New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (9365 previous messages)

rshow55 - 03:36pm Feb 28, 2003 EST (# 9366 of 9367) Delete Message
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.

Maybe the talking is doing some good.

Repeating from Russel's passage in 9363:

" The fundamental object (of language) is to enable men to apply themselves to a common purpose. Thus the basic notion here is agreement. "

Agreement isn't logic. It isn't necessarily rightness, compared to facts - or fit to purpose, reasonably understood - even from the narrow perspective of the group - fully considered.

We "collect the dots" in ways that we happen to. We have more "dots" - and better ways of collecting them, than ever before. We "connect the dots" in the ways that we happen to. And we are stunningly good at forming patterns - and usually astonishingly good at sorting out correct patterns. But not always.

Our "logic" - is mostly a choosing between many alteratives going on or being fashioned in our heads - and in the course of that choosing - people believe what "feels right."

But what "feels right," most often, is what, in our minds "cooperates with the interests of authority - with our group." We want to be agreeable.

Usually it works very well. By animal standards, human beings are superb - God-like by comparision with other animals - whether you believe in God or not. The standard urge - drive - compulsion - internal order that says "be agreeable" is a very good rule - but no rule is perfect, and we need, when things go monotonously wrong, to consider the need for expeption handling - not to invalidate the basic rule - but to serve the purposes the basic rule works for. We're wired to cooperate - and that's an insight that is being not only reported - but focused - by The New York Times .

. Why We're So Nice: We're Wired to Cooperate by NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/health/psychology/23COOP.html

The desire to be agreeable, to be graceful, to search for nice, comfortable, considerate ways of doing things within our group - and whenever possible, between groups, unless we feel challenged, makes human beings very nice, very beautiful, very often - - for all the ugliness that also happens.

And sometimes, because we're agreeable - we do much better - together - than we possibly could if we were just "logical". Some very beautiful, inspiring behavior was shown by a lot of people faced with 9/ll - for reasons that give us all valid reasons for hope:

. Of Altruism, Heroism and Evolution's Gifts in the Face of Terror by NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/health/psychology/18ALTR.html

All the same, no rule is perfect - not even the rule "be agreeable."

What happens if, to be agreeable in one way - or at one immediate step - gets us into binds? Logical binds, practical binds, moral binds?

We screw up.

It isn't an accident - we do the "immediately agreeable" thing - within our real limitations and real situation - and the act of choosing the "agreeable" - which usually works so effortlessly and so well, without our thinking about it - goes wrong.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us