New York Times Forums
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  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  /

    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 (4822 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:32am Oct 12, 2002 EST (# 4823 of 17697)
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.

Technical problems (handled by real people, in real socio-technical systems) have human limitations, too. I've now taken steps where one can argue that I ought to be jailed (though I think Casey would argue otherwise) Psychwarfare #330-338 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/352 - - and those steps seem to have been noticed. It feels to me like a good time to set out reasons - intellectual reasons - why I had a hard time meeting Casey's "try-this-first" set of instructions - that I should make a purely technical case in the academic community - and communicate other matters standing from there.

I couldn't make that case, in part, because of inflexibilities built into my system, and weaknesses of my own. But in large part, the problem was one of paradigm conflict and many of the problems involved there have been clarified - with help from the TIMES - and especially Dawn Riley.

The statement of a technical point here -- 1566 rshow55 4/20/02 4:07pm - - is much sharper than anything Steve Kline and I had - because we hadn't had contact with Dawn Riley's distinguished mind.

Some of the reasons for the paradigm conflict on the connection between the concrete world and abstract math have been basic ones. Here is part of a draft that I was preparing for my thesis advisor - before an unbelievably disastrous trip to Washington DC in September 2000 derailed a great deal.

rshow55 - 09:34am Oct 12, 2002 EST (# 4824 of 17697)
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.

"I'm more clear now than Steve and I were in 1997 on the nonaxiomatic nature of the world of measurement that S-K fits into. Our work does not pertain to pure math, based on the conventional axioms alone, but requires some additional assumptions, which some might call axiomatic, and some might call acts of faith. Here are the formal “acts of faith” on which our derivation logically rests:

. I assume that parts of the physical world are representable by mathematics.

. I assume that there are arithmetical and dimensional rules that correctly represent these physical things.

. I assume that the parts of the physical world that can be described by correctly stated rules are self consistent, so that values that should be identical according to different computational sequences are identical.

. I assume that a valid system of physical description can represent any combined effects that occur by a permitted construction within the system.

"These assumptions may or may not seem self-evident. I personally feel that they are self-evident. Self evident or not, these assumptions are external to pure math as it is now practiced in the academy. Steve and I assumed these things implicitly, and I believe that some classical mathematical physicists, notably J.C. Maxwell, assumed something like these things.

"We also assumed that the world, rightly understood, was a consistent place - that the right derivations, based on the right assumptions, would in fact fit the evidence of correctly conducted and relevant experiments. This assumption is widely held, though logically baseless, and many feel it is plausible on Bayesian grounds. Scientists often act as if they believe this assumption.

"We also chose to give priority to our basic assumptions, even if the logic of our assumptions required us to discard or modify notations or conventions. . We assumed that that long established notations in mathematical and mathematical physics practice, including very old ones, could include hidden errors or oversimplifications. We assumed that when notations and procedures did not fit the requirements of our “acts of faith” above, we could question those notations and procedures. We also assumed that, after consideration, we could change them.

"Whether such changes are right or wrong in positive terms, they are socially awkward, and we knew it. To question standard notations, especially longstanding ones, is to question reflexes that are organic parts of the people who use these notations.

"Lipman Bers expressed some core facts about math, that make the social and conceptual difficulty of challenging notation clear:

" “What is the strength of mathematics? What makes mathematics possible? It is symbolic reasoning. It is like “canned thought.” You have understood something once. You encode it, and then go on using it without each time having to think about it.”

"What if the “something” that is “understood” is wrongly or incompletely encoded? What if that canned encoding was done hudreds of years ago, so that no one alive can easily think about the “something” that was encoded, apart from the symbolic encoding itself? Problems with such canned encodings ought not to be inconceivable, and should be discussable and testable. For some purposes, the discussions and testing may be best done with people involved who are not committed to the canned encoding under discussion.

"Encodings and usages that are sanctified by the passage of time may not have been carefully done in the first place. Cajori quotes Augustus de Morgan as follows:

Mathematical notation, like language, has grown up without much looking to, at the dictates of convenience and with the sanction of the majority.”

More Messages Recent Messages (12873 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  / Missile Defense