View Single Post
Old July 24 2012, 07:57 PM   #338
Christopher's Avatar

iarann wrote: View Post
You are assuming the practice and protocols of modern day real world military carry forward to Starfleet with the same rigidity.
Again, the whole point is that you shouldn't assume. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one making the claim in opposition to established evidence and precedent, so the burden of proof lies on you. This is fundamental reasoning and argument.

Besides, we're not talking about the military. We're talking about the presidency, which is a civilian post in the UFP as well as the USA. It's a custom of both military and civilian protocol that the highest former rank or title earned by an individual supersedes all lower ranks when addressing or referring to them. You wouldn't refer to President Obama as Senator Obama or President Carter as Governor Carter any more than you'd refer to President Eisenhower as General Eisenhower or President Kennedy as Lieutenant Kennedy.

But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military.
Which was BS, because it's obviously military in its forms and structure. No, it isn't warlike, but it clearly uses naval forms and traditions and discipline -- something Roddenberry embraced and incorporated willingly when he created TOS, since he was a veteran of both the military and the police. It was only later, in the TNG era when he'd bought into the myth of himself as a visionary philosopher, that he began to treat that military aspect as a bad thing. Yet he still didn't erase the fact that Starfleet followed military forms and protocols.

Christopher wrote: View Post
You don't say "why not" about an incredibly unlikely interpretation when there's a far simpler and more probable interpretation.
Sure I do, I say that about lots of things in Star Trek.
So if you were on a jury and they showed you surveillance footage of the defendant robbing a bank, and the defense claim was that he was possessed by ghosts and made to do it against his will, would you say "why not?" and vote for acquittal? This is basic reasoning. In the absence of certain knowledge, the more likely interpretation is favored over the less likely one. That's what "likely" means!

If I say it about McCoy showing up and wandering around in Ecounter at Farpoint, I have precedent for saying it about Archer.
I've already explained the difference between those two situations. The available evidence strongly supports it being McCoy. We have no actual canonical evidence that the admiral is Jonathan Archer instead of his daughter or grandson or something. It's simply a matter of following the evidence. If there were any real evidence that it was Jonathan rather than a different Archer, then I'd accept that, just as I accept that the guy who looks and talks and acts like McCoy is almost certainly McCoy. But since there is no conclusive evidence for that, and since it's so unlikely, I remain skeptical.

There was an Enterprise episode that said the average lifespan was 100, perhaps by TOS the average lifespan was 120 and living to 150 was uncommon but not unheard of. I haven't seen anything or read anything that would contradict that.
But that's for someone born in the era in question. Someone born in 2122 with a life expectancy of a hundred can be expected to make it into the 23rd century, but their life expectancy doesn't suddenly increase once they get there, not statistically speaking, since they haven't had the benefit of 23rd-century medicine their whole lives the way someone born in 2233 would. So sure, Christopher Pike might have a life expectancy of 120 or better, but that doesn't mean Jonathan Archer would, even if their lifespans did overlap.

The writers said they intended it to be Jonathan Archer. Is that canon? Nope, but neither is the concept of his decedents. I doubt canon will ever say one way or the other.
*sigh* Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along -- that you don't make assumptions without evidence. Sure, maybe there's a remote chance that it could be Jonathan Archer, but I get so sick of everyone assuming that it is and never even considering that there's room for doubt, that there's a simpler, more likely interpretation that shouldn't be rejected out of hand.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote