attainable. People, of course, do this often - when they
take care, and know enough to do so.
Sometimes a lot of complexity organizes itself - when
careful people insist on internal and external consistency,
and keep at it - and it seems to me that that is happening
now. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Similitude_ForceRatios_sjk.htm
discusses a kind of organization that may be "unoriginal" -
but is very useful - as it happened in fluid mechanics -
through the work of Steve Kline - as an example of some
organization that could and should happen elsewhere, I
believe.
14000 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.cWwGb0fGJES.2563523@.f28e622/15706
asks
How many people actually know
. How to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting,
comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and
productively. Anybody?
When fights happen - I'm not a bit sure that people are all
that clear, specifically, about why they are fighting.
Here's a fact - and I don't think it is yet a
familiar fact. I
For human relations to be stable - 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 disagre
jorian319
- 11:21am Sep 29, 2003 EST (#
14118 of 14122)
The dogmatism is all on the side
that maintains there is no global climate effect ...Anyone who
has visited a city like LA on a nice smog filled day knows
that's not true. -amzingdrx
Odds are good that if the patterns of
agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be
decently accomodated.
Wow. Really? Damn - I was wondering of that was the case.
(NOT!)
(4 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
| 
