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 - 08:15am Dec 24, 2002 EST (# 6986 of 6991)
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.

GUIDELINES

For Complex Systems: In very complex systems, such as sociotechnical systems, we have no theory for entire systems, and must therefore create, operate, and improve such systems via feedback: that is, repeated cycles of human observations plus trials of envisaged improvements, in the real systems. In such very complex systems, data from a wide variety of cases therefore become the primary basis for understanding and judgements, and should take precedence over results of theory based on cuts through the hyperspace (called "the primacy of data.").

Of hierarchical obscurity: The farther systems are from direct human observation in size, in speed, and/or in time, the more our observations become instrumentally bound and theoretically modulated, and the more difficult understanding the systems tends to be.

For Scholarly Controversy: When two (or more) groups of empirically grounded scholars create conflicting solutions for a single problem, and this leads to back-and-forth arguments for decades, then it is likely that each group has some of the truth but not all of it.

For Scholarly Controversy, Corollary A: When two (or more) groups of empirically grounded scholars have a long-continued argument, an improved solution can often be found by reframing the problem to include the solidly grounded data underlying both sides of the argument.

DICTA AND QUERIES:

Acton's Dictum: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Comment: Note invariably, but often.]

Brooke's Dictum: When and institution is not working, don't blame the workers, look at the structure.

Draper's Dictum: To control a given system of any kind, the control elements of the system, whether automatic or human, must be able to effect changes in the system in times that are less than one-fourth (and preferably one tenth) of the characteristic time of the change of the parts of the system that are to be controlled.

Hearviside's Query: Shall I refuse to eat my breakfast because I do not understand the process of digestion?

Juvenal's Query: Who will guard the guards. [ Stated originally in a sexist context. Nevertheless, an important question whenever the self-interest of the guards conflicts strongly with their duties as guardians. ]

Kelvin's Dictum: If I can make a mechanical model, then I can understand it: if I cannot make one, I do not understand. . . . (Comment: Very useful in the physical sciences, but misleading in the human sciences. )

Kettering's Dictum: When you begin to think you know everything, all that proves is that the concrete in your head has begun to set.

Korzibski's Dictum: The map ( sysrep ) is not the territory ( system ). ..... [ Comment: There is one important class of exceptions: in formal systems, such as mathematics, the system and the sysrep are identical by construction. ]

Miller's 7-bit rule: The human mind can only think about and retain in working memory 7 (plus or minus 2) uncorrellated bits of information. . . . . [ "Uncorrellated" here denotes not a chunk or schema in the mind. ]

Russell's Dictum: Mixing concepts from different levels in a hierarchy of concepts usually creates paradox(es). . . .[ Russell said "will create paradox." ]

Seneca's Dictum: When the words are confused, the mind is also. There are two levels:

When we do not use words in a consistent way, our communications tend to become confused.

When we do not have clear, appropriate shemata, we cannot think clearly. . . [ From a letter by Seneca, summarized and extended. ]

Whitehead's Dictum: In manners of method, the scientists have nearly always been right: in matters of wider judgement the scientists (and other intellectuals who are thoroughly enculturated into a single view) have nearly always been wrong. . . . . [ Restated. ]

Yalom's Dictum:

rshow55 - 08:31am Dec 24, 2002 EST (# 6987 of 6991)
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.

When these principles are thought about - every so often, some of the details that people need to tend to, to make ideals actually work - may occur, where they wouldn't if people weren't reminded.

I believe that if a lot of people in the Bush administration, and elsewhere, read Kline's book - things might go better.

They's also notice how useful the far better writing skills of lunarchick and many other good writers are.

In 1997, Steve and I wrote about what we thought the NYT Science Forums were good for:
http://www.mrshowalter.net/whytimes2

When people have to deal with details - including the details that are needed to really work out the golden rule - they need to understand enough about what they're doing to come up with answers that are not only well intentioned, but can work. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/DetailNGR.htm

Details on Missile Defense matter a lot, too - and to get them explained, and taken to closure - will take more organization than this unaided thread can provide with my unaided efforts.

So do many other details about US political and military policy, many discussed carefully and extensively by almarst.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense