cramer@kontron.UUCP (11/14/86)
I've noticed that many of the opponents of SDI keep talking about how many "top" scientists have signed petitions denying that SDI is feasible. The "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis also had a similar addendum -- 100 "top" scientists signed it. (I say "hypothesis" because from what I've read, the assumptions involved are idealized, and consistently idealized in a manner that finds for "nuclear winter"). I'm reminded of what happened in the mid-1930s when 100 "top German physicists" (or so they styled themselves) issued a denunciation of "Jewish physics", aimed specifically at Einstein and relativity. As Einstein said, "It would only have taken one, if I was wrong." Perhaps this is just characteristic of a collectivized approach to things common in some circles, but this entire "group denunciation" and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics -- not science. Clayton E. Cramer -------
weemba@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (01/05/87)
you write: >I've noticed that many of the opponents of SDI keep talking about how >many "top" scientists have signed petitions denying that SDI is >feasible. Even its supporters admit it can't do what its boosters keep pushing on the American people and Congress. The technical arguments against SDI are so manifold, and the extreme damage being done to academic freedom in the name of SDI, and the utter hornswoggling propaganda campaign done in its favor, make the above a rather minimal response. > The "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis also had a similar >addendum -- 100 "top" scientists signed it. It is embarrassing when preliminary results are trumpeted as such. But the real issue is we don't really have the computing power to identify what will happen. We're supposed to depend on lucky guesses? That's the administration's line. Just who's being more political here? >I'm reminded of what happened in the mid-1930s when 100 "top German >physicists" (or so they styled themselves) issued a denunciation of >"Jewish physics", aimed specifically at Einstein and relativity. Such a comparison is superficial, if not down right insulting. *This* denunciation followed the party line and was extremely self serving. A more accurate comparison, thus, would be between SDI supporters and the Nazis. I say "more accurate", since I think just about any comparison to Hitler borders on hysterical exaggeration. >Perhaps this is just characteristic of a collectivized approach to >things common in some circles, but this entire "group denunciation" >and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics -- >not science. It *is* politics. When gigabucks and our future are at stake, what do you expect? (And whose fault is it for making it a political issue in the first place? Not the scientists.) [Note-This discussion really belongs in the ARMS-D mailing list (or mod.politics.arms-d for USENETters.) I will ignore any replies not sent there. In particular, read my article "Response to 'Hawaii'" (about a week old) for an expansion of the above comments about SDI.] ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 -------
flink@mimsy.UUCP.UUCP (01/20/87)
kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu writes: >(...from what I've read, the assumptions involved are idealized, and >consistently idealized in a manner that finds for "nuclear winter"). Then you haven't read the *Science* article on the subject. Many assumptions were made in a manner that would tend to *underestimate* the "nuclear winter" effect. (I think the article I have in mind came out in the summer of 1984.) > [...] this entire "group denunciation" >and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics -- >not science. So what did you expect in political debate?! Or do you think that scientists have no right to participate in politics??! --love and kisses, Paul Torek flink@mimsy (soon to be torek@umich) -------