The Fail-Safe movie

[Philosophy Explorer]

This movie is a what-if basis type of fantasy, yet it can happen. Basically the world is hanging on a nuclear war thread that can be cut at any time. A number of philosophical ideas are explored as the movie develops leaving you hanging on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next.

This classic stars Walter Matthau and Henry Fonda. It's worth watching even if you're not interested in philosophy. For those who saw the movie, what do you think of it?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What kind of ideas are explored in the movie?

[Philosophy Explorer]

The following link looks at some ideas contained within the movie: http://www.strategypage.com/moviereview ... ail%20Safe

One of the ideas explored is how much the President would rely upon an interpreter to not only give a literal translation of what the Russian premier was saying, but also to give his (the translater's) impressions of what may have been going through the premier's mind, something I wouldn't recommend myself. The main idea is how reliable or unreliable machines are in our nuclear age, something people have to judge for themselves.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

One of the ideas explored is how much the President would rely upon an interpreter to not only give a literal translation of what the Russian premier was saying, but also to give his (the translater's) impressions of what may have been going through the premier's mind, something I wouldn't recommend myself.

Did you have some question or argument in regard to translation?

The main idea is how reliable or unreliable machines are in our nuclear age, something people have to judge for themselves.

Do you have some question or argument about the reliability of machines?

[Philosophy Explorer]

With respect to translation, how much should the President rely upon translator(s) in a possible emergency with another country that has nuclear weapons? Should he rely upon the translator to give his interpretation of what that head of country actually means?

With respect to machines/computers, how reliable are they (do you have 100% confidence in them?) Can they handle nuclear weapons effectively?

Here's a question I haven't seen discussed. We (US) share our technology with other countries. So what happens when our friends become foes? What steps can we take to prepare?

Final question. If you saw the movie, what did you think of it?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

With respect to translation, how much should the President rely upon translator(s) in a possible emergency with another country that has nuclear weapons? Should he rely upon the translator to give his interpretation of what that head of country actually means?

Define should as you use the term above. As you are using the term, what is the difference between saying, 'I should do X," as opposed to, "I do X"?

With respect to machines/computers, how reliable are they (do you have 100% confidence in them?)

It depends on the machine and the purpose. An old clunker that is ambiguously low on gas might not be a reliable way to get to work.

A fairly new calculator with ample power supply would be very reliable at giving a good answer to arithmetic questions.

Can they handle nuclear weapons effectively?

Depends how they are being used to do such.

Machines very reliably follow the laws of physics. The human employment of such things is where error can come in and thus depends on context.

Here's a question I haven't seen discussed. We (US) share our technology with other countries. So what happens when our friends become foes? What steps can we take to prepare?

I am not my government. We are not our government. In many ways, the worst foe of any people is usually their government. Anyway, the government keeps many secrets. Surely it uses very similar strategic choices in deciding what technology to share and with whom and to what degree as it uses in all other military choices like whether to send troops to help a certain other government in a given battle or to send financial aid for allegedly humanitarian purposes like feeding starving people. Consider the embargo on Cuba and the denial of nuclear technology to certain countries. They not only will choose to not share technology, but will go in and violently prevent the other government from figuring it out for themselves.

Final question. If you saw the movie, what did you think of it?

I didn't see it.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Scott replied (in part):

"It depends on the machine and the purpose. An old clunker that is ambiguously low on gas might not be a reliable way to get to work.

A fairly new calculator with ample power supply would be very reliable at giving a good answer to arithmetic questions."

Here we're talking about nuclear security so the purpose of the machines (including humans) is to provide nuclear security in the movie (which you said you've never seen). So I'm entitled to get 100% confidence in the system of men/women and machines. Not calculators and not clunkers which are irrelevant to this discussion.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The example of a clunker car or a well-functioning calculator demonstrates that the reliability of the machine depends simply on that particular machine's design and the nature of the purpose it is put towards, namely the degree to which there is room for human error or estimation in the employment of the machines. Computers compute very reliably. The rest is human.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Scott said:

"Computers compute very reliably." Yet they can't prevent break-ins such as what happened with Target stores nor manipulation such as what Israel did with Iran's centrifuges. Reliable hah!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Scott said:

"Computers compute very reliably." Yet they can't prevent break-ins such as what happened with Target stores nor manipulation such as what Israel did with Iran's centrifuges. Reliable hah!

You seem to be agreeing with me: Computers can do what they do very reliably, but are just tools employed by humans for specific very limited purposes, but the more their purpose is misemployed by humans or utilized human input the more human error or human unreliability will come into play. (I feel in this post I am just reiterating what I have already said, only to further illustrate agreement.) For example, a great car might be a very reliable way to get to work, but it would be foolish to rely on your new Altima to come in your house and make you breakfast. The error is human. As they say, guns don't kill people... and nor is it the gun's fault if the target goes unshot because the human shooter has poor aim or because the human shooter is actually holding a banana.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Scott said:

"Computers compute very reliably." Yet they can't prevent break-ins such as what happened with Target stores nor manipulation such as what Israel did with Iran's centrifuges. Reliable hah!

You seem to be agreeing with me: Computers can do what they do very reliably, but are just tools employed by humans for specific very limited purposes, but the more their purpose is misemployed by humans or utilized human input the more human error or human unreliability will come into play. (I feel in this post I am just reiterating what I have already said, only to further illustrate agreement.) For example, a great car might be a very reliable way to get to work, but it would be foolish to rely on your new Altima to come in your house and make you breakfast. The error is human. As they say, guns don't kill people... and nor is it the gun's fault if the target goes unshot because the human shooter has poor aim or because the human shooter is actually holding a banana.

I'm sure you're familiar with the expression "We can agree to disagree." So far your responses are avoiding what the movie is about, but I forgive you since you haven't seen the movie. So do you want to continue our discussion or throw in the towel?

-- Updated March 1st, 2014, 8:42 pm to add the following --

Scott said:

"I feel in this post I am just reiterating what I have already said, only to further illustrate agreement."

Others would say it's circular reasoning.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Computers compute very reliably." Yet they can't prevent break-ins such as what happened with Target stores nor manipulation such as what Israel did with Iran's centrifuges. Reliable hah!

You seem to be agreeing with me: Computers can do what they do very reliably, but are just tools employed by humans for specific very limited purposes, but the more their purpose is misemployed by humans or utilized human input the more human error or human unreliability will come into play.

I'm sure you're familiar with the expression "We can agree to disagree."

My familiarity with such a statement seems irrelevant since we seem to agree. We can agree to agree: Computers compute very reliably, but human employment or input of computations leaves proportional room for human error.

So do you want to continue our discussion or throw in the towel?

Throw in the towel? Is there some kind of contest going on? I'd maintain that one who looks at philosophy as a competition has already thrown in the towel on their own individual efforts to do real philosophy, sacrificing it for rhetoric games.

I feel in this post I am just reiterating what I have already said, only to further illustrate agreement.

Others would say it's circular reasoning.

Others might say 2 + 2 = 5. They would be wrong on both accounts. 'Others would say' is not much of an argument.