"Is war a science or an art?" Topic

But Donovan I still don't think you answered my original query.

Brechtel : "I understand you not wanting to get into a 'discussion' with those two. It would be akin to engaging in a battle of wits with two people who are unarmed. " "

Donovan : "And you might lose"

L4 : That is a bit presumptuous … Or because you disagree with me ? Does that makes me [or those that think like me] a stupid old Vet that is not intellectual enough to understand such high minded academic, etc., comments ?

I think you are reading rather too much into my remark. Brechtel suggested a battle of wits so I made a witticism.

To be honest my remark was directed more at him than at you because he introduced the topic by using a very tired old joke ("unarmed opponents"). It seemed to me a not very witty way of instigating a battle of wits.

You weren't the real target: you just got caught in the crossfire in a war of words. I think it is what is known as collateral damage?

It seemed to me a not very witty way of instigating a battle of wits.

I was merely uttering an opinion based on the quality of his postings. :-)

COL Scott ret,

I wonder if some members read carefully the other members' posts.

Have you read carefully my previous posts? I do not think so. Or you have not understood correctly my arguments.
If you had read carefully what I have written, you would have noticed that there is no disagreement with your conclusions.

You have written: ‘War is war, and it is best studied using a scientific method to improve performance and best practised using the creativity and flair of an artist'.

Well, I have been repeating the same conclusion many times… But you say that I am wrong…

I have written many times: War is not a science and war is not an art. BUT I have written many times as well: war may be studied using scientific method, BECAUSE war may be a scientific object of study, that is, it may be studied by a science. But war is not a science in itself.
So it is evident that we agree. If, in your opinion, I am wrong, then you are wrong too.

Regarding your sentence ‘war is best practised using the creativity and flair of an artist', I have written in my previous posts that certain military aspects of war (for example, strategies and tactics) may be artistically implemented and practised or, in your own words, using the creativity and flair of an artist. It is a respectable opinion. But the use of such creativity in certain military processes does not mean that war as a whole, may be considered an art. War is not an art.

So I cannot see where the disagreement is.

Again and again, for those who do not understand that war is not just military processes (strategies and tactics) I repeat that war is a complex concept which includes many different aspects: military, economic, social, demographic, psychological, moral, religious, ideological, sociological, etc. Military aspect (strategies and tactics) are only one among many others, and you cannot reduce war to a set of military matters. It is untrue and morally inacceptable.

Legion 4,

Veterans, academic teachers, intellectuals, wargamers, artists, and anybody else, are entitled to offer politely their opinions and arguments, and all of them are respectable. We can learn from different sources and from different people.

So Kevin,

You answered me, I think; "…the art of war".

So where is the science in Vegetius (a late enough Roman) De Re Militari ?

Can you point to it?

I was referring to the later Eastern Roman treatises, not Vegetius.

Would you like to discuss his work? I have it also and can refer to it if you wish.

Webster's Dictionary provides useful definitions for both 'science' and 'art.' The art and science of war neatly fit into these definitions.

Definitions of Science:

1.the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2.a. department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology

b.something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science.

3.a. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b. such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena-natural science.

4. a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws, for example-cooking is both a science and an art.

Definition of Art:

1. skill acquired by experience, study, or observation.

2. a branch of learning; learning, scholarship.

3. an occupation requiring knowledge or skill.

4.the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.

5.a skillful plan

b.the quality or state of being artful.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Yes, refer to that if you would like to.
I also have Aelian who I think is earlier, but yes, if you could point out for us if we can see scientific and intuitive approaches to the subject coming together.
If the texts are available online we could follow references you might make in the later treatises you`ve mentioned.

I think you are reading rather too much into my remark. Brechtel suggested a battle of wits so I made a witticism.

To be honest my remark was directed more at him than at you because he introduced the topic by using a very tired old joke ("unarmed opponents"). It seemed to me a not very witty way of instigating a battle of wits.

You weren't the real target: you just got caught in the crossfire in a war of words. I think it is what is known as collateral damage?

Well I guess you have me there. I will freely admit my sense of humor or humorous posts here do not always go over too well, either … Something you may have just suffered from ? As I just got hit by a "witticism" … Ouch !!!!

And that is a failing of mine to sometimes look maybe too deeply into something and in turn. My "conclusions" may be incorrect. I'm far from infallible, as many can see by some of my posts, etc.

Oh and yes, after I being banned from the UM boards. I'm very well "versed" on collateral damage ala some TMPers. I remember a number of those classes in the Army about that topic. But once I got involved on TMP, it was like I lived in another plane of reality. Maybe I do ?

Veterans, academic teachers, intellectuals, wargamers, artists, and anybody else, are entitled to offer politely their opinions and arguments, and all of them are respectable. We can learn from different sources and from different people.

Well I always have said, in a number of my posts. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and others are entitled to agree or disagree.
But something you and some others here may not understand. Again, sometimes Vets[especially Combat Arms types] can be a little aggressive in replying to some comments, etc.

That may really be how our minds were tempered by training and experience, etc. So I guess don't be too surprised at times if we don't come off being too polite, P.C, and maybe not too "respectable" in tone, etc. It is in some of our natures, I'd think.

E.g. someone who is no longer[was banned] on TMP said to me. You sound like being in the Army was the most important thing you did in your life. And I said, it was, and tried to explain about duty, honor, etc., etc. and it is what I think males are supposed/should to do. And of course, I meant all I said.

Then another TMPer who is still here, told me to stop, I was embarrassing myself. Those two individuals didn't get "it". And never will understand what some like me think and believe. About serving one's country and being part of something bigger than one's self, etc. My fellow Vets, like Wolfhag, Brechtel and the COL, etc. … I think may believe as I do, at least in part …

Brechtel,

I would like to analyse the definitions that you have mentioned:

Science:

1. ‘the state of knowing'. This definition does not refer to the scientific method or the scientific way to obtain knowledge accepted by the academic theory of knowledge (Scientific Epistemology). So this definition is irrelevant and useless in this discussion.

2.a. the science of theology? Again, this definition does not refer to the scientific method or the scientific way to obtain knowledge accepted by the academic theory of knowledge (Scientific Epistemology). So this definition is irrelevant and useless in this discussion.

3.a. and b. This definition agrees with the scientific method or the scientific way to obtain knowledge accepted by the academic theory of knowledge (Scientific Epistemology). It is the case of sciences such as Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Anthropology, Astronomy, etc., mentioned in my previous posts. These sciences have their specific objects of study. But war is nothing to do with sciences like these because war is not a science. War may be an object of scientific study. For example: History of war, Anthropology of war, etc. War is not a scientific way to obtain knowledge. The mentioned science of war usually refers only to military aspects of war.
Do you think that war is just a set of military procedures? No, war also includes many other aspects, as I have mentioned before.

4. Sorry, but war is neither a system nor a method. It is obvious. Strategies and tactics, certain military aspects of war, may be considered science or art, but not war as a whole. So, this definition is irrelevant and useless in this discussion.

Definition of Art:

1. ‘skill acquired by experience, study of observation'. This definition is vague and imprecise, and it can be applied to every activity, not only arts. For example, doing the chores or doing the ironing. This definition does not refer to academic arts and it is irrelevant in this discussion.

2. ‘learning, scholarship'. Again, this definition is imprecise, it is too general and it says nothing about the intrinsic nature of arts (regarding the principles of Aesthetics). It is irrelevant as well.

3. ‘an occupation requiring knowledge or skill'. Well, it is similar to the first definition. Again, it is irrelevant and useless in this discussion.

4. ‘the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects'. Well, I do not think that the purpose of war is the production of aesthetic objects. Furthermore, I do not think that the purpose of strategies, tactics or logistics is the production of aesthetic objects. It is an absurdity.

5.a ‘a skillful plan'. Well, art is more than a skilful plan. Again, it is an imprecise definition which does not cope with the real dimensions of academic arts (Architecture, Sculpture, Music, Poetry, etc. And war is not only a skilful plan. War is immensely a more complex activity.

5.b ‘the quality or state of being artful'. Again, it is too general. So everything may be artful. Again, it says nothing about the intrinsic nature of arts (regarding the principles of Aesthetics).

Sorry, but all these definitions prove nothing. War is neither science nor art, but war may be an object of scientific study. You should not confuse who studies (science) with what is studied (object of study). It does not make sense saying that war studies war. For example, an astronomer studies a planet, but the astronomer is not the planet. And Astronomy is not the planet. Astronomy is the science that study the planets (among other objects). It is obvious, right?

Brechtel,

Science #2b would fit "Military Science"

Art #1 would work for small-scale military tactics. From experience and observation without a formalized study you could become an expert tactical leader, like on the job training.

Wolfhag

Legion,
This is for you, me and all of our other brothers that have been DH'd and banned from the UM board: YouTube link

Semper Fi Mac,
Wolfhag

Wolfhag, Legion 4 and the brethren:

So an actor portraying a fictional marine officer who stonewalls and lies under oath until finally provoked into speaking an ugly truth about his contempt for the rules of engagement and his superior officers' orders is your new military aesthetic? Interesting indeed. Yes they're hard men, heroically standing on the walls, but at whom will they shoot?

May I counter this ersatz truism with a real military officer speaking about the real and new military aesthetic and how it is both a symptom of and a driver for a new type of very dangerous militarism in some armed forces. He also discusses art, science and technology as tools and vectors of this militarism. I wonder if you can handle a different and real truth?

youtu.be/SoMnIfEG9zY

Rod Robertson.

Referring to the United States Marine Corps, the title 'Marine' is always capitalized.

Semper Fi, from a retired Marine.

Sorry, but all these definitions prove nothing. War is neither science nor art, but war may be an object of scientific study. You should not confuse who studies (science) with what is studied (object of study). It does not make sense saying that war studies war. For example, an astronomer studies a planet, but the astronomer is not the planet. And Astronomy is not the planet. Astronomy is the science that study the planets (among other objects). It is obvious, right?

You are wrong. The definitions provided most certainly do fit the idea that war is both an art and a science.

Because you don't agree you are now venturing into the realm of historical fallacies, and I recommend the book Historians' Fallacies by David Hackett Fischer.

You have definitely indicated that (1) you don't understand the study of war; (2) apparently you are hell-bent on proving everyone else wrong on this subject, regardless of the evidence and common sense, and (3) you apparently don't have the education and/or experience to back up your assertions.

This posting also applies to 'Rod.'

The whole point of the movie 'A Few Good Men' was that Colonel Jessup (the Jack Nicholson character) wasn't fit to wear the uniform of a Marine. His arrogance has caused him to lose sight of the values he was supposed to be upholding and not only have his orders led directly to the death of a fellow Marine but by lying under oath and refusing to admit his guilt he was leaving two other Marines to hang out to dry.

The speech he makes in court is rousing but it is also self-serving and ultimately he is going to be thrown out of the USMC because he is a disgrace to the Corps.

You guys do get that, right?

Brechtel198:

Marines – This is a proper noun. Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces (the U.S. Marines, the Marine
Corps, a Marine). Lowercase when describing marines from other nations or the marine services. Do not
use the abbreviation USMC.

From:

PDF link

As I am not an American, the fictional US marine is a foreign marine and thus should not be capitalized.

Rod Robertson.

No, that is still improper and can be taken as meaning disrespect or as an insult.

If you choose not the capitalize Royal Marine, that is your business, but not to capitalize Marine when referring to an American Marine is wrong, like it or not.

Probably unwise to return to this debate, given the predictable descent into self-important grandstanding.

The divide is this: can an ACTIVITY be labelled a Science (or an Art). You can apply scientific analysis to sport – or probably even shoe-cleaning – but this does not make it a Science in itself. Not, by the way, to denigrate those who collate and scrutinise the data.

Let's try some other examnples. Politics, of course, begets Political Science – we're all familiar with this term. But is the practice of Politics regarded as Science? Not in my book (and anyone who calls himself an Artist in the field must be asking for trouble …)

Let's try another one: how about Sex? Sure, there's Science of it in spades. We're all both Artists and Scientists, right? Well, some of us, of course.

No disputing that experts can deserve academic recognition in Military Science, be they warriors or thinkers or both. I have had the pleasure of meeting many from both backgrounds. But this accolade is different from the actual leadership and conduct of operations.

My view of language, of course. But not one to which I am any more or less entitled on account of service experience.

Legion,
This is for you, me and all of our other brothers that have been DH'd and banned from the UM board:

Amen Brother !!!!

You guys do get that, right?

Of course we do. But many of his points in his "diatribe" do hold true to many of us. But do you get that ? (rhetorical)

Deployed 3 times to the CZ in Panama '80-'83. Plus served 2 tours on the DMZ in the ROK. '84-'85. And very briefly deployed to the Inter-German border, '88. I generally understand what Jessop was saying and where he is coming from.

And yes, he did violate the UCMJ, etc. And because of that he was thrown out of the USMC … We were all taught you have to only follow lawful orders. I'm not sure of all the "facts" of the movie anymore. But sounds to me someone didn't get that.

Also, regardless what the Proper(?) way is … in the military it's USMC or RM … I don't care what anything else says … It's USMC or RM … If nothing else out of respect.

Yes they're hard men, heroically standing on the walls, but at whom will they shoot?

As opposed to the stories of Vietnam, again, there were very few "fraggings". And I'm pretty sure those on borders/DMZs etc. like in Gitmo. They/we knew who to shoot. And nothing really that heroic about it … they/we were doing their/our duty. Following lawful orders, etc., as well …

May I counter this ersatz truism with a real military officer speaking about the real and new military aesthetic and how it is both a symptom of and a driver for a new type of very dangerous militarism in some armed forces. He also discusses art, science and technology as tools and vectors of this militarism. I wonder if you can handle a different and real truth?

Once again, that borders to me as territory. I'm pretty sure your version of the "real truth" is very different than many of us here. COL Jessop not withstanding.

The link you posted is very interesting and the speaker a Vietnam Vet and very learned individual. However, I may not agree with all he says. His POV seems different than mine in some instances. However his CV is much better than mine. Regardless I'm sure I could find a similar link with a Vet just as learned who may not agree with all that is said. In that link. That is the nature of debate of course. And if I do find that link … it probably won't change anything about how both sides on this thread believe. You & I included. It never does …

And do some of you get it ? That was a movie. Albeit fairly accurate in tone, etc. in some cases. I've served under a number LTCs, COLs and even a GEN or two. I never really found anyone like Jessop. I'm sure there may have been some around but few and far between. And yes I was in the US ARMY Infantry … not the USMC. But I too operated with Marines a number of times. We usually believed similarly in most cases, IIRC … As we see here with both USMC and ARMY members' comments.

I guess … my (rhetorical) question is Rod and some others. Can you handle the truth from those that wore the uniform ? Here, now on this thread …

Based on some of your posts here. I'd think not.

Brechtel,

You have written: ‘you are wrong'. Well this is not an argument. I would like to read serious arguments. We should forget the school days. We are adult here.

The definitions you have mentioned are scientifically irrelevant and useless. They do not reach basic academic level of explanation. Those definitions may be useful for High School students but even the level is under this standard.

You recommended this book: Historians' fallacies, by David Hackett Fisher. This is a book for amateur readers. Do you want to learn something serious about scientific History? I can recommend you a good bibliography. I am a History teacher, and my specialities are Theory of History (Epistemology of scientific History), Theory of Sciences (Epistemology, Gnoseology, that is, Theory of Knowledge), Theory of Art (Aesthetics) and History of Religions. So, it is evident that you cannot teach me anything about these matters. And it is obvious as well that you have to learn many things about this kind of matters.

Regarding your comments:

1. ‘You don't understand the study of war'. Firstly, I understand very well the fundaments of scientific knowledge and the procedures of scientific study. I understand that a science studies an object, and that an object is studied by a science. And that science and object of study are different things. Do you understand this basic argument? Again, it is basic Epistemology. It is taught at High Schools. Secondly, your expression ‘study of war' proves my point: war is an object of study. War is not a science.

2. Are you talking about evidence and common sense? Well, you have offered neither evidences nor serious arguments. And regarding common sense, you do not show common sense if you do not understand the basic difference between science and object of scientific study. You do not have common sense if you do not know what an art is. You do not have common sense if you think that war is only a bunch of strategies and tactics. Finally, you do not have common sense if you think that war is a science, concluding that war studies war, in the same manner that planets study planets. I think that your conclusions do not fit any definition of common sense.

3. ‘you apparently don't have education and/or experience to back up your assertions'. Well, as I have mentioned, I am a teacher (University) specialised in Scientific Knowledge (History, Philosophy, Aesthetics, etc.). And the arguments which I have offered in my previous posts are not ‘my assertions'. In fact, they are some of the basic principles of scientific knowledge (Epistemology), broadly accepted by the entire academic community. If you know nothing about this matter, it is a good idea to avoid taking part in this type of discussions. You are an expert on artillery, and I have a limited knowledge about artillery, so I avoid taking part in discussions about artillery matters.

Your words are inadequate and add nothing to this discussion. Again, I think you are looking for a conflict where there is none.

This posting only applies to you.

The 'hero' in that movie was a snotty young slacker who'd rather play softball than perform his duties. And the pushy career-enhancer that didn't know her own limits. In fact the only respectable characters were the prosecutor, judge and the other co-council. I've met a lot of Marines both while in the Navy and after, and even if the ones who had a ramrod shoved up their backsides were decent enough people when they weren't yelling at you.

The 'hero' in that movie was a snotty young slacker who'd rather play softball than perform his duties.

That's how he starts out. When we meet him he is driven by self-interest, ambition and an inflated idea of his own importance. But the point of the story is that he learns to value truth and justice and risks his career to give a proper defence to the two Marines rather than just plea bargain the case away.

At the end of the movie he is the one who has acted honorably and Jessup is shown to have failed to live up to the code that he claims to live by.

And obviously I am only talking about characters in a movie. I'm not making any comment about actual Marines.

Hey guys, I've never seen the movie, just the video snip. I don't care what it is about. Why people are going off about the entire movie which is a complete fabrication and smoke and mirrors BS from Hollyweird is beyond me.

My posting was regarding some discussions Legion and I have had that no one else participated in. Kind of an inside joke about free speech, censorship and political correctness and avoidance of the truth about the "I" word. I can't PM him but he gets it, that's all that matters.

Rod again used it to segue back to his – well – you know what. His remarks, posting and recommendation have nothing to do with my discussion with Legion nor did it have anything to do with his favorite topics or the entire movie. It was about the dialog.

However, Rod, out of consideration I listened to most of the video, read his bio too. I respect the guy. Good stuff but nothing I did not already know. Personally, I think he's been seduced to the "Dark(er) Side" and does not grasp exactly what the Geo-political and economic challenges are and the few options we have. Sorry about his son.

The real truth – in another book, lecture or video you recommend – again. Really??? Isn't this getting tedious?

Why don't I need any of your recommendations or lectures?

I'm no one special, enlisted in the military like millions of others, never finished college so I'm not indoctrinated. Didn't get a chance to read a lot of books. I did some really cool stuff and training like jumping out of planes and helicopters, swimming in from a mile out in the ocean at 1300 to recon a beach, QRF in the Med. Actually pretty typical for most military in a combat MOS. Did you miss out on all of this?

I was fortunate to train with the Royal Marines (Lands End) and 2nd Para of FFL. Got a picture of their commander pinning a ribbon on our company guidon making us "honorary" Legionnaires.

For some reason, I was "selected" (did not volunteer) to work at one of those three letter agencies (the one on an Army base). You'll only ever see a picture of it. I'm no expert but I know what goes on there, how things work and how they do it. It's not a big secret. Most of what I saw I didn't like but it is not about me. My opinion is that the real intel from the gathers, operators and analysts is politicized. Political parties and politicians do not like bad news or something that disagrees with them. It's an age old problem going back thousands of years. It happened to Israel in 1973 too. Expect it to continue to happen. The NIE has a difficult job. Remember, you do not have a clearance to know everything.

After the military, for about 15 years I was involved in manpower supply and recruitment for government and civilian international projects, mainly support services, defense, training, and construction. With most new FMS sales or facilities construction to a foreign country, we helped staff it with the right types of people and tech reps. Mostly military, many needed current clearances. Anyone reading the Army-Navy Times from 1975-91 you may have seen some of my ads in the employment section. Yes, that was probably me.

Locations included Iran (Bell Helicopter and NWASI), Saudi, Gulf Countries, Korea, SE Asia, Pakistan, Egypt, and many others. We did the Saudi Arabian National Guard project (SANG), Saudi Air Force, Egyptian Air Force Academy, Saudi Sports Academy, King Khalid Military City, Saudi Navy Expansion Program (Hughes, Bendix, Holmes & Narver), McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Tech Reps for the Saudi Air Force F-15 program, Lockheed C-130 Load Masters, DEW Line, Pakistan GLCM, Sinai Peace Keepers, Johnson Atoll Chemical Weapons Disposal, Negev Air Base construction, M1 Abrams tech reps for General Dynamics in the first Gulf War, Crow Valley SAM, RPV & EW Test Range in the Philippines, worldwide embassy construction projects for PA&E, Kwajalein Missile Test Range, AUTEC in the Bahamas and many others.

To anyone not familiar with SANG it is not really a national guard. The King recruits people that are loyal members of his tribe. The US company Vinnell(?) Corp sends over mostly retired military personnel to "train" the national guard. Technically these retired personnel can be "activated" back to active duty. So the way I see it we basically have sent mercenaries to protect the King of Saudi Arabia and the vital US interests there. This started about 1973. Exactly why is a different discussion so don't start criticizing something you know almost nothing about. My info on this may be a little outdated.

I met members of the Saudi Royal family and secured contracts to supply people for the Saudi Royal Commission in Yanbu and Jubail. I am very familiar with the mid-east and the "I" culture (don't want to get DH'd again). I think I have a pretty good understanding (but I'm not an expert or claim to know everything) of the symbiotic relationships we have in the mid-east and why we are doing what we are. Rachel Madcow and Wolf Blither are clueless.

I met and had drinks with guys that flew for Air America, went through Check Point Charlie on Cold War missions, State Department employees, special ops in Central America, undercover and pilots for DEA in Columbia, etc. Funny, none of them ever recommended me a book. I couldn't hold a candle to them.

I did the lecture circuit in California on international employment and was invited to give a talk to the MBA graduating class at Pepperdine, still with only a high school diploma. They asked for my advice and I recommended books to them. I try not to give advice unless asked.

Why am I telling you this? Now you AGAIN want to tell me about the "truth" and "dangerous militarism vectors" of the US and lecture me about all of the nefarious things the US is up to? ROTL. Do you see the irony? I could probably write a book myself about it as I witnessed it first hand and helped. I still have friends that talk to Mattis, Dunford, JSOC, etc on a regular basis so I don't need to listen to the fake news. I keep my politics to myself, I wish everyone on TMP did. If you try to read anything into my politics or beliefs you are probably wrong – none of your business.

As far as ignoring the rules of engagement – Hell Yes! If they endanger our troops or my son. My son has told me about some of the absolutely insane ROE's they are expected to abide by. He said he's alive because he broke some of them. Maybe the Colonel's son would be alive too if he had broken some ROE's. Sorry if that's harsh. I hope I never have to go through what he has. I respect him. General Kelly's (DHS head) son, a Marine Recon LT, got it the same way. I was told there was barely anything left to put in the body bag.

Here's an idea. How about some of you Force on Force guys come up with a scenario where the US forces must abide by the Geneva Convention and restricted ROE's and the bad guys do not. The US player gets a court-martial for getting any of his guys killed and he gets charged with war crimes if he breaks the ROE's. Rod can role play the World Court and prosecute you. Pretty realistic I'd say.

There are millions of guys like me out there, most that make me look like a pussy cat. They don't want your book of the month club, lectures or recommendations either. As a Canadian you may not understand so I forgive you. You know a lot Rod, more than most people in the US. However, there is just so much more you do not know. Unfortunately that goes for all of us.

May I suggest one of Yuri's self-help videos, it may help explain the psychosis that many of the "Useful Idiots" in the West suffer from. Pick one: YouTube link

So please, take me off your book of the month club. Thanks but I'll be ignoring your off topic Geo-political and strategic military posts and lectures in the future. I highly recommend it to others. Your on topic posts are informative.

Wolfhag

And obviously I am only talking about characters in a movie. I'm not making any comment about actual Marines.

Think on that we pretty much all agree …

All good stuff Wolfhag ! And I agree with all you posted again …

I can't PM him but he gets it, that's all that matters.

Yep I get it … very much so !

I think some of the posters who are not Vets, don't get IT … I think sometimes since again, you have not "walked in our boots" … We don't always think you know what your talking about.

Well because again you never did the things that we did. Now you may find that as odd or wrong, etc. But as I tried to say before, sometimes Combat Arms guys especially no matter what branch. Don't think at all like some of you do.

Because we are different than you in training and experience, etc. Again everyone is entitled to an opinion. But some of you are going to have to get this. Generally No matter what some of you are saying to some Vets. Just does not matter to us as again … We think very differently than you do.

Based on our real training and real world experiences. Which … get it … you don't have. And you can't get that training and experience from a book, video, movie, etc., …

And yeah if you noted. Many of us again may not be really "nice" to you. With some of your comments about some things you have no real experience. You may be very well read. We can see that … But you have not "been there". Now some who are not Vets, get it. Like McLaddie(!) …

Now again, we all are entitled to opinions. But to some of us sometimes again … it appears you really don't know what you are talking about. But it's OK to state an opinion, but don't upset if Combat Arms guys, etc., are not like you Sunday School teachers, etc. More like R. Lee. Ermey. And yes, unlike Jessop. He was a real Marine and served in Vietnam.

Note how many times I've said again in this post. Because some of you just do not want to get it. We don't see your opinions having the weight of some of us who are Vets, etc., …

If that upsets you … sorry … we are not always really nice guys. Sometimes it's just our nature.

Now you AGAIN want to tell me about the "truth" and "dangerous militarism vectors" of the US and lecture me about all of the nefarious things the US is up to?

Yes when I hear that sort of post from Rod or some others here. I am inspired to post the . I've said this before too.

And if we can learn anything from the current media, online, on TV, etc. For almost every thing someone says … there is some who says just the opposite. And may have just as good credentials too. And like here, for every link someone posts here about pretty much any subject. If you wanted to take the time you could find another link that says otherwise. In comparison to the original link.

Now that is the truth …

This posting only applies to you.

If that is actually true, then the conversation should have been continued offline. I'm responsive to personal emails.

However, it seems to me that you are only grandstanding.

The "Bug" struck, my apologies. I'll try again.
Rod Robertson

Gentlemen of the jury:

The etymology of the word "science" and further comments.

The modern world says that the English word "science" derives from the Latin word 'scire' and its participle 'scientia' meaning 'having knowledge'. This is true but the word goes much further back in the Indo-European languages than Latin. Pushing back further in the etymology one finds earlier Greek roots. The word 'schizein' meant to divide or split. From this earlier root we get the Latin word 'scindere' meaning to cut, to cleave, to portion or to split. These Greek and Latin forms found their way into the Old Anglo Saxon word 'scaeden' and the Old High German 'skeiden' also meaning to split or to shed (v.) as in a shedding animal. Going even further back in time we find the Sanskrit root word and the Ur-root of modern day science as 'chyati' meaning 'he cuts off'. So the roots of science not only include a connotation of knowledge or knowing but also of the notion that knowledge is to be split into pieces. Another modern word which comes more from the Greek than the Latin tradition is schizophrenia from the root 'schizein' mentioned above which goes to schizophrenia's meaning of 'a mind split or sundered into pieces'.

This shows that science does not just mean 'knowledge' or the 'pursuit of knowledge' but also the 'division of knowledge' into separate compartments or sub-disciplines. It also implies that science splits knowledge to arrive at new knowledge. This division was done by deductive reasoning for the most part in the early and chronologically dominant part of science's history. But gradually from ancient times through the Middle Ages and culminating in the Age of Reason scientists adopted a newer inductive method to better study the natural world around them.

This inductive method was refined as natural philosophers (proto-scientists) began to collect both qualitative and quantitative data in order to study natural (and sometimes unnatural or supernatural) phenomena. For example Johannes Kepler was collecting accurate data on planetary positions not to disprove the geo-centric model of the solar system but to better locate the positions of the seven gates of hell! Likewise, much of Sir Isaac Newton's basic empirical work on fluid dynamics came from his desire to explain how ghosts and spirits moved and flowed!

Eventually this inductive reasoning process was refined into the modern scientific method which can be summed up in now familiar formal steps. I will give a partial description for the sake of some measure of brevity.

That formal set of steps asked the scientist to pose a question, research the question, make an hypothesis, design and execute an experiment based on proving that hypothesis, collect data from the experiment(s), analyse that data, draw conclusions, publish results of experiments for peer review and confirmation and then use the aggregate conclusions of many experiments to develop a theory answering/explaining that originally posed question. The theory only stands as long as future experiments confirm its validity so theories rise and fall as science progresses.

Now the inherent and pervasive uncertainty associated with the practice of war which is so heavily effected and affected by chance or fortune makes 'knowing' war impossible. One cannot create accurate and true experiments about war which can be reproduced and retested as this is illegal in most civilized societies of the world. One can only study military history and cherry-pick data from the historical records of war in order to study and learn about war. It is this lack of an empirical method and the inability to 'know' war due to prevalence of chance and fortune in war that prevents a study of war from being a science. Thus military studies are compartmentalized as another branch of knowledge more closely aligned to the liberal arts (not art) than science in its most basic meaning.

Well that was boring but there you go!

Rod Robertson.

Wolfhag:

The real truth – in another book, lecture or video you recommend – again. Really??? Isn't this getting tedious?

Not "the truth" but "a truth", ("a different and real truth").

A very impressive resumé and a wealth of life experience. Very interesting. It sounds like you have so much to offer the world but you choose to stay silent. it's sad for us all but I respect your decision to keep things to yourself.

I am not trying to lecture you or anyone else. I'm just having a conversation about war, science and art and how those terms interact in the modern world and the past. Just because I disagree with others does not mean I'm lecturing them. I'm just laying out a case for others' consideration. They can make of it what they will with no judgement or pressure from me. This is just discourse and not war by another name. I've been personally attacked on this and other threads and I do not complain – water off a duck's back. Why people here are so sensitive about comments concerning sociology, history and military aesthetics is beyond me.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Wolfhag:

I just rewatched the first Bezmenov video you linked too above. People in Canada are well acquainted with Yuri Bezmenov if they are old enough. He lived here after his defection from the USSR. He was a regular commentator on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and worked for its Russian language service for some years during the 1980's. The irony is that most Canadians old enough to remember Bezmenov's critique of Soviet times now see a parallel with the methodology of post Cold War western powers both then and now. For example Canada had an extensive list of politically dangerous people who were to be rounded up and possibly liquidated if the Cold War had gone hot. You can imagine the anger and furor that erupted when that list became public knowledge years later. It is the militarists on all sides which are the threat to security, peace and freedom. Propaganda, disinformation and deception are tools of all sides.

I remember walking through the Soviet Pavillion during the World's Fair in Montreal (Expo 67). The theme was celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Communist Revolution and the glorious achievements of Communism. The cheerful and colourfully dressed guides were most friendly and helpful until a precocious 7-year old boy, remembering a conversation between his parents some days before, defied his father and mother and rudely asked about the millions of Kulaks who died in the Ukraine. The visages of the Pavillion staff changed dramatically and my mom, dad and myself were politely but firmly asked to leave. I knew then vaguely that appearances and reality did not always line up. I also learned that my father had a sense of humour as despite being very angry at my defiance for not holding my tongue, he took us to the Bavarian Beer Gardens and bought me a small stein of beer to drink with my meal. I was astonished, expecting to get a lecture and tongue lashing. But instead he sat there drinking beer, eating sausages and sauerkraut and listening to Calypso music played on steel drums in the orchestra pit beside the beer garden. He had a smile on his face and a twinkle in his eye that day. My mom, an Amercan veteran of WWII (an Army nurse) was mortified and scandalised with my behaviour. She fumed next to me and I feared for my life. My first real beer could well have been my last! She was a very wilful anti-communist but she had been infected by the Canadian disease, so good manners were more important.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Now the inherent and pervasive uncertainty associated with the practice of *fill in the blank of any aspect of the natural world* which is so heavily effected and affected by chance or fortune makes 'knowing' *fill in the blank* impossible. Chaos theory and the attendant science, Quantum Mechanics?

It is this lack of an empirical method and the inability to 'know' war due to prevalence of chance and fortune in war that prevents a study of war from being a science.

1. What makes you think that there is a total lack of 'empirical method' in warfare?
2. There are any number of sciences suffer from the same inability to replicate events such as Astronomy.

This inductive method was refined as natural philosophers (proto-scientists) began to collect both qualitative and quantitative data in order to study natural (and sometimes unnatural or supernatural) phenomena.

3. And the study of warfare does include this inductive method. It does.

One can only study military history and cherry-pick data from the historical records of war in order to study and learn about war.

Really? That is not the only way to study war, in the past and certainly NOT in the present.

Chaos theory and Quantum Mechanics both start at a known initial state and end at a predictable and thus known terminal state. What cannot be known is the precise pathway that the system takes to get from its initial state to its final state. Thus these scientific disciplines are predictable and can produce repeatable results. The process of getting to those results may be a black-box but the system, in its entirety is stable enough to allow reproducible experimental results upon which to build a corpus of theories. The difficulty is managing the uncertainty so that experimental data can be used productively to verify mathematical predictions of how such systems should behave.

Astronomy is full of experimentation. Developing experiments to collect data remotely and in novel ways is the essence of Astronomy in the 20th and 21st Centuries. The experimentation is largely limited to developing new instruments to observe the cosmos. This new instrumentation is then used to collect and compare data to what mathematics predicts should happen, thus proving or failing to prove hypotheses and theories based on speculative mathematics.

There are indeed aspects of quantum science that defy our ability to know at this time. Dark matter, dark energy, universal expansion, the nature of gravity and quantum entanglement cannot yet be well understood, despite being predicted by mathematical speculation. But we're working on it and we will eventually get there.

The theory of evolution is a good example of the limits of Science. While the vast majority of scientists endorse the hypothesis of evolution, we have not yet been able to conduct experiments confirming the theory of evolution. We're getting close with breeding many generations of bacteria, nematodes (simple worms) and small short-lived fish but no one to my knowledge has been able to demonstrate evolution at work experimentally yet. There is even greater debate over the impacts of natural selection and genetics in shaping evolution. It now seems that extinction and chance may play an equal or possibly greater role than natural selection and genetics. If one could rerun the last 3.8 billion years of life on Earth one could get vastly different results with each rerun. The rate and drivers of evolution are still not well understood either so evolutionary biology is in a precarious position with respect to science at this time.

There is not a total lack of empirical method in the study of warfare, there just is not enough to call it a science yet. Unless you run experiments on war as a whole which are reproducible and provide data which support hypotheses and subsequent theories there is little empirical science in the study of war. There is plenty of science in the technology, preparation for and prosecution of war to be sure but the study of war cannot morally be conducted by scientific means yet. So war is not a science and the study of war is not a science yet. You can't set up wars and repeat them over and over in order to collect a corpus of empirical data to develop scientific theories of war. Again we are getting there with better real-time and recorded data from war but until we can scientifically probe the minds of all those involved in war the system is too complex and too opaque to 'know' as a science due to chance, chaos and the unpredictability of human minds individually and collectively. So who knows? Soon we may be able to call the study of war a science but I don't think that day is here yet.

Please demonstrate your third point and assertion. Without evidence I can't respond to, agree with or refute your point meaningfully.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Astronomy is full of experimentation.

Rod:

So is the military. The only 'experimentation' that Astronomers can do is by collecting observations at a distance, or rely on mechanisms created by other disciplines. The military does too.

Developing experiments to collect data remotely and in novel ways is the essence of Astronomy in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

And of course, the military never develops experiments to collect data and in novel ways.

Astronomers can't experiment on galaxies millions of light years away…all they can do is collect data. For some reason, you believe that the Military is incapable of similar efforts on things that can not be directly experimented on.

There is not a total lack of empirical method in the study of warfare, there just is not enough to call it a science yet.

Rod, my position is that the study of any subject, whether something termed a science or not, involves both art and science. We can quibble about amounts involved, whether genetic research, heart transplants, oil painting or warfare, but both are involved. There is not hard and fast line between science and art when it comes to any study, including warfare.

Please demonstrate your third point and assertion.

For instance, before, during and after the last three wars that the US has been involved in, [Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan] researchers and observers
followed the troops, recording every aspect of the conflicts.

Unless you run experiments on war as a whole which are reproducible and provide data which support hypotheses and subsequent theories there is little empirical science in the study of war.

No one runs experiments on Biology 'as a whole' or astronomy or any other scientific study. You can only run experiments on parts, often small parts and slowly develop theories, hypotheses, finding supporting data.

That's what the military does. There is a great deal of "empirical science in the study of war," now and in the past. Our military couldn't do what it does today if there wasn't. And like many disciplines, such as astronomy and biology etc. etc., the actual scientific data and methods used cross many disciplinary 'boundaries'.

Rod, you want to insist that there are methods and processes that scientists use in studying the world that the military don't and can't use when the military employ them every day.

Bill,

Excellent postings on the subject and I agree with your remarks and assessments.

Very well done and said.

Rod you may not get this either … But you are going to have to greatly, vastly, etc., change your opinion on this topic [and others]. Before you get guys like brechtel, McLaddie, Wolfhag, COL Scott and I, etc. before you will hear anything like any agreement.

You can continue to post your opinions as well as some others can here … You may be doing that for others more so than those of us I already listed above. That believe very very differently than you and some others.

But again [note again I said "again" !] it looks like you are … again …

And again …

Plus even on occasion bordering on … again …

Brechtel wrote: ‘it seems to me that you are only grandstanding'

It is possible but it is just your own hypothesis.

Comments like that add nothing to this discussion. It is better to focus on arguments about the topic and not on personal attacks. It is my humble opinion, and not vain 'grandstanding'

McLaddie:

Thank you for going part way to clarifying point #3 to which I will return below.

So is the military. The only 'experimentation' that Astronomers can do is by collecting observations at a distance, or rely on mechanisms created by other disciplines. The military does too.

Please prove this point. Offer up some examples of the military studying war as a comprehensive topic using experimental methods. Not aspects of war like military technology, or the psychiatry of battle stress but empirical work on the comprehensive prosecution of war. I would be interested to see such experimental work.

Astronomers can't experiment on galaxies millions of light years away…all they can do is collect data. For some reason, you believe that the Military is incapable of similar efforts on things

The use of blue and red shifts of light from stars (The Doppler Effect) to determine the velocities and accelerations of far off galaxies and stars is an example of a universe-wide, experiment-based, empirical analysis by astronomers and astrophysicists. A more recent example is the detection and mapping of the background radiation of the Big Bang by very precise thermal measuring instrumentation. This too is an experimental analysis of the whole known cosmos. The recent detection and embryonic research on gravity waves is another universe-wide example of experimentation and empirical analysis. At the quantum level I have already cited quantum entanglement of sub-atomic particles such as electrons. Thus astronomy does span the universal. If more examples are needed I can provide you with them.

Like Astronomy and Astrophysics so Biology conducts empirical science on all life. Ecology sometimes works with systems at the level of the whole biosphere. Genetic testing and mapping is moving towards determining the genomes of all known organisms.

Astronomers can't experiment on galaxies millions of light years away…all they can do is collect data. For some reason, you believe that the Military is incapable of similar efforts on things that can not be directly experimented on.

No, that is not true. New discoveries like the gravity waves or quantum entanglement mentioned above do allow for experiments which span great distances of space-time.

I don't see a military incapable of conducting experiments. I do however fail to see any evidence that military scientists are applying experimental methodology to a comprehensive study of war in all its complexity and unpredictability. If you or someone else would offer examples of this I would be very interested to see it.

Rod, my position is that the study of any subject, whether something termed a science or not, involves both art and science. We can quibble about amounts involved, whether genetic research, heart transplants, oil painting or warfare, but both are involved. There is not hard and fast line between science and art when it comes to any study, including warfare.

I agree that there is room for both the arts and science in any study of most topics. That is not one of the points at issue as far as I can see. The issues are 1) Is an experimental methodology used in a comprehensive study of war? and 2) Is the conduct of war an art or a science? To the first issue listed I have seen no evidence presented to date. To the second issue listed I argue that neither art nor science apply for the above stated epistemological reasons, procedural reasons involving experimentation – unpredictability making the study of war descriptive rather than predictive (due to the instability of war as a system to produce enough stability for empirical procedures to work. For separate ideological reasons I argue that labels such as 'art' and 'science' distract from the vicious nature of war, lowering the social barriers to war and thus making it easier to initiate and impose on populations by militaristic minorities.

That's what the military does. There is a great deal of "empirical science in the study of war," now and in the past. Our military couldn't do what it does today if there wasn't.

Please present some proof of this instead of arguing that the military couldn't function if it didn't happen.

Rod, you want to insist that there are methods and processes that scientists use in studying the world that the military don't and can't use when the military employ them every day.

I am insisting on nothing. I am arguing that I can find no evidence of the use of empiirical analysis of war as a comprehensive topic of inquiry which uses experimental methodology. That the military uses experimental methodology to study military matters is not the issue. Clearly they do. That neither the military nor the scholarly community make comprehensive studies of war based on experiment is the issue. Show me some persuasive evidence which meets my description of the problem and I may be required to change my tune.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod and MacLaddie,

In principle, every aspect of reality, human or natural, may be studied using the scientific method (or other type of organised method, as in pre-scientific culture). But nowadays most scientists, except those most fanatical, are aware of the intrinsic limitations of sciences. Scientific knowledge is basically approximate and it has renounced to reach absolute truths: ‘the map is not the territory'. It is the separation of Epistemology and Ontology.

In fact, experiments are not the same as reality. Experiments cannot exactly duplicate reality. It is just an approximate recreation. But it does not mean that experiments are useless.

The difficulties are more considerable in the case of social sciences (or human sciences) because the unpredictable ‘human factor' adds complexity to every object of study. The difficulties of sciences such as Psychology, Psychiatry and Sociology are evident. And History is even more challenging because the problematic aspect is not only the ‘human factor' but also the ‘time factor'. The objects of study are in the past, they happened in the past, but the past is not here. We do not have a direct access to the past.

But despite all those difficulties, we should not renounce to know every aspect of reality, human or natural. We only have to adapt the scientific method to the different nature of the objects of study. Scientific method is a mean and not an end in itself.

Like every other aspect of reality, war may be an object of scientific study. But war is a very complex activity which involves many different ingredients (human, social and natural ones). So, if we want to study a complex activity such as war, we should adapt the scientific method to the specific characteristics of this activity. But also we should recognize that this knowledge is only approximate and provisional, and that we only can offer hypothesis and not absolute truths.

Regarding the connections between science and arts, it is difficult to establish a strong separation wall between them. A certain degree of creativity may be present in science, and certain methodical procedures should be present in art. Both activities have some aspects in common, but they are completely different concerning their respective aims. The reasons why a poem is written are different to the reasons why a historiographical hypothesis is developed.

Rod wrote – "I can find no evidence of the use of empirical analysis of war as a comprehensive topic of inquiry which uses experimental methodology."

….. Exactly how hard have you yourself searched?

….. Can you be also more specific in your terms and conditions? Exactly is required to meet your definition of an "empirical analysis of war … which uses experimental methodology"? It is difficult to respond to such a broadly and ambiguously worded specification.

For example, would your definition of the term be satisfied by the numerous strategic oceanic wargames as have been undertaken by the USN, RN and NATO over the past century or so? What about the geo-political strategic wargame exercises put on by senior governmental bodies such as the Pentagon? If you were to respond in the negative without clarifying precisely why they fail to meet your requirement, the utility of the discussion would be put upon a difficult footing indeed.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

Regarding the connections between science and arts, it is difficult to establish a strong separation wall between them. A certain degree of creativity may be present in science, and certain methodical procedures should be present in art. Both activities have some aspects in common, but they are completely different concerning their respective aims. The reasons why a poem is written are different to the reasons why a historiographical hypothesis is developed.

Rod: In general, I agree with "Both activities have some aspects in common, but they are completely different concerning their respective aims."

However, can you really say that all poems are written for different reasons than a historigraphical hypothesis?
"Half a league, half a league onward rode the six hundred." The writing may be different, but the aim, to present a particular view [hypothesis] of an event can be the same. [Only the particular poet and historian involved could confirm that.]

Like every other aspect of reality, war may be an object of scientific study. But war is a very complex activity which involves many different ingredients (human, social and natural ones). So, if we want to study a complex activity such as war, we should adapt the scientific method to the specific characteristics of this activity. But also we should recognize that this knowledge is only approximate and provisional, and that we only can offer hypothesis and not absolute truths.

I can accept that too. Scientific knowledge [indeed all human knowledge] "is only approximate and provisional, and that we only can offer hypothesis and not absolute truths." Just because the truths are 'approximates' doesn't mean they should be ignored. They tend to be called truth because they are objectively [lots of folks see the same thing]verified and/or are very useful.

Perhaps this will help:

From Definitions and Doctrine of the Military Art by John I Alger, part of the West Point Military History Series, 13:

'The Art and Science of War'

'In studying the military past, students will encounter some courses of instruction and some references that claim to be about military science, while other courses and references, seemingly covering similar material, will claim to be works on military art. In fact, many theorists have debated this question since science first shed its light on the Dark Ages and, as a result, a variety of explanations and conclusions have been offered. When the theory and doctrine of war are being examined, some think of war in scientific terms-that is, war represents a discipline that requires the systematic study of theories that have been validated through application. In advocating a science of war, some theorists further insist that theory and doctrine are based on unchanging principles that have been derived from the scrutiny of past wars. Those who maintain that the conduct of war is essentially an art claim that each commander is called upon to express himself creatively and uniquely; theory and doctrine lose the quality of science and become guides to artful execution. Of course, whether the conduct of war is an art or a science also depends on accepted definitions. If the art of war refers to the trade or skill needed in war, then few could successfully argue that war is not an art. If the science of war means that unbreakable laws established by hypothesis, test, observation, comparison, and conclusion regulate the outcome of battle, then few could argue successfully that war is a science. When unique situations and relatively constant changes are the object of study, a belief in an art of war prevails. When standardization and attention to the details of established procedures are the object of study, a belief in the science of war prevails. Regardless of the perspective or emphasis, these two dimensions of war exist. It is of far greater importance, however, to recognize that, whether art or science, military topics demand intense and rigorous study by all members of the profession.'

The reference used here is highly recommended and can come in very handy as a primer in the study of the art and science of war.

There is no doubt that the two views of war (art and science) exist within the military profession and military doctrine is derived based on those two views.

To deny that the study and application of war is both art and science is ludicrous and the views expressed here by Rod and Ruchel are disingenuous and appear to derive from both prejudice and ignorance.

Regarding the connections between science and arts, it is difficult to establish a strong separation wall between them. A certain degree of creativity may be present in science, and certain methodical procedures should be present in art. Both activities have some aspects in common, but they are completely different concerning their respective aims. The reasons why a poem is written are different to the reasons why a historiographical hypothesis is developed.

Do you actually understand what the military art is?

‘…Regardless of the perspective or emphasis, these two dimensions of war exist. It is of far greater importance, however, to recognize that, whether art or science, military topics demand intense and rigorous study by all members of the profession'.

Have you read carefully my previous posts? I do not think so.

Well, I would like to analyse the quote you have written, especially the conclusion.

‘These two dimensions of war exist'

I have said many times that war may be an object of scientific study. So, I agree with this author on the dimension of war as object of scientific study.

I have said many times that certain military procedures (strategies and tactics) may be creatively (artistically) implemented. So I agree with this author on this dimension.

The author (John I Alger) is talking exclusively about the military aspect of war, not about the war as whole. War includes many other aspects: economic, social, demographic, psychological, moral, religious, ideological, political, geographical, etc.

‘…Whether art or science, military topics demand intense and rigorous study by all members of the profession'.

Firstly, I have mentioned many times that those military topics, as one of the aspects of war, may be studied by a science as object of study, and that those military topics may be considered from an artistic point of view (mainly strategies and tactics). So I agree with this author on this matter.

Secondly, ‘military topics demand intense and rigorous study…' Well, I have mentioned many times that military topics, and every aspect related to war, may be object of scientific study. So I agree with this author on this matter as well.

To sum up: There are not disagreements. Military topics, one of the many different aspects of war, may be an object of scientific study, and may be considered from an artistic point of view (mainly certain procedures, strategies and tactics). So war, or certain aspects of war (military matters), may be an object of scientific study. But war is not a science in itself. War is no an art in itself.

But war is not a science in itself. War is no an art in itself.

And that is where you err.

I've shown evidence that it is both from a reliable source from a military institution.

The author (John I Alger) is talking exclusively about the military aspect of war…

Exactly. That's because that is what was asked in the OP, if I'm not mistaken and that is what was being answered by various posters.

Changing the goalposts are we?

And if you actually read the publication, which I would recommend before you attempt to continue the discussion, is that you'll find mention of the other factors that go along with warfare and not just the military aspect.

However, here I do believe that's what is being discussed.

Brechtal198 and McLaddie:

Let's look more carefully at the source offered by Brechtal198. It begins:

In studying the military past, students will encounter some courses of instruction and some references that claim to be about military science, while other courses and references, seemingly covering similar material, will claim to be works on military art.

This sentence tells us that there are camps which "claim" to be following a study of military science and other camps which claim to be following a study of military arts. The use of the word "claim" means that these are assertions and not established facts. So there could be a military science, the could be a military art, the could be both or there could be neither. The text continues:

In fact, many theorists have debated this question since science first shed its light on the Dark Ages and, as a result, a variety of explanations and conclusions have been offered.

The status of the existence of military science is a topic for debate and there are many points of view on the validity of there being a military science. The jury is still out.

When the theory and doctrine of war are being examined, some think of war in scientific terms-that is, war represents a discipline that requires the systematic study of theories that have been validated through application. In advocating a science of war, some theorists further insist that theory and doctrine are based on unchanging principles that have been derived from the scrutiny of past wars.

Here we learn that "some" think of the theory and doctrine of war in scientific terms which means that others do not. It goes on to say that the study of war is a discipline which requires the systematic study of "theories" that have been "validated" through "application". It is unclear what the author means by "application". It is clear that he uses the words "theory" and "validated". Theories can only be validated or overturned by experiment. So the author is saying that only through an experimental approach can there exist a discipline of military science. This brings us back to the ambiguous word "application" Does application mean experiment? Does application mean the actual fighting of wars? Either way in order for a military science to exist which studies the theory and doctrine of war, experiments or war itself must produce results which are consistent and predictive of future wars to come. To my knowledge nobody has ever undertaken experiments on the theory and doctrine of war as war is too chaotic and too slaved to chance to have stable variables which are independent, dependent or can be held constant ceteris paribus. This leaves only the actual fighting of wars for the source of the meaning of "application". But war is so chaotic and prone to the influence of chance that it is not predictive and therefore cannot be used to meaningfully predict future wars. So referring to past wars in order to develop a theory and doctrine for future wars will yield limited if any useful insights into what will come next on the fields of Mars. Thus the validity and utility of military science is called into question. We continue down a bit and the author writes:

If the art of war refers to the trade or skill needed in war, then few could successfully argue that war is not an art. If the science of war means that unbreakable laws established by hypothesis, test, observation, comparison, and conclusion regulate the outcome of battle, then few could argue successfully that war is a science.

Thus that war is an art is called into question. If few can argue successfully that war is not an art then that implies that some can successfully argue that point. Thus the status of the art of war is still open for debate. The next sentence is what I have been arguing as half of my thesis. If the study of war is dependent on the use of the scientific method then the author concedes that few could argue that war is a science. So the point is not decided yet. Now we come to a most opaque and ambiguous statement.

When standardization and attention to the details of established procedures are the object of study, a belief in the science of war prevails.

It is unclear what the author means by "standardization" and "established procedures" with respect to the science of war, but if they do exist then the author claims a belief in the science of war prevails. All wars are different so there is no standardization and all wars are prosecuted differently due to the conditions defining the war so there is no established procedure for war. The established procedures for an English army fighting a war in 14th Century France were different from a war in 13th Century Wales. Likewise the established procedures for fighting the Germans off at Verdun in 1916 were not different from the established procedures needed to defend France in 1940 – thus France was defeated. Thus there is no standisation and no established procedures and thus this model of military science does not stand up to close examination.

Then the author jumps the shark and states the following:

Regardless of the perspective or emphasis, these two dimensions of war exist.

Having laid out that these two perspectives' existence and validity is a matter of debate, the author ignores all that preamble and asserts without proof that both disciplines of war exist in direct contradiction to his earlier statements.

I have demonstrated how the status of the art of war is a question still in debate by the author's own words and have also demonstrated that a so-called science of war does not meet either of the conditions set out by the author. Thus for me the case is not proved by this source.

Now on to Brechtal's earlier post where he said:

For example, would your definition of the term be satisfied by the numerous strategic oceanic wargames as have been undertaken by the USN, RN and NATO over the past century or so? What about the geo-political strategic wargame exercises put on by senior governmental bodies such as the Pentagon? If you were to respond in the negative without clarifying precisely why they fail to meet your requirement, the utility of the discussion would be put upon a difficult footing indeed.

Being a civilian and worse still being woefully ignorant of the minutiae of naval warfare, it's hard for me to evaluate such games in order to answer you. I suspect that the games might not meet my criteria for the following reasons, but to be fair this is just suspicion. First do the games have defined outcomes when participants make choices in the game? If so then that is not reflective of real war where probability and even more worrisome improbability play a disruptive role on outcomes. My second concern is the fog of war. How much knowledge do the participants have and is their perception and communication of knowledge corruptible by game administrators to reflect a less than favourable sensory and communications environment? Are the games based on a received body of institutional knowledge which may be biased in favour of past military experiences/expectations and deficient in accounting for new dimensions of doctrine which the designers were not aware of or discounted as too unimportant? Are these games designed in order to train participants in established procedures or do they venture into the 'undiscovered country' of best-guess, fact-based, speculative warfare designed to test old and new doctrines against changing military challenges? Are these kriegspiels and thought-experiments real enough to mimic war and does participation reflect the high-stakes stress that real war would subject participants to? Do participants lose their careers if the game goes badly for them? Do they lose lives? Family members and friends? Do participants feel the stress and remorse of killing innocents in such ersatz-kriegspiels?

Do these games get replayed over and over again with different batches of participants and if so do they produce similar results with each running? If they do produce similar results then it is very possible that the game-design rather than the participants' choices are the greater determinant of outcomes and therefore not really reflective of war but rather the designers' concept of war. Do the games reflect surprise encounters with new enemy doctrines, technology or enemy cheating of the system? How deterministic or chaotic is the game mechanism and how prone is the wargame to being perverted by those who can game the system/rules rather than gaming the military confrontation which the wargame is designed to simulate?

I guess it all boils down to the following two questions. Are simulations, drills, war-games, TEWT's, etc really sufficiently reflective of war and combat that they are a useful avenues for studying real war and real combat "scientifically"? Or are they an echo-chamber for group-think or institutional bias which designers mistakenly think is real war? I don't know the answers but my biased opinion is that such simulations fall well short of reality.

Rod Robertson.

I agree with Ruchel

"To sum up: There are not disagreements. Military topics, one of the many different aspects of war, may be an object of scientific study, and may be considered from an artistic point of view (mainly certain procedures, strategies and tactics). So war, or certain aspects of war (military matters), may be an object of scientific study. But war is not a science in itself. War is no an art in itself."

So war, or certain aspects of war (military matters), may be an object of scientific study. But war is not a science in itself. War is no[t] an art in itself."

That is true of biology, painting, sculpting, acting, chemistry, physics, ecology, boxing, etc. etc. etc.

If you want to stick with the semantics of the question, then NOTHING is either an art or a science 'in itself.'

I agree with Ruchel

Of course you do.

Ruchel:

You asked some questions that I can respond to:

Are these games designed in order to train participants in established procedures or do they venture into the 'undiscovered country' of best-guess, fact-based, speculative warfare designed to test old and new doctrines against changing military challenges?

Yes, those both are major purposes of military wargames and simulations and have been for some time.

Are these kriegspiels and thought-experiments real enough to mimic war and does participation reflect the high-stakes stress that real war would subject participants to?

Interesting question, but it defines a specific purpose and outcome of a simulation, but fails to take in the wide range of possible parameters of 'are they real enough.' It depends on the purpose. For instance, is a computer program simulating chemical reactions or the movements of galaxies millions of light years away 'real enough?' The questions are what is being simulated and how do you test the results against reality, right? If your answer is yes, then yes, military simulations can be and are 'real enough.' Here is an interesting example:

The 1940 crossing of the Meuse, when Guderian used the orders directly from a recent wargame. There is an image of the actual orders that shows 'Same as the last wargame' scrawled on them. Two accounts relate the event:

"In view of the very short time at our disposal, we were forced to take the orders used in the war game at Koblenz from our files and, after changing the dates and times, issue these as the orders for the attack. They were perfectly fitted to the reality of the situation…1st and 10th Panzer Divisions copied this procedure and so the issuing of orders was an agreeably quick and simple business."

Guderian, Panzer Leader, p.110

"Planning the assault over the Meuse was a classic example of mixed improvisation and General Staff foresight… There was insufficient time for both the army and air force staffs to write and disseminate the necessary complex written orders for a formal river crossing, but Nehring recognised that the situation coincided so closely with that envisaged in a recent War Game that it was only necessary to reproduce the War Game's orders with times amended to a start at 1600 hours instead of, as originally, 1000."

Guderian, The Creator of the Blitzkrieg, Kenneth Macksey

In this case, it really doesn't matter whether the wargames used "reflect the high-stakes stress that real war would subject participants to."

Do participants lose their careers if the game goes badly for them? Do they lose lives? Family members and friends? Do participants feel the stress and remorse of killing innocents in such ersatz-kriegspiels?

Those are not any more necessary for a functional simulation than stars are for a computer simulation of Galaxy movements. It all depends on what is being simulated and how. But your question misses a critical aspect of simulations: Testing PARTS of reality without the obvious costs of the real thing. This is true, whether simulating galaxies, flying a plane, testing chemical reactions or new battlefield tactics. Mistakes and failed tests aren't as expensive, destructive or simply impossible [flying to another galaxy] as the real thing.

Do these games get replayed over and over again with different batches of participants and if so do they produce similar results with each running? If they do produce similar results then it is very possible that the game-design rather than the participants' choices are the greater determinant of outcomes and therefore not really reflective of war but rather the designers' concept of war.

Yes, and yes, those are issues continually studied in the military.

Do the games reflect surprise encounters with new enemy doctrines, technology or enemy cheating of the system? How deterministic or chaotic is the game mechanism and how prone is the wargame to being perverted by those who can game the system/rules rather than gaming the military confrontation which the wargame is designed to simulate?

Of course those are questions continually dealt with by military men and they are always considerations in designing and employing simulations/wargames. Those issues are far more critical for military men than you or me.

I guess it all boils down to the following two questions. Are simulations, drills, war-games, TEWT's, etc really sufficiently reflective of war and combat that they are a useful avenues for studying real war and real combat "scientifically"?

The answer is yes. If they weren't, they would have been abandon by military men ages ago rather than continually refined to reflect those very things.

Brechtel,

Have you read correctly the question of this topic?

Well, the question is this: Is war a science or an art?

The question is not: Are military matters a science or an art?

They are different questions. War and military matters are not the same concept. Military matters are only an aspect of war, but war includes many other aspects. It is simple and evident.

So, I have been answering the correct question (is war a science or an art?). Again, the concept is war as a whole. But you are only talking about military matters.

So, I am not wrong.

By the way, I do not totally disagree with you, or I partially agree with you and the authors you have quoted. I admit that war (or any of its aspects, for example military matters) may deserve scientific study, and I accept that certain military procedures may be creatively (artistically) designed and applied.

I prefer constructive discussions and not sterile conflicts.