Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical use then? We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain failure (because of strategies modeled on attacking a phantom enemy unlike the one actually interfering with our plans) and causing huge harm in every direction. add the 15% of our own soldiers that come bask with serious permanent psycological dammage. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from New Eng J of Med. I was looking to see if young soldiers would be more senstitive to mental damage from it, as i would expect, but this article doesn't break that out. If sci defers to the 'comity of plotical/military deceit' , as it would look to me is the problem, what's the point of calling it science? Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for centuries, empirical observation served well enough. As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old cousin, who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who understand it have--or once had--the power to do anything about it I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked have been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the direction of civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when the civilians fail as egregiously to understand things as they have failed in this instance. "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
