View Single Post
Old May 21 2013, 04:18 AM   #73
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

datalogan wrote: View Post
Yet that happens all the time in Star Trek. Phasers and Disruptors. Transwarp corridors and tachyon eddies and Slipstream. Matter-antimatter warp drives in the Federation and singularity warp drives in the Romulan Empire. Etc.
Why not both subspace beaming and transwarp beaming?
Yes, of course, as I've said over and over, that is one possibility. I'm just saying it's not the only one. They could be different, but they could also be the same. Not have to be, just could be. Okay? This doesn't have to be an argument. Neither of us has to prove the other wrong. Can't we just put both possibilities on the table and leave them both there?

Especially since we are seeing more and more that subspace beaming [unreliable and power-intensive] is different from transwarp beaming [less and less so as new movies come out contradicting that take on transwarp beaming].
We're not actually seeing that, though. As we've established, we've seen transwarp beaming used exactly three times in the movies. But the subspace transporter in "Bloodlines" was used at least six times: for Bok to beam onto and off of the Enterprise on two occasions, for Bok to beam Jason off the ship, and for Picard to beam to Bok's location. And even with twice as many successful transports, it was still characterized as too risky to use except in extreme circumstances. So as I've been trying to tell you, we don't yet have nearly enough evidence to make any reasonable conclusions about the safety of transwarp beaming.

You continue to ignore the other uses of the technology. Like for cargo or as a weapon.
No, I'm just saying that as a general matter of reasoned analysis, you cannot use a mere three examples of anything as proof of a pattern. If you flip a coin and it comes up heads three times, that doesn't mean it's rigged, because that could easily happen by random chance. You'd need a much larger sample size before you could draw any conclusions. I'm not making a point about imaginary teleportation technology, I'm making a point about statistics and how we use it to assess knowledge.

All I'm trying to do here is to establish what we don't know, what we can't and shouldn't assume we know for sure. We can't be certain that subspace beaming is different from transwarp beaming. We can't be certain that transwarp beaming is reliable. Maybe those things are true, but we just don't know for sure. There are still major uncertainties, and I'm just trying to define those areas of doubt.

Or in last-ditch efforts when you are probably about to die anyway, like when Scotty had to get off the ship in Indistinguishable from Magic.
Heck, that's exactly the point I've been making -- that every instance we've seen of transwarp beaming in the movies has been in an extreme circumstance where its use would've been deemed worth the risk even if it wasn't reliable. Which is why I do not take anything we've seen in the movies as evidence that it is reliable. If we saw people using it in routine circumstances, for a daily commute to work or something, then I would agree with you that it had been shown to be reliable. But that's not what we've seen. We have insufficient evidence from which to draw that conclusion.

Christopher wrote: View Post
tie-ins have to follow screen canon . . . Pocket Books does not have . . . much flexibility on that point . . . . That's not my opinion, that's just the way the business works.
The novelverse found a way to “reinterpret” canon in order to have Trip not die as was at least heavily implied in canon, if not established.
While still acknowledging that what we saw in canon -- Will Riker watching a reconstruction that showed those events in a certain way -- did occur. That's hugely different from contradicting a canonical event outright, such as having the Hobus supernova never occur.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote