Arguments that Count: Physics, Computing, and Missile Defense, 1949-2012
Slayton, Rebecca
- 出版商: MIT
- 出版日期: 2023-10-31
- 售價: $1,570
- 貴賓價: 9.5 折 $1,492
- 語言: 英文
- 頁數: 344
- 裝訂: Quality Paper - also called trade paper
- ISBN: 0262549573
- ISBN-13: 9780262549578
-
相關分類:
物理學 Physics
海外代購書籍(需單獨結帳)
相關主題
商品描述
How differing assessments of risk by physicists and computer scientists have influenced public debate over nuclear defense. In a rapidly changing world, we rely upon experts to assess the promise and risks of new technology. But how do these experts make sense of a highly uncertain future? In Arguments that Count, Rebecca Slayton offers an important new perspective. Drawing on new historical documents and interviews as well as perspectives in science and technology studies, she provides an original account of how scientists came to terms with the unprecedented threat of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). She compares how two different professional communities--physicists and computer scientists--constructed arguments about the risks of missile defense, and how these arguments changed over time. Slayton shows that our understanding of technological risks is shaped by disciplinary repertoires--the codified knowledge and mathematical rules that experts use to frame new challenges. And, significantly, a new repertoire can bring long-neglected risks into clear view. In the 1950s, scientists recognized that high-speed computers would be needed to cope with the unprecedented speed of ICBMs. But the nation's elite science advisors had no way to analyze the risks of computers so used physics to assess what they could: radar and missile performance. Only decades later, after establishing computing as a science, were advisors able to analyze authoritatively the risks associated with complex software--most notably, the risk of a catastrophic failure. As we continue to confront new threats, including that of cyber attack, Slayton offers valuable insight into how different kinds of expertise can limit or expand our capacity to address novel technological risks.
商品描述(中文翻譯)
如何物理學家和計算機科學家對風險的不同評估影響了公眾對核防禦的辯論。
在快速變化的世界中,我們依賴專家來評估新技術的前景和風險。但這些專家如何理解高度不確定的未來?在《Arguments that Count》中,Rebecca Slayton 提供了一個重要的新視角。她利用新的歷史文件和訪談,以及科學與技術研究的觀點,提供了一個原創的敘述,說明科學家們如何面對核武裝洲際彈道導彈(ICBMs)所帶來的前所未有的威脅。她比較了兩個不同專業社群——物理學家和計算機科學家——如何構建有關導彈防禦風險的論點,以及這些論點隨時間的變化。Slayton 表明,我們對技術風險的理解受到學科範疇的影響——專家用來框架新挑戰的編纂知識和數學規則。而且,重要的是,一個新的範疇可以使長期被忽視的風險變得清晰可見。
在1950年代,科學家們意識到需要高速計算機來應對洲際彈道導彈的前所未有的速度。但國家的精英科學顧問無法分析計算機的風險,因此使用物理學來評估他們能夠評估的內容:雷達和導彈性能。直到幾十年後,在計算機被確立為一門科學之後,顧問們才能夠權威地分析與複雜軟體相關的風險——最顯著的是災難性故障的風險。隨著我們繼續面對新的威脅,包括網絡攻擊的威脅,Slayton 提供了有價值的見解,說明不同類型的專業知識如何限制或擴大我們應對新技術風險的能力。
作者簡介
Rebecca Slayton is a Lecturer in Public Policy and Junior Faculty Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University.
作者簡介(中文翻譯)
Rebecca Slayton 是史丹佛大學國際安全與合作中心的公共政策講師及初級教職研究員。