Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!mordor!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU!weemba
From: weemba@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: How Many Scientists' Signatures Do You Need?
Message-ID: <12268567283.17.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 5-Jan-87 15:52:54 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12268567283.17.MCGREW
Posted: Mon Jan  5 15:52:54 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Jan-87 23:04:28 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.berkeley.edu
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 51
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


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

-------