Clarke,

My intent in my 'share' was to suggest that there should be a focus on showing the Afghani people that 'help' would be possible to set them on a path of nation state renewal without " war" -- civil or not and not to have the USA intervene in their right to a peaceful likelihood for desired peace in their 'near term' future. I originally thought that the Obama Plan --based on my guesses about our new and insightful President and his seemingly clear ideas about WORLD PEACE -- would explain (more or less the way he did) that security might have to be an early involvement of our troops, but that the real focus was to remove our influence as soon as possible. I now think that POLITICS (in Afghanistan and Home here in the USA) has gotten in the way for such a hope to prevail, to a large extent. The West Point talk was a disappointment to me. And while the Nobel talk was magnificent in many ways, lost a key opportunity to bring LIGHT and PEACE to a waiting world.

There were no hints about the grander schemes to end armed and devastating conflict, but rather a defense of interference by noting 'national interests' and the obligations of local leaderships to protect its citizens (USA) . The "Commander and Chief logic" trumped the "Nobel Prize Winner logic" which was sad--as I saw world reactions and (in many parts of the hope full world) almost an indifference to those beautifully spoken 'words'. Here then we see the core of the developing long-term malaise developing. : "National Interests (here and abroad)" trumping "WORLD PEACE" interests for the long term. I feel certain that an International Response was anxious to 'back' a new way to establish a wiser and peaceful coming world of multi-nations in that part of the world.

There is growing evidence now (e.g. the five young men now possibly lining up to go to prison) that anger is a growing and ever more dangerous issue. Conflict will continue to breed Conflict -- endlessly unless major moves toward sustainable hope for the WORLD's people are brought into prominent display. People all over the WORLD are starting to see VERY CLEARLY the ineffectiveness of WAR and WAR threats. Communication technology will feed into this growing discontent -- with a vengeance among our young citizens especially, who have most to lose -- I fear. ALL People need to see that PEACE is possible and that key leaders via ever wiser leadership decisions, must express the soulful need fully and clearly. Obama's speech in Oslo was a view of the middle-ground but far too light on the presumed real desires of our world communities. The USA position pronounced in the combination of West Point and Oslo speeches was an explanatory one with the underpinning that USA leadership was basically "commander and chiefish" but not "peacemaker stuff" which I think many world citizens were expecting from him. SAD, SAD, SAD!!

UNDERSTANDINGS, as expressed, were just 'old hat' stuff and many did not want to hear about the 'USA national interest' (I suspect that in the audience were many folk who went through HELL during WWII who knew about the faulty issues of WORLD and NATION STATES interests -- and then dying and suffering of civilians) arguments, but rather I would guess they wanted to hear about promising tomorrows and the end of populations suffering. The basic kind of 'insurgency' logic is a poor logic and ill founded for a WORLD that needs hope. What Obama may have failed to see was that 'continuation of conflict -- well intentioned or not -- will create more conflict. The military solution is not a solution. A minimalist expression that could have made world citizenries see and hear about. would have been to have this fine, deep thinking and feeling man say -- "this new 'surge' will have two pieces : an attempt to bring more security to the people of Afghanistan while simultaneously moving solidly toward nation-HELPING--pragmatically speaking." And 'helping' should NOT mean USA dominance of local (Afghan and Pakistan and Iraqi) decision making.

Here the announcement of our NATO nations and others should have been coordinated to back the intent to end hostilities ASAP. WE seem to the Afghans and to the World too -- I suspect --- to be an occupying power in Afghan Land and now it is becoming more clear that the Afghan government -- corrupt or not -- wants to be a govrnment that improves the lives of its citizens without the help of North American interference. HELP should never be viewed as INTERFERENCE. The Afghan peple should "OWN" Afghanistan, just as we in our USA hope that WE own our USA -- untill the WORLDs people OWN the WORLD. The MEEK???

Bert,

Two of my early purchases of books (as High School pre-WWII Student) were "A STUDY OF HISTORY" by Arnold Toynbee (multi volumes) and "THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY" by H. G. Wells. When I got into college it was difficult to get many courses other than technical ones into my personal curriculum but I did manage to learn some non-USA history and did take a course about our then current history (WWII).

Todays' efforts are easier. I can obtain courses given by really fine professors in tape mode, CD mode and DVD mode and then sit back and either listen or see multi-varied histories unfold. Modern Tech thus comes to the rescue of an inquisitive mind.

As an academic administrator in my later years I tried to get a University honors program curriculum to adopt a WORLD HISTORY perspective. I had modest success. My ' vision' at the time was to enhance the narrow focus of 'WESTERN WORLD HISTORY' into -- at least -- a concern for some of the FAR EAST nations (China and India). No real go there. But in todays' world the Tapes, CD's and DVD's can solve many problems if we could find ways to use technologies in INDIVIDUAL COURSE settings at our Universities.

Also -- to go to one of OUR (yours and mine) key wishes -- science courses can be introduced in partial ways that can be made lucid if the professors are NOT acquainted with science and technical content. JOINT offerings might be designed into existence too. I've added to my stock of amateur interests, some self-given (purchased) courses in astronomy, cosmology, religion, religious history, quantum mechanics, technology history (sparce still), and molecular biology and genetics. Maybe some local libraries have such 'courses' on the shelves too, to borrow. ALL can be found in the forms mentioned : Tapes, CD's and DVD's.. And it is not unlikly that enhanced U-Tube presentations will come to facilitate learning about the shapes in our MODERN (today's) WORLD with song, sorrow, insight, fear, etc etc. Its all about HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS GROWTH via knowledge of past, present, and guesses about our futures -- FACTUALLY and INTELLIGENTLY.

Thanks to you and your brother.

Dick

Bert,

I would think that we MUST find ways into the 'heads and hearts' of people we label as fanatics and wonder wher values clash rather than where fanaticisms begin. But I'm certain you know that. I think my greatest concern has to do with government officials, and even our PRESS, using terminology and semantics with a passion that always seems to lack -- for me -- an attempt to be fair and careful. 'Terrorist' and 'terrrorism' are a horrible words that are a powerful 'anger' and 'hate' makers.

Dick

libramoon C,

I enjoyed your thoughtful philosophic poem. Recognition of 'differences' among persons and cultures must come to be widely understood in our complexifying WORLD environment and is a sine qua non for human survival. Physical and Cultural Anthropology are good points to take off from but --just perhaps-- so is poetic wisdom (that is sufficiently, but not too obscure) that makes us aware of the incompletenesses of beingness and the 'great, great gifts of awakening' when such occurs in our hearts and minds via poetic contributions. You are helping the cause of showing that existential despair can be defeated by focusing upon KNOWING ONE ANOTHER -- with no preconceptions that tend to sunder relationships. Thank you for the help.

Dick

Kathy,

Thanks for your comment. I have always loved circuses and their messages and contributed information and joys. Perhaps our WORLD is on its way (with help from the stars and heavens) to start creating new -- wider awake persons -- with foci on the important 'things and thoughtd' about learning, value creation in our selves, and especially -- LOVE of creating and ever better WORLD for our youngsters AND oldsters.

As an important aside. One of my grad school best 'pals' was a grafuate of Hiram College (and spent three years in the Army as an army officer.) and became a wiser war vet like me ( humbly hope). He loved music and proper fun. He also lived and was born in Hiram, Ohio and loved local strawberries -- to look at and consume.

Cheers to you and your progeny.

Dick

Fred,

I think that Einstein's comment probably includes a belief that Quantum Mechanics (as usually seen by many) is distinctly not 'beautiful', or elegant. Its naturalness lack however is different I would guess.

Modern theories such as (1) complexity and (2) chaos make it evident on deep exploration that complex linkage gives 'uncertainty' (like dice rolling) a different look than the ordinary 'randomness'. Statistical findings that are seen as not purposeful (think correlation vs CAUSATION) interpretation plague minds laced with the needs for TRUTH and further exploration.

It is my guess that Einstein saw through the then-philosophy problems arising from a TRUE neglect of the implications of what 'logical positivism' (the major mode of physicalism's analytic style) was leading toward. Complexity and an "everything is connected to everything ' logic (correlations and connections) abounding among all things and thoughts, could make many data-chunks LOOK LIKE unglamorous and ugly realities -- but one could aso guess that ORDERLINESS (which the mind of Einstein could be classified into) was deeply present, but unknown in satisfactory ways. (If you want a look see at this psychological state take a look at the correspondence and meetings of Wolfgang Pauli and Karl Jung).

The Einstein observation -- for me -- says that Einstein. comment was born of a knowledge he intuitively had that strongly 'knew" that it was scientific ignorance at the time that simply had not yet been fully understood. He was possibly 'seeing' the other side of the methodology of reductionism. Synthesizing of corporeal 'entities.)

Thanks for your interest in an article I wrote years ago.

Dick

Elle Lee,

Thank you for your comments. Since these 'posts' of mine are not intended to be 'scholarly contributions' I don't usually create major links, but I do see your point and I am sorry that you were not able to read further into this important complex topic without additional help I might have given. I'd be most appreciative if you do find interesting links to write 'stuff' to add to the new fields as they are emerging.

The fields that Watson was pushing for (Psychology and Metabolism) had two other features. One was a view of Psychology from a GENETIVELY LINKED perspective and another from a 'CHEMICAL (=PROTEINS))) perspective. More importantly in these current days younger fields have grown up with fascinating new evidentiary contents : epigenetics (beyond genetics), genetic determinism, and now -- even more recently -- socionics. These later developments then link to (epi)-evolutionary science and move toward the links then to modern day INFORNATION theory transfer paths (and electromagnetic oscillations) toward understanding human psychology and human finite beliefs that seem to be integral in the process that triggers actions .

Thanks for your interests in these very fundamental conceptual notions. I think they are VERY important for the futures of personkind on our planet. And for our likely new philosophies as well!!

Cena,

Thank you! The topics uderlaying the cotr ideas of 'reductionism' and 'synthesis' have been central to my interests in the issue of the sacred and secular' for large chunks of my long 86 years.

What WE THE PEOPLE are evolving into REALLY interests me and hopefully some others -- like you?

Dick

Bert,

I think that events in our world are starting to open up deep thoughts and inquiries abour our human intents and purposes. We need deepening debates about religious attitudes and values more or less VERSUS key secular issues. An attempt to link science issues (what the UNIVERSE IS ALL ABOUT) to the written SACRED books that have been part of human communities for millennia (and have shaped human behaviors historically an d now) must grasp our imaginations and intellects if our PLANET is to survive and GROW properly and be fit for advanced and ever advancing CIVILIZED behaviors.

Dick

Bert,

I was in 'SPRINGlike mood' planting seeds within a framework that could be book length. My major point -- in the backdrop -- was to get us to see that Afghanistan's development and protection should be turned over to the Afghans (incidentally the same logic for Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, ETC). OUT with the military/war approaches, IN with the peaceful/human help approaches.Here? MARSHALL PLAN LOGIC!

Hi, many dear old friends,

First off -- THANKS BERT for framing your visions of what your term 'GOD virus' is all about. Second, tell AL that sciences (as I see the trends) are beginning to doubt that they really have answers to the deep questions which interest him (and me).

I've just ambled through a modern 'Philosophy of Science' course (Teaching Company) to work into my understanding of what relationships there are among (1) the PHYSICAL SCIENCES , (2) the PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES , and (3) our new INFORMATION SCIENCES to find out what they have to say about an older interest of mine. That older interest has a couple of descriptors! One important movement was called the Austrian School and ts 'LOGICAL POSITIVISM'. Here in the East, and especially at Harvard and MIT, the works of William James -- the famous transformed scientist/psychologist/philosopher/MD PROFESSOR at Harvard in the late 1800's and early 1900's barrelled into distinction with his "RADICAL EMPIRICIST" arguments and their relationships to mental health, grrowth, and religious and theological thought. In the implications of both there was a critique of whether what was truth could only studying ISNESSES. Their root methodologies had to do with analysis of ONLY the material. Thus the arising of the seeming importance of PHYSICS. That got a bit shaken up in the last century by the seeming greater importance of Developmental (growth) issues and of course -- MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Only this afternoon I was tuned into a radio show and heard talk about new ANTHROPOLOGICAL findings and studies in Africa that are SERIOUSLY challenging the 'scientific OLD idea that we HUMAN BEINGS (HOMO SAPIENS) have strong links IN EVOLUTION to both chimpanzees and apes. A key anthropologist on the program said that that OLD dea may soon be buried with the new evidence.

In two of my recent explorations -- in Cosmology and Philosophy -- I grabbed up a notion that I had heard about from a key professor at the Harvard medical School about the (INNATE?) logic in materiality that seems (in Nature) always bent upon building and proliferating living material species from materiality (atoms and molecules) and derivate LIVING cells (DNA, RNA, ipogenetic STUFF). The criticism in the philosophies of (present day science, and especially PHYSICS) are starting to suggest that physical evidence (as we know it now) is far from adequate to explain the complexity of the multiplicity of species and their attendant diverse characteristics. All of that transforms the underlying epistemological issue into a calling for a VERY deep explanation of (1) How energy (whatever it is) transforms into diverse organized materialities (atoms and molecules) and from that base of existences turns around and creates coordinate assemblies of COMPLEXITIES like hands, hearts, legs, arms, lungs, brains into a LIVING (scientists know LITTLE (thus far) about WHAT SUCH COMPLEX PARTS ARE) but nary a significant clue about the (engineering) construction of ORGAN CONSTRUCTIONS and coordination with symmetries and asymmetries that abound in all human beings (real mystery here too) OR any VIRUS -- dangerous or good!

In philosophical terms there is a massive research issue brewing and beckoning. I can simply call it to be what I imperfectly see and understand it to look like : in current day language the quest for forward movement of the understanding of species developments has to do with (1) REDUCTIONISM, and then (2) HOLISTIC (coherent) SYNTHESIZING (WITH NEW AND POWERFUL THEORIES WHICH DO NOT YET EXIST) of diverse basic extant and invisible (like 'waves and electromagnetism) phenomena.

For ME, I simply appreciate the fact that our UNIVERSE is so damn interesting! Full of answerable and perhaps unanswerable questions, and of course WONDER! That's sort of my religion. Its (LIFE, etc) so COMPLEX and WONDROUS that as an engineer of sorts, I ponder over the questions of HOW the coordinated complexities came into existence! GOD, NATURE, GOD-NATURE, NATURE-GOD???

Dick

Ed,

I had to learn to admire Ted Kennedy because when he first ran for the Senate (as the brother of the President) he ran against -- then -- a better and more qualified man and WON. I thought it was a grab for notoriety and (undeserved?) power and I was deeply offended.

It so happened that I knew a very key fellow academic who eventually ended up in Washington in a key Department , who was a KEY supporter of the Kennedy candidacy. We -- the academic and I -- were involved in an activity that summer (I think it was 1962) and I got to know that man pretty well. I asked him bluntly why he supported Ted Kennedy and without flinching he answered : "Because he's going to win!". THAT commentary set me off to try to think deeply about Democracy vs Elitism (and advantage) and that issue has been a tough one for me for most of my adult life as i ruminated about justice (human and divine) and wisdom and selfhood and selflessness..

Through the years however I have learned that our (senior) Senator has done much to assist in planting important 'responsibility' ideas in the hearts and minds of many Massachusetts and American citizens relating to many important fundamental opportunities FOR WE THE PEOPLE. Good laws and progressive accomplishments have been fostered by our now passed GOOD Senator. While a Senator he will be regarded as having contributed much to his Nation and Party. His concerns for Human Rights also went deep into operative Ethics and Constitutionality that have changed many wrong ideas in our society, and will continue to do so in our futures.

In the past decade or so I have come to believe that there can be an EVOLUTION in a (repenting?) person that can end up as having been a good thing for the system as a whole. GOD, sometimes, works in mysterious ways , I must presume! What remains for ME as the gravest deficiency in our DEMOCRACY is that nearly half (50%) of the persons qualified to vote, DO NOT DO SO in our regular elections! That means TO ME that we almost have little right to call our system a VIABLE DEMOCRACY at all in a comparative sense. In the recent IRAN Presidential election vote it is reported (perhaps erroneously) that about 85% of the qualified citizens did vote. We should have a hard time with this fact -- almost with mass fraud or not according to what we hear and read and see on TV, -- saying that their system is not Democratic and ours IS. I wonder if the non-voting part of WE THE PEOPLE who do not vote here in the USA are truly troubled by their perspectives and consequent actions (of non-voting) suggest that they do not feel that the system is fair and -- PERHAPS too -- Elitist? Could that have been part of the malaise of 'loss of faith' that seems to have characterized the problems of our society in the past few years during the recession?

Dick

Gary,

YOU hit the 'nail on the head' with your observations about the paths to public (and private) service and how to get there (wherever 'there' is).

There is a basic philosophic issue there that starts to define what kind of a WORLD is likely to emerge as people and institutions EVOLVE into ever more beauty and complexity. Two operative 'words' are : (1) Individuality , and (2) Communality. In fact if we use the words casually the 20th century governmental distinctions quickly emerge for discussion into : (1) Democracy (as we imperfectly think of 'it' now, and (2) Communism, as we in the West fail to see it now with its evolving new shapes.

I could suggest to you that a large part of my adult life has been an attempt to see the 'shapes' of the emerging future for nation states under the influence of ever greater applied scientific knowledge. I've spent much 'think and do time' with Research and Development (R & D) issues in both the public and private sectors. Science finds out about 'stuff' and its features, and we engineers then try to figure out what to do with what 'newness' has come to be known. Science feeds bases for Technological Development. Then when we get downstream with R & D we get to the next events in the evolving creative efforts -- Productiion and Marketing (P & M). The genius that is operative in the R & D phases is one of INDIVIDUALITY, and the operative genius in the second P & M phases is one of a mutiplicity of coordianted involvement -- a collective effort to bring PROGRESS into wide use to raise levels of LIVING for all of us in the human race. COMMUNALITY is nothing more than a recognition that lots of special skills and creative people have to get together to create a more fulfilling GROUP intent. A CORPORATION is really a COMMUNITY doing a specialized job(s).

The vision of China is also a good one to see the need for widespread application of both Individuals and Collectives to strive and work together. The Chinese are VERY SMART. They watch both Hong Kong and Taiwan use and struggle with private and free and individualistic methods, while simultaneously attempt to 'solve' the issues of orderliness and communal concerns to raise the 'prospects for good living' (with ever better goods and services for ALL) for masses of folk. Communism in China is not going to be like Democracy is here in the WEST. Their system has built into its evolving potential a REAL understanding of the dynamics of GOVERNMENT BY, FOR and OF the people --EVENTUALLY -- precisely because they have in their modern history SEEN and EXPERIENCED the benefits of the MIXED system. The 21st century will be an interesting one to watch -- if our WORLD has a full 21st Century from which to learn. (Think of the absurdities of WAR and DESTRUCTION here, for whatever reason.)

When the collective -- WE THE PEOPLE -- have the means to pick the candidates for office without their own EGO-PUSHES from their OVER-ENVIOUS INDIVIDUALITY issues and who are sometimes full of an overblown and unprepared background to guide and rule WE THE PEOPLE, we will start to see the emergence of TRULY HUMBLE and CREATIVE and JUSTICE LADEN LEADERSHIP emerge. Democracies -- I believe -- will morph into proper MIXED systems (characterized by the notion of WISE COLLECTIVISM) and Socialistc-Communistic-Dictatorshp Nation States will morph into MIXED systems as well. WHY?

Because complexity in the REAL WORLD will necessitate the existence of educated, trained, humbled (by self awareness of limitations) minds and hearts who are seen by WE THE PEOPLE as worthy and focused upon 'SERVING THE PEOPLE' out of their free will (NOT ego-will power) intentionalities. Thus we see the likelihoods enhanced for such developments to occur by having NEW communication technologies that show many others of our species the promise of HUMILITY and INTELLIGENCE and COMPASSION as qualities absolutely essential for the PROGRESSING EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES OF OUR PLANET. INDIVIDUALITY and COMMUNALITY can be put together to generate new kinds of human minds and hearts.

I presume that your experiences told you that when "the PEOPLE wanted you, and you wanted to 'serve' them'" -- selflessly.

Dick

Edward,

Your reflections and comments contribute to realities that MUST be brought into regular discourse now and through the coming years. I am an advocate -- when it comes to designing and implementing proper actions under the laws -- fo 'growing new facets of a given law, and also augmenting new facets as it becomes obvious that times have changed. In other words, legislation should EVOLVE and thus kept currently meaningful.

It was the late Senator Ted Kennedy who had a key idea that, so far as I am aware, has NOT seen the 'light of day'. He was, I think, an advocate of a major contribution to the medical delivery system. He was in favor of an EVOLVING Health Care System : building and staffing COMMUNITY CARE CENTERS everywhere. These, as I understand their likely financing, would be tax supported institutions under the guidance and control of our 50 STATE governments. I don't know if his belief was to have our Federal government help to support these CCC's , but I do feel that for relatively minor sorts of advice and ills this organizational design notion is a very good one. Centers would be set up at proper (and many) locations and perhaps serviced on some sort of a schedule by all qualified physicians in the areas. This innovative noton needs fleshing out and certainly deliberation as a major FUTURE possibility WITHIN the law.

When I think about Health Care in our nation I keep imaging for myself the many CHILDREN who are hungry and sick and lacking love and enduring unease because they are not being taken care of properly. It is not much of a jump to go to images of our WORLD's neglected CHILDREN. Then sometimes I think too that too many of us adults are too childish and sometimes need help and caring for and information too. Neglected children in too few years can grow up to feel severely insecure and learn quickly -- perhaps too quickly -- to hate and learn the difference between 'haves and have nots'. Then I think about a couple of decades from now, without the love that comes from attention and affection, whether dislike can become rebellion (like it likely will say in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan). And those futures blend in with environmental and nuclear war issues to suggest to me that LOVE is the deepest ingredient of SANITY. There is looming an imperative call for TRUE WISDOM which should be crawling into some legislators' heads (and hearts?) at this time.

Thanks! Thanks! I do hope that 'physicians feel this way' as you strongly suggest and not like greed driven bankers. I must admit that before I read the RWJF paper I was NOT inclined to think that the humanitarian streak ran all the way through the medical profession. I'm glad to see that I was likely wrong!

Dick

Bert,

I wrote a rather long response to your comment yesterday and posted it here. Somehow it is gone and I do not have a copy to put in its place. In short I merely indicated that I too had sorrows about the REALITY that indeed this and other major reports that would be useful to the public -- WE THE PEOPLE -- to weigh out the 'goods' and 'bads' of 'this and that' would help us all to UNDERSTAND complicated and important issues. Sorry about the lost comment.

I did suggest therein too, that the Library of Congress (potentially one of the best UNBIASED sources of linguistic and empirical information should be budgeted and peopled properly and then charged with the responsibilities to help EDUCATE ALL OF US. WE THE PEOPLE need reliable and unbiased information about our UA and WORLD to make assessments and judgments. We need--specially excellent INFORMATION--facts and theories-- about KEY extant and likely important legislations. In this way we would possibly restore faith in what we hear, see, and surmise.And not so incidentally, we would become better informed VOTERS.

Dick

Gary, the Eclectic,

I've pondered a bit over how to present an answer to your well intended question. In all respect I must state that SAMPLING with random samples is rarely dependent upon the full size of the 'population size' of the whole collection. Here, as I recall (possibly erroneously) there are 300,000 physiciansin the USA, and the sample was only a 'mere' 2500 or so.

Much 'quality control' of production of goods and services throughout our WORLD is based on SAMPLING and as time goes on this way of quality control will become ever more ubiquitously used as a method of improving our varied products. One does not inspect automobiles for their crash-strengths in collisions by crashing each automobile produced in the world. Nor are many cars used for 'testing'. Destructive testing can be fruitful because a SMALL SAMPLE will give the information needed for millions of cars to be manufactured and distributed to buyers.Teaching statistics calls for some innovtion precisely because of the issue you have introduced intuitively. Lets use the 'physicians' attitude data as an example.

As I noted above, there are (and I may be wrong here) about 300000 practicing physicians in the USA (this is referred to usually as the POPULATION. The SAMPLE to be brought into the analysis was about 2100. (Presume this to be the SAMPLE). Think now of a jar with colored marbles (300000) where the colors represent the attitudes of each phyasician. Say there are 25% of the marbles that are RED; 10% are GREEN; and 65% are BLUE. Say that the RED marbles represent those physicians who are ONLY in favor of PRIVATE insurance companies, and the GREEN marbles represent those physicians who want only the GOVERNMENT run system, and the BLUE marbles represent those physicans who will be happy with a MIXED public-private system. NOW put all the marbles into the steel urn and shake and shake and shake and shake. Now reach in and remove 2130 marbles while blindfolded. What will be the COMPOSITION of the SAMPLE of 2130? Won't you expect the sample to contain about 532 REDS, 213 GREENS and the rest BLUES?

Here's where the statisticians gain their analytic problems because we almost never know what the TRUE POPULATION SIZE IS. Thus we might simply take the calculated SAMPLE findings data and say (25%, 10%, 65%) and be done with it as a 'best estimate of the POPULATION (which is what our discussion here is all about) or concede that there may be an error of estimation. For example it MIGHT BE that a (20%, 15%, 65%) POPULATION GENERATED our resulting SAMPLE. But isn't it very unlikely that our URN of 300000 loaded with 10% REDS, 10% GREENS, and 80% BLUES (10%, 10%, 80%) generated our SAMPLE? We have ways of measuring such 'likelihoods," WE use words like standard deviations, standard errors, and far more complicated linguistic notions.

