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 - 07:50am Feb 5, 2003 EST (# 8582 of 8584)
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.

Lunarchick and I, working as partners - have clarified Keynes' notion of "time-independent probability" as the idea of disciplined beauty.

The idea of disciplined beauty is set out in 5438-5441 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@168.6ypeaWGbV32^117411@.f28e622/6809

In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact sciences:

" Beauty is the proper conformity of the parts to one another and to the whole."

SUGGESTED DEFINITION: Good theory is an attempt to produce beauty in Heisenberg's sense in a SPECIFIC context of assumption and data.

Goodness can be judged in terms of that context, and also the fit with other contexts that, for logical reasons, have to fit together.

The beauty, and ugliness, of a theory can be judged, in terms of the context it was built for, and other contexts, including the context provided by data not previously considered.

5441 ends

"It seems to me that the Security Council, and the nations involved, have a chance to make the world a more beautiful place than it is today in very practical, specific, and important ways.

Here's 5442:

lchic - 02:06pm Nov 1, 2002 EST (# 5442 ~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter predicting 2002 as a DIPLOMATIC MILESTONE

correction ...

' a beautiful diplomatic milestone '

_ _ _ _

That could still be right - and should be right - if the Security Council is as careful and thoughtful, this round, as it was last time. 8298 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.ywLzaodG23X.926343@.f28e622/9824

rshow55 - 07:51am Feb 5, 2003 EST (# 8583 of 8584)
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.

With an explicit notion of disciplined beauty - people who disagree about a great deal - people who may disagree about "almost everything" - can still talk to each other - and understand each other's point of view without dehumanizing each other - if they are explicit about what assumptions about facts and ideas are - and if there is a shared acknowledgement that assumptions about facts and ideas can be subject to test.

Different people may interpret the same test differently - in the end, it is hard to do better than "here - look for yourself."

But when people are explicit about assumptions - and when there are other people - neighbors, if you will - looking too - there are real limits to how unreasonable people are.

If people are explicit - and willing to subject both logic and assumed facts to scrutiny and test (although all tests are somewhat limited) - a great deal can be worked out. Not instantly. Step by step.

One thing people need to be explicit about is the weights they are applying.

This is a masterpiece:

Some Deaths Resonate, Others Pass Unnoticed By ERICA GOODE

" Reason dictates that statistics matter, that the deaths of tens of thousands merit more attention — and more resources — than the deaths of a few.

" But to reach this conclusion requires a certain detachment, a cool evaluation after a gut-level response.

" In the era of the sound bite and the human interest story, of endless airtime waiting to be filled, that assessment often does not take place.

It seems to me that the Security Council has an obligation to make that assessment - and will be making a historical contribution if it does so as carefully, this time - as it did in October and November of 2002.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense