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 - 03:01pm Sep 12, 2002 EST (# 4277 of 4279)
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.

This is an admirably clear speech, and the positions it takes say that there are clear limits on American power. If all the points in this speech were clearly discussed - not only with respect to Iraq, but with respect to the United States and other nations as well - we'd live in a safer, more hopeful world.

text of President Bush's speech to the United Nations on Thursday, as released by the White House: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/12/politics/12AP-PTEX.html

A difficulty is that the reality of President Bush and his advisors doesn't always match the reality of others, either in the United States or in other nations. But with clear words, clear discussions, and reference to objective evidence much can clarify.

Problems common to all communication are well set out in A Communication Model http://www.worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-17.HTML rshow55 9/4/02 11:12am which includes the following:

"Based on what the receiver perceives, and based on her interpretation of the verbal and non-verbal input, she will form a concept in her reality of what the meaning of the message is. It will mean something to her. It might or might not be what was intended by the sender. In successful communication the perceived message will approximate the intended message to the sender's satisfaction. However, the sender will only know that if she receives a message back that is congruent with what she had in mind.

"One can never take for granted that the receiver has the same reality as the sender. One can never take for granted that the receiver will interpret the message the same way as the sender intended it.

. . . .

"If A says a word, like for example "trust", she has a certain meaning attached to it in her reality. She has had certain experiences with the subject matter, she has made certain conclusions about it, and she has certain perceptual filters concerning it. The meaning of the word is all the stuff it is associated with in her reality. However, because words also have nice, finite dictionary definitions it might appear as if the word is something very precise.

"What travels across the communication channel is NOT all the associations that A made about the word, and NOT the intentions she had with using it. What crosses the distance is symbols.

"When B hears the word or sentence she will interpret it based on her experiences, perceptions, and opinions. She might supplement the verbal information with non-verbal information such as body language. She might also hallucinate what it is supposed to mean. In one way or another she arrives at the meaning she assigns to it.

"There is wide agreement, at least within a particular culture, on what common physical objects are. When you say "car" or "refrigerator" most people will have an understanding very close to yours. But if you say words for abstract qualities, like "trust", "love", "right", "wrong", and so forth, then there is wide variance on what people mean.

Sometimes these "abstract" words are essential. As conversation proceeds, with many connections to common words where understanding is very close - - the meaning of words like "trust" and "right" and "wrong" can often be clarified under particular circumstances that matter enough to justify the effort at clarification.

Sometimes it is conflicts , rather than common ground, that become clarified. When results matter enough, and paralysis is not an acceptable option, that's useful. Sometimes things have to be resolved. Almost always, when people are decent, that can be done with respect for the real needs of the decent people involved - if everybody involved can actually think straight - and act like adults. Given human nature, and blindnesses that go wit

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense