New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(5331 previous messages)
- 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:
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
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
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
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