The toughest part of the statistical logic is to come to realize via careful mathematical/statistical reasoning that much SMALLER samples are needed than might be expected to use to find reasonable conclusions like "accept, reject, continue" sampling. In many (not too complex investigations) where not too many questions are to be answered or typologies to be examined are to be present sample sizes of less than 100 or 50 are frequently 'good enough' for reaching some estimate that is acceptable for discussion purposes (an ESTIMATE OF TRUTH relating to the unknown POPULATION of information.)

In closing it might be noted that our Population Censuses ,run every ten years by our Federal Government for allocating fund, choosing our State Congresspersons etc are CORRECTED by SAMPLING methods. Almost all our WORLDWIDE industries use statistical sampling methods for production control purposes, and EXPERIMENTAL methods are becoming ubquitously important WORLDWIDE now. THE TREND WILL CONTINUE. WE ARE INAPABLE OF KNOWING ALL BUT WE CAN KNOW FRAGMENTS OF REALITY. In fact, isn't being alive simply seeing that our minds only hold partial data always. As Einstein was famous for 'thought experiments', so are we enabled to generalize from (sometimes) very fragmentary knowledge (think SAMPLING here).

Chris,

In the long-run the 'facts' will come to determine policy content rather than ufounded opinions and distortions in the ways that information (linguistic and empirical) will be distributed to WE THE PEOPLE. The communications technologis appearing in the past and present centuries is going to revolutionize the acquisitiion of both knowledge and insight of WE THE WORLD's PEOPLE -- IN MY OPINION.

Richard,

More than 50 years ago I knew a great deal about '(the dangers of and advancing possibilities of) nuclear warfare' features resulting from REAL events. Modern day folks (even the persons likely to be participants in this set of conversations) may have little knowledge of what such monstrous means of war can do to impact WORLD civilizations if ever used (with either small or large weapons). I hope that when such conferences start (and I hope they will) there will be a couple of informative preliminaries (data, reports, lectures, movies, etc) for the members of the deliberating groups, that will show via history (of say Japan and nuclear energy power plant damage studies, etc) the (short, intermediate, and long-term) consequences of any kind of 'small' or 'large' future nuclear war event or events.

I have suggested elsewhere that there be (prior prepared) studies shown to and discussed, with participants in the possible coming talks the results, of prepared technical computer SIMULATION and SCENARIO analytic, empirical, graphic results which will suggest short, intermediate and long term DAMAGE to life (of all kinds) and nature and economic properties (along, of course with losses of HUMAN SKILLS that will set the stage better for caring and careful POLICY analyses. These simulations if done properly along with explanatory commentary, will -- in my opinion -- provide a background of QUASI-REALITY to the considerations that are bound to get into the deepest aspects of open consideration and discussions among the official members of the international group of members of the planned gathering.

Thanks for this information. Richard. For the sake of FUTURE planetary safety I hope these talks will come about and will start a much needed rational movement toward a new and fruitful SANITY about the important aspects of this most important WORLD problem.

Dick

Alexandralyn & Jerry,

Great perspectives in what both of you are saying. The human task (from infancy onward), is to transform the embryonic SELF that is then thus far a miraculous and divine NO-thing YET into a conscious, trained, responsible GROWTH ENGINE as -- through time-- one SHAPES ONESELF (with the help of ancesstor help), into a VIABLE and MASTERFUL CREATING SOME-thing!

In the 'limit' this means that "gods" will then resemble "GOD" and the GAP will then be closed and COMPASSIONATE FREE PERSONS will populate this DIVINE planet of ours. Without that UNIVERSAL, ubiquitous intelligent laden quest, ALL will be LOST!

This time on our EARTH is a most important period in which we human EARTH persons are questing for our TRUE selves. Some are simply ahead of others : babies (our developing children) are lowest on the consciousness scale of knowledge and developed feeling and reason, and others UP-SCALE somewhat.

FUTURE adult tasks???? To facilitate GROWTH and HEALTH (of all kinds (mental and physical and skill-full)) for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE on OUR planet.

Dick