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 - 07:42am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5332 of 5341)
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.

Gisterme responds to a line in rshow55 10/26/02 8:49pm with these words:

"WHY NO CHECKING PROCEDURES and STANDARDS ?..."

And of course there are some checking procedures and some standards. Enron had some checking procedures and standards, and so did Anderson - even at their worst - even when they were "honored in the breach" by framing answers, or arithmetic, in actively misleading ways.

But are they the right questions - - and are enough questions being asked? Do the questions and answers, connected together, give a fair, reasonable view of the situation?

Gisterme goes on to argue that I may have an "astounding ignorance about real engineering development projects or real development projects of any kind."

Let's talk "missile defense" - as it has been discussed on this board. I'm writing out 1895-7 rshow55 4/30/02 9:09am again below, because we've been dealing with some key issues over and over. 1895 rshow55 4/30/02 9:09am reads:

Superb piece:

Odds Are Stacked When Science Tries to Debate Pseudoscience By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/30/science/30ESSA.html

Odds of success depend crucially on format, and with the formats currently available and in use, closure simply isn't possible.

There are many, many problems in the world that can't be adressed unless this is fixed. And often there are no simple answers. But, with currently available forms, there can be good answers.

If closure really matters, and if persuasion in a central issue, cutting off contact isn't a fully satisfactory answer, to say the least.

For persuasion, status arguments only go so far, because there are crucial differences of opionion about status. When it matter enough (for instance, in jury trials) ways have to be found to say "here -- look for yourself."

The rules of evidence, and challenges of presentation, involved in saying "here - - - look for yourself" are large -- but for some purposes, there is no choice, if answers matter enough.

Krauss's piece ends:

"Of course, as has once happened to me, you might find yourself debating a U.F.O.-believing creationist. But you can't win them all."

What happens when one is dealing with "missile defense boondoggle believing" people - or anyone else with a stake in a system of fictions - under the formats of a radio show? Format counts. Means of checking to closure count.

To win when it counts, patterns of persuasion better than those now in existence have to be found. I suspect that some of the best experts about practical persuasion anywhere work for the New York Times.

Sometimes questions are simple -- but sufficient answers are not. For any specific missile defense program, these basic questions apply.

Can it see the target?

Can it hit the target?

Can it hurt the target? The answers are not simple.

And as of now, patterns of checking are nothing like sufficient. Even at the New York Times.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense