ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (11/08/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, November 7, 1985 6:24PM
Volume 5, Issue 14
Today's Topics:
More insulting of 3rd parties (many messages)
ALCM, Invasion of Japan
Criticism &Scientific American
points both meet and moot
a legal issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 85 23:22:10 PST
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #13
Thank goodness for this *electronic* forum: I, for one, am happy to
be able to scroll over the third party debate lead by Nevin, King, Carter and
Lin. Given the intensity of the discussions over such a minor series of
misunderstanding, it does point out the difficulty peacefully coexisting
with another nation capable of obliterating us, but fundamentally unable to
understand us (or we them).
Rich.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 8:13:27 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: Who's on first?
----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by BBNCCH ; 5 Nov 85 22:26:57 EST
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 85 22:22:35 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: insulting 3rd parties
To: Carter@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA, bnevin@BBNCCH.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 5 Nov 85 17:09 EST (Tue) from _Bob <Carter at RUTGERS>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].706973.851105.LIN>
I find this discussion about Scientific American quite astonishing.
Surely Carter can't be serious about "not citing Scientific American
in an arms control context".
Now, I never said that. Indeed, Lin goes on to state my position.
People cite anything they please to
support their arguments.
Ooops. My memory betrayed me. *Someone* said it; my comments are
directed toward that person.
----END OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----
The original and evidently inflammatory request that we `not cite
Scientific American in an arms control context' was from Dick King
(king@kestrel). I have sent him a copy of our local discussion, which
had not made it into a distribution loop that reaches him. For the same
reason, I have included him in the distribution of this message.
I think we all agree with the following:
1. Carter's position, as stated by Lin: `People cite anything they
please to support their arguments'.
2. This observation: people `citing anything they please to support
their arguments' sometimes ignore the fact that arguments from
authority (ad vericundiam) are not logically valid. They exercise
this ignorance because they know that such arguments can sometimes
be rhetorically effective.
3. This observation: people responding to arguments likewise sometimes
ignore the same principle and attack an argument because it cites an
authority they do not respect, rather than arguing on the merits
(facts) of the case.
I agree with the following from Lin (his message of Tuesday, 5 Nov 85
09:24:55 EST):
It seems to me that Arms-D is essentially organized debate (or a
bull session, if you prefer) about topics of interest to us; why
should we stop including material for whatever reason (short of
things that would get us in some kind of legal trouble)??
I do not recommend that we withhold anything from this forum that we
feel relevant to arms-control debate. What I do recommend is that, if in
the debate we find ourselves saying something sharply critical about
someone not privy to the debate, we really ought to let them know what
we are saying. We may not have properly understood the thing they said
or did that we are criticising.
We have, in this exchange of messages about insulting third parties,
abundantly demonstrated our capacity for misunderstanding and confusion
about other people's arguments and intentions.
Bruce Nevin
bn@bbncch.arpa
BBN Communications
33 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
(617) 497-3992
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 09:16:16 EST
From: Oded Feingold <OAF@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: More on insulting 3rd parties [field added by Moderator]
King@kestrel complains that SA didn't answer his letter, hence they
are political hacks, presumably with the wrong politics:
I commented that one part of their claim, that a
ground-based laser with orbiting mirrors was unworkable
because a power supply that would produce a gigawatt for
fifteen minutes was infeasable, could be refuted by a
collection of a million automobile batteries (or a hundred
thousand batteries of the type that Con Edison Electric of
New York maintains to run their Energy Control Center during
a blackout).
I think the onus was on HIM to acknowledge if not solve the
geometric, topologic, current-capacity, reliability and
heat-dissipation issues involved before demanding serious
consideration for such a kludge. Without such constructibility
support, I think he wrote a crank letter, which SA owed no answer.
[Though they could have sent Miss Manners' stock response - `How nice
for you.'] I won't believe "direct extension of known techniques"
without a little evidence: I can build adobe houses two floors high
using known techniques - can I airily extend the techniques to make
skyscrapers?
As a basis for debarring SA from introducing future evidence before
this august panel, that sucks.
Besides, this argument of placklisting and boliteness is a crock
of shit to begin with: I thought the point of the discussion was
whether the SU uses mycotoxins in Southeast Asia. The only person who
contributed something substantive was Lin, who picked up the phone and
called Meselson. Meselson pointed to Mirocha at UMinn, and indicated
his reasons for claiming Mirocha produced a false positive result.]
Isn't the next reasonable thing to call or write Mirocha and ask
about his procedures and results, and even a response to Meselson? My
memory of fusaria toxins is fuzzy, but I seem to recall they break
down in an oxidizing atmosphere, and in sunlight. Possibly Mirocha's
samples were the only ones picked up fresh enough. I don't know why
all the others apparently contained bee shit: I hardly imagine that
bee feces show up in quantity anywhere except near a hive.
