Sorry, Phil, I misread and hence misquoted. My mistake.
I personally know no one, scientist or otherwise, who does not speak
out against this war. (No, that's not true. I am acquainted with
some people who feel so invested in this administration and
Republicanism in general that they think the majority of us have
simply failed to see the light, and history will show, blah blah
blah. There's no arguing with such people. That's their "truth.")
As for the tales the members of the administration who promulgated
this war tell their mirrors, I have no idea. They got orders from God?
I'm told that after Vietnam, the junior officers who had watched the
senior officers lie their way through light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel
stuff until the last moment said to each other: we will never do
that; we will resign first. Some did. Some told the truth to power
and were quickly replaced (Shinseki, for example). Others
understood that the president is commander in chief of the armed
forces under our constitution, and however wrong-headed his ideas
might be, it was their duty to follow those orders, because that was
an oath they had taken.
It's never easy.
On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:18 PM, phil henshaw wrote:
I guess I think science is mostly an art of speaking accurately
about those things it is possible to be accurate about. Since it
seems the fault in Iraq, is that our army is at war with an
indigenous culture, because it mistakenly tried to 'clean-up' the
violent objectors to our occupation as if they were stragglers in
Saddam's army, and so stirred up a firestorm of hatred for us that
had not been there before, people should speak plainly about it and
not defer to the rules of polite conversation when perpetuates a
war crime of any large or small proportion. We should be truthful
when we know the truth. Accepting the right of anyone to have any
opinion does not mean that you need to not state the facts you know
yourself with their full value.
You did slightly misquote me, though, my phrase "comity of
political/military deceit" you substituted 'defeat' for some
reason. Comity is the way to getting along with people, and hides
a lot of what goes into the sausage of government, a glue that
holds all kinds of things together. I'm not suggesting we abandon
that, but for speaking plane and true where it matters, dropping
the polite 'well you may be right' nod of deference for people who
are clearly committing great crimes.
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
explorations: www.synapse9.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My.
I must have missed where science was deferring to the "comity of
political/military defeat." Most scientists, and for that matter,
most professional military people, deplore this gap, though gap is
too nice a word for blindly pursuing ideology in the face of
facts. If you follow it at all, you know that the present
administration has gutted scientific committees meant to advise or
make scientific policy for the government and loaded them with
politically safe ignoramuses. But you find the same pattern in
many significant areas--health care, the drug problem, education,
foreign policy generally.
I put it to an historian I know: when did we stop being a nation
of Yankee pragmatists and start being a nation of ideologues?
On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:03 AM, phil henshaw wrote:
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
-----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
"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
"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
