tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3859932972602672224.post2336227926095111884..comments2024-03-27T20:47:44.536-06:00Comments on Random Thoughts by Mark Milliorn: Punctuated Equilibrium and Brown BessMark Milliornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13604793462527896688noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3859932972602672224.post-38010660183532204202015-03-31T13:55:54.868-06:002015-03-31T13:55:54.868-06:00Technology, science, politics and plumbing pretty ...Technology, science, politics and plumbing pretty much all follow the stairstep pathway to progress. Thomas Kuhn's landmark (and controversial) book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" demonstrated the almost inevitability that scientific theory will remain stable for long periods, punctuated by sudden, rapid periods of change. The book was controversial because scientists like to think of themselves as open-minded, basing their opinions strictly on evidence. Kuhn's assertion that scientists were quite capable of ignoring data that disproved their pet theories. Kuhn claimed that before a basic theory could change a very large body of data had to be collected that disproved the old idea. Newtonian physics, itself a revolution at the time, held sway for a very long time until anomalies in the data physicists were collecting led a Swiss patent clerk named Einstein to come up with the idea of relativity. Eventually, Einstein's idea was confirmed in a flash of blinding light over the Southwestern desert and over two Japanese cities. <br />The orthodox generals took decades to finally come to terms with the idea that Napoleonic maneuvers were obsolete in the face of machine guns, tanks and aircraft. Of course, it wasn't until the butchery left the generals in danger of not having any soldiers left before the powers that be in the military listened to generals like Rommel and Patton and then only because they were wildly successful against the generals who still handled troops like toy soldiers on the playroom floor.<br />Even the relatively recent military sport of air strategy has passed through three distinct stages and is in the midst of another that has been tugging at the hems of Air Force general staff doctrinal coattails since the 40s. It started out with planes being used like cavalry horses conducting knightly jousts while others occupied the high ground and spied on the enemy. Eventually, Doolittle managed to get the Air Corps to consider the value of strategic bombing. People like Pete Quesada tried to get the Air Force to commit more resources to close-air support. John Boyd revolutionized air-to-air combat – wrote the book (literally) on air combat and was retired as a colonel. It would never have done for a trouble-maker like Boyd to be made a general. He wasn't orthodox enough. He helped design the incredibly useful F-16, a less expensive aircraft than the F-15, F-111 and other more expensive fighter aircraft, favoring simple, tough, versatile less expensive aircraft in numbers over fewer, vastly more expensive planes.<br />Even now, with clear evidence that aircraft like the F-16 and the A10 Warthog do what they do really well, the Air Force is still engaging in fantasy aircraft design that has resulted in the complex and bug-ridden F-35, a plane that, like Goldman Sachs, is too expensive to fail. They're desperate to retire the very un-Air Force like A10 because it doesn't fit the complex, expensive, outdated and flawed model they seem to be stuck with.<br />Politicians do the same. After more than a hundred years, political scientists are still trying to make Marxism work despite the fact that virtually every Marxist-inspired experiment that has been attempted has directly resulted in the slaughter of millions of perfectly good human beings. Despite this, universities are absolutely chock full of Marxist professors, teaching impressionable students that socialism is the way we ought to go, despite massive evidence that Marxism is a very bad thing. <br />When the "jump" comes when we reach the breaking point that triggers the next political revolution, one can only hope we don't jump too far the other way and wind up with utter chaos or worse for another century. <br />One cannot under-estimate the power of the human ego. It's what restrains the true forward progress of technology, science, politics, culture and economics.<br />Tom Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16700342512275624543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3859932972602672224.post-1372557167884103802015-03-21T10:14:15.098-06:002015-03-21T10:14:15.098-06:001 metric shit ton = X troy ounces. Solve for X. S...1 metric shit ton = X troy ounces. Solve for X. Show your work.Ted Morrishttp://www.zianet.com/tedmorrisnoreply@blogger.com