If we spent half the time checking fax that we do bashing each
other's ba... er, brains, we might learn something. Maybe I'll
contact Mirocha myself.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 9:22:52 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: astonishinger and astonishinger
We have several issues, of different logical type:
1. The facts of the beesh*t debate, which *are* a matter of ongoing
debate, and which I have not discussed because I am not competent in
biochemistry, C-B weapons, techniques for planting contaminated
Russian-made gasmasks, etc.
2. The veracity of the SA article, of which Meselson was the third or
fourth author. If it distorts or ignores facts of which the authors and
editors had to be aware, is it due to the authors, to the SA editors (as
I am told the WSJ editorial alleges--I still haven't been able to find
it), or to both?
3. The claim that SA has an editorial bias which is predictable,
detectable, and exemplified in most every issue, and which interferes
with objective reportage of scientific findings.
4. The claim that therefore we should not quote SA in this debate, and the
inferrable generalization that we should not quote any source whose
editorial policy we find interferes with objective reportage of
scientific findings.
(Actually, Dick King's original message was:
If the Harvard biochemist is NOT withdrawing his hypothesis, I
suppose he will file suit against the WSJ or at least issue a
denial.
If no such event is forthcoming, I don't want to see SA quoted in an
arms control context.
This would seem to give Dick a graceful way to withdraw his request
that he `not see' information that we read in SA `quoted in an arms
control context', since Meselson reportedly HAS `issued a denial' of
the WSJ editorial.)
5. The counterclaim that we should be able to cite whomever we please.
6. The claim that `it isn't good practice to criticize or insult 3rd
parties without giving them a chance to respond.'
7. The interpretation of this claim as saying that we must give
potentially offended 3rd parties a chance to respond BEFORE saying
things about them on this forum.
8. The generalization of 7 (itself a misinterpretation of 6) to political
debate outside the stated domain of electronic mail fora.
9. Our shared human proclivity for taking statements out of context and
bending them to fit our own argument. Some of the more comical
turnings of this discussion have this origin. (I confess to my share
of this, in attributing to David Rogers' rather unspecific use of the
word `unprofessional' more than he may have intended. That was just
a silly argument of the form `look, I'm not the only one saying
this', it contributed nothing of substance.)
10. The fact that some of the exchanges in this discussion involve
greater time delay than others. Some of us have seen them (in part)
only with issue 5.13 of the ARMS-D digest, others have been direct
addressees of messages being exchanged before they appear in the
digest. There is even some mixing of the two types, since Dick
King's response to me, addressed to me directly as well as to the
list, never made it to me because of some mailer mishap; and the
discussion between Carter, Lin, and me excluded King until I
forwarded the messages to him, and later some of them appeared in
issue 5.13. I expect more confusion as participants on the list
respond to messages in that issue without having seen subsequent
messages in the direct exchange that did not make that issue.
11. The issue of the importance (potential social and political impact)
of electronic-mail fora.
12. The related issue of choice between doing something to change an
objectionable situation vs impotent flaming. I see the relationship
between 11 and 12 as follows:
How many people participate in this forum? Do we not have people
expert in various aspects of arms control, including CB weapons, as
participants? Is it a valid statement that most of us would object
to editorial opinion intruding into the selection and editing of
articles purporting to report scientific findings, in such a way as
to omit and even falsify relevant facts? Is it a valid statement
that a sizeable proportion of us believe that is the case (that SA
editorial opinion does intrude, etc.)? If true, then is this not a
serious breach of trust, since SA is a forum on which many educated
people rely for some of their information, and is this not
intolerable? (Please don't tell me any educated person should know
better than to rely on SA, I am inveighing *against* impotent flaming!)
I suggest that a letter to SA noting that a constituency of that
size and level of expertise is aware of the issues, and and objects
strongly, would get a response that a letter from an individual
might not. I propose that any one of you who feel strongly about
SA's editorial practice could submit the letter to the list, and
take non-objection to the letter, except perhaps by a few, and
perhaps as amended by debate, as endorsement.
Such a letter of course might raise legal issues that discussion in
this medium does not. If you don't believe the issue is important
enough to research and write such a letter, and incur that legal
risk, then I believe you, I too assume that it is not so crucial,
and I don't take your request to ignore SA very seriously.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 10:48:19 PST
From: phil%dean@BERKELEY.EDU (Phil Lapsley)
Subject: ALCM, Invasion of Japan
Some comments on two issues:
> Date: 5 Nov 85 07:55:09 EST (Tuesday)
> From: MJackson.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA
> Subject: Re: ALCMs and B-52s
>
> 2) Presumably because of this vaunted accuracy, the cruise has been
> attacked by some groups as a "first-strike" weapon. This has
> never made much sense to me, as it would appear that the long
> flight time to most Soviet military targets, even from launch
> points near the border, would enable verification of the attack
> and launch-on-warning retaliation. True or false?
My understanding is that this is false; the big win of the ALCM is that
it is supposed to come in at a "sub-radar" alititude, so the Soviets
don't see the missile until it explodes. Terrain following guidance
systems allow this low alititude.
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 14:04:54 EST
> From: Will Martin <wmartin@brl.arpa>
> Subject: Historical A-Bombs and a "what-if"
>
> [...]
> Would Japan have surrendered without
> a nuclear strike on the home islands? (After all, it was proposed to
> use the Hiroshima bomb as a demonstration weapon on an island instead
> of making the first use be on a city; this was rejected at the time.
> This would have been a series of "demonstrations", in effect.)
I picked up a copy of _International Security_ the other day,
a journal devoted to strategic concerns. (It's quite good, but
I don't have the usual bibliographic info on me -- if you want publisher
and all that, let me know and I'll send it to you).
Anyway, one of the articles in the miscellaneous section was titled
something like "Hiroshima: the myth of a million American lives saved."
I found it quite interesting, and will not reproduce the article here
(:-), but the gist was that the Japanese empire was crumbling and would
have surrendered anyway, without the U.S. having to resort to use of
the atomic bomb, or large scale invasion of the Japanese homeland.
Specifically, the author sites that the loss of allied aircraft in
bombing missions over Japan was, in July of '45, down to 0.4% per
mission, and that U.S. SIGINT intercepted several Japanese cables
instructing their ambassador to seek a peace with the U.S., with the
condition that the Emperor be retained as head of gov't.
Interesting reading.
Phil Lapsley
phil@Berkeley.EDU
...!ucbvax!phil
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 11:45:35 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Criticism &Scientific American
The discussion regarding Scientific American, their accuracy, the Constitution
etc. suggests two comments to me, one regarding ethics, the other regarding
law.
Criticism is ethical only if it is given constructively to the person criticsed.
Slander and libel laws cover the subject of criticising SA on this net. I
suspect that SA could make a reasonably good case of libel concerning some
of the postings. Libel is usually used by individuals against the media.
Perhaps a third point: unless one discusses a criticism with the party
concerned, one has no opportunity of learning.
richard foy (foy@aerospace.arpa)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 8:01:28 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: points both meet and moot
The specific issues about Scientific American have been mooted, or at
least muted (muddied?), by a couple of recent messages.
I agree that SA (like Nature, Science, Acta Physica, et al) is not bound
by standards that apply to journalism. I am not entirely clear what the
obligations are of editors to verify things. Is it a refereed journal?
It also appears that complaints about editorial distortion apply to WSJ
perhaps more than to SA in this case.
My enumeration of issues was of course incomplete. (Building up a
message in an editor piecemeal between the tasks they pay me to do here
doesn't help the process!) Two important issues I omitted concern the
question of civility.
13. I still feel it is crucial to good communication, particularly in this
medium, to start with certain positive assumptions about one's
interlocutors, which include:
You are intelligent, not dumb; competent in the areas in which
you are expressing opinions, not totally incompetent in them.
You are honest, not deliberately deceptive.
What you are saying is almost certain to be ambiguous, given the
nature of human language, and I may not have understood your
intended meaning. (This is exacerbated by the relatively
hurried way we sometimes respond, and the lack of immediate
corrective feedback of the sort that we use unconsciously in
face-to-face dialogue.)
I feel we should downgrade those assumptions only when events
warrant it, and under protest. That is, if you feel I am not
competent in an area where I am expressing an opinion, you can and
should do the obvious: suggest that I am not well informed, and
offer additional information.
I think these are standards that we do in fact set for ourselves.
They may be obvious, but they bear stating because we often do not
observe them (honored more in the breach than in the observance, as
the cliche goes). I think a quick review of the archives of this
and most other electronic-mail fora will confirm this.
14. I still feel we should let 3rd parties (those unfortunates without
access to this forum) know about debate that concerns them, and find
out what they have to say. Lin contacted Meselson and we found out
that some of our WSJ facts were wrong. Meselson may not have cared
that we were talking about him, but it might make a difference to
him, we do not yet know. This does not mean we stop discussion and
hold our breaths until we hear from all potentially affected
parties. (You have to be assuming I am dumb to read that in!)
Notice that these issues have nothing to do with Emily Postian
etiquette, with all its social-class overtones that can be so
infuriating to many of us. Except insofar as those upper-crust
(Procrustean) rules were intended to foster good communication.
Bruce Nevin
bn@bbncch.arpa
BBN Communications
33 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
(617) 497-3992
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 13:07:25 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: a legal issue
And there is probably a legal issue. Were someone actually to
draft a letter and lobby for amendments and tacit support from
participants on this forum, as I described, it would probably
contravene some legal requirement on traffic using the ARPAnet.
(That description was hypothetical, Sir! And contrafactual
to boot! Honest it was!)
Anyway, it's about time I covered all my submissions over the
past few days with a disclaimer: my opinions do not necessarily
reflect those of my employer, etc.
Bruce Nevin
bn@bbncch.arpa
BBN Communications
33 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
(617) 497-3992
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************