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.

cantabb - 03:29pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14167 of 14174)

rshow55 - 02:39pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14165 of 14165)

Another digression.

What "intractable disagreements" are you referring to. You have NOT yet clarified what specifically you are working on, and how do you propose to reach the objective, if anything reasonable. So, as I said before, the question of agreement/disagreement does NOT even arise -- YET !

Questions put to you were part of an attempt to get to that point -- but you've NOT been focused enough to answer those straightforward questions.

And real people switch back and forth between logic and statistics - in ways that I believe need to be better understood when people are in intractable disagreements.

Both logic and statistics have to be based on verifiable "facts."

Otherwise, "real people" know what to make of the baseless personal opinions and speculations.

And when "little fights" are necessary, but must be stable in order for enough to communication to occur - these points seem essential to me.

I'll go back to work. Will try to have something you find clear and right ( whether or not you find it important) when I come back.

"little fights"/"big fights": Your own very simplistic view !

Again, without any specific idea of the work you think you are doing and what you think you're trying to accomplish, circular self-references are NOT going to fare any better than they have so far.

lchic - 04:10pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14168 of 14174)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Previous to the hydrocarbon-age ... simple SALT was all the rage - http://www.saltinstitute.org/38.html Raises the question 'What will be the next chemical of paramount significance?'

rshow55 - 04:42pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14169 of 14174)
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.

7953-4 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ia4qbfFbKwB.2821651@.f28e622/9479 lchic 1/23/03 8:09pm deals with game theory. Here's a fact. I posted http://www.mrshowalter.net/CommendationTo_Kolata_EichwaldandNYT.htm when I did - and it deals with classic issues in game theory - that I cared a lot about, and care about still.

The connection to key problems in game theory is 1:1 .

Cantabb , you're doing a fine job of showing that "you can always pick a fight" - and I'm working (somewhat distracted by you) to show how to stop fights that now explode.

I was goind to post this later - but I decided to post it now.

. - - - -

December 16, 1999 Group of Insurers Will Pay for Experimental Cancer Therapy by GINA KOLATA and KURT EICHENWALD http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/121699insurance-cancer.html

MD4691 rshowalter 6/10/01 1:05pm also sites Ideas & Trends; Insurers Come in From The Cold on Cancer by GINA KOLATA and KURT EICHENWALD

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md4000s/md4690.htm cites Science in the News" 12/16/99 6:16pm . . . .(#331 http://www.mrshowalter.net/CommendationTo_Kolata_EichwaldandNYT.htm

Aug 1 - 2002 -3387 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ia4qbfFbKwB.2821651@.f28e622/4270

One reason I didn't communicate some things was that I hadn't finished a key part of the job I'd been set. I hadn't met Casey's criteria for coming in through the New York Times. Casey had been clear that, before I could expect the NYT channel to function well, I had to have my ideas clear enough so that they could propagate through the culture -- or at least had a chance of doing so. Then, I had to meet face to face. Until my work on paradigm conflict with lchic - - I didn't have things to that point. When I did have explanations at a level where I thought they fit Casey's criteria - in September 2000 - I did make an effort to come in throught the NYT - with consequences I did not anticipate, which have occupied me and others since.

The awkwardnesses with that effort to come in may have occurred because I'd "jumped the gun" with Dirac. But at the time my debriefing with Dirac started, it seemed reasonable - and as it proceeded without communication channels opening, I did the best I could.

Some related points are involved with http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md510.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md511.htm

I'm going back to what I was working on. It has a lot to do with the security of the United States - and the world.

And I believe that it ought to interest "the average reader of the New York Times."

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense