So why doesn't Spock save Vulcan?

[YARN]

M'Sharak wrote:

---

But it's not a service for which I have any recollection of registering.

You are using bad reasons in a discussion with me. Reasons are designed to compel agreement. They are parts of proofs, things to which a reasonable person of goodwill must respond honestly. If the proof is good, I should say "Yes!" If the proof is bad, I am obligated to show how it does not command assent before saying "No."

I did not register to be presented with, for example, the intentional fallacy as a proof. When I am presented with it, I have every right, and am obligated to provide reason why such reasons are not compelling.

M'Sharak wrote:

---

Perhaps it might be dialed back a little, or even provided only upon direct request.

In that case I would be dishonest and indirect in reasoning with you.

When you pronounce, "Orci says it's branching timelines only. Period. The End. Final Word. Full Stop. The End.," for example, I would either have to submit to the intentional fallacy or disengage from directly reasoning with you.

The most direct way to show what is wrong with reasoning is to show the argument type of which the reasoning is an example.

Your reasons (like all reasons) make a demand upon me (assent!), to which I must respond by so doing, or showing a flaw in the proof. You signed up for the diagnosis when you presented me with the proof. If you don't want flaws in reasoning pointed out, then use better reasons or stop making demands for assent (i.e., offering me proofs in this thread).

__________________________________________________ __________________________________

King Daniel wrote:

---

I say the reason he wouldn't try to save Vulcan is the extreme risk factor in essentially resurrecting Nero and the Narada and hoping to stop them a little quicker this time.

This is the best reason offered by the opposition so far.

The uncertainty is whether you can defeat Nero a few hours (or 25 years) earlier. We know Nero can be defeated (a boarding party of two accomplishes this). We know the Narada, however large and powerful she is, is just a ship. You can beam aboard her (and Spock knows the secret of transwarp beaming) and she has a small crew. You could easily beam a bomb onto her or board her with a overwhelming boarding party. If you fail other planets are at risk, but you have good reason to believe that you can defeat the Narada. Skip the broadsides with capital ships and go directly aboard her. And Spock has a lot of technological tricks from the future.

The certainty is that Vulcan, the whole planet, is destroyed if you do nothing and, as a result, Vulcans become an endangered species.

Is it worth the risk? Risk is our business gentlemen.

King Daniel wrote:

---

Something that happened in the novelverse that's very relevant is the cataclysmic aftermath of "Endgame" - where Admiral Janeway's shortcut home using advanced Borg-busting technology caused the Borg to upgrade the Federation from "mildly resistant nothing" to "serious threat to the collective", and brought about the Destiny war that devastated the Alpha and Beta Quadrants and cost over a hundred planets and 63 billion lives. Janeway's quick fix led to disaster.

So what? Spock has no reason to expect that intervening will cause anything remotely like this. He has just as much reason to suspect that not acting will result in the same effects another 25 years down the road.

Nero has already stepped on the butterfly. Spock's decision is whether to save it.

King Daniel wrote:

---

And since STXI's timeline has been changing for 25 years when Vulcan dies, who knows what could spiral from another good-intentions meddling with history?

1. He doesn't have to alter 25 years to save Vulcan.

2. Even if he did, he would be restoring damage to a timeline. I have already provided reasons why this is preferable. See upthread where I talk about "City on the Edge of Forever."

King Daniel wrote:

---

I've posted numerous other examples of what happens in Trek when time travel goes wrong, whether a stupid accident ("Shockwave", "City on the Edge of Forever"), how it's use led to Starfleet becoming some bizarre dark thing without the values it was founded upon ("Future's End", "Relativity") and eventually a war throughout time (ENT's time war)

In "City on the Edge of Forever" they successfully intervene to undo damage, so this example counts in my favor. Indeed, in TOS they always manged to fix the timeline. And something has already gone wrong. Vulcan has been destroyed.

We should note that other civilizations independently learn how to manipulate time and this is what causes the war in Enterprise.

King Daniel wrote:

---

That's why they have Temporal Prime Directives, because screwing around with time, even with the best of intentions, can go hideously wrong.

Directives and rules, even habeas corpus, can get suspended in exigent circumstances. Doing so saved Earth in Star Trek IV. If the crew listened to a temporally precious King Daniels, they would've let the whale probe destroy Earth for fear that they'd create a Borg incursion 150 years later.

Spock, a paragon of rationality, has demonstrated on more than on occasion that he is more than willing to fix alterations to timelines even with the risks, when the situation is serious enough. The destruction of Vulcan is certainly an exigent circumstance.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^ Even if there is a flaw (plot hole, inconsistency of logic, or whatever you want to call it) in this film concerning this subject, it seems that most people aren't really that concerned with it.

It all comes back to what I said before about the way we fans are so used to rationalizing away the many plot holes that have arisen in Star Trek over the past 45+ years. Rationalizing the inconsistencies and plot holes is what we do...

...We adjust the canon to make it fit what is presented to us on screen.

[Nerys Myk]

Perhaps Spock follows the ideas of the philosopher John Bigboote, who said:

"It's not my goddamn planet. Understand, monkeyboy?"

[Carcazoid]

YARN wrote:

---

You are using bad reasons in a discussion with me. Reasons are designed to compel agreement. They are parts of proofs, things to which a reasonable person of goodwill must respond honestly. If the proof is good, I should say "Yes!" If the proof is bad, I am obligated to show how it does not command assent before saying "No."

I did not register to be presented with, for example, the intentional fallacy as a proof. When I am presented with it, I have every right, and am obligated to provide reason why such reasons are not compelling.

In that case I would be dishonest and indirect in reasoning with you.

When you pronounce, "Orci says it's branching timelines only. Period. The End. Final Word. Full Stop. The End.," for example, I would either have to submit to the intentional fallacy or disengage from directly reasoning with you.

The most direct way to show what is wrong with reasoning is to show the argument type of which the reasoning is an example.

Your reasons (like all reasons) make a demand upon me (assent!), to which I must respond by so doing, or showing a flaw in the proof. You signed up for the diagnosis when you presented me with the proof. If you don't want flaws in reasoning pointed out, then use better reasons or stop making demands for assent (i.e., offering me proofs in this thread).

I don't have anything to contribute here ... just wanted to say that I'm enjoying the hell out of this.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Nu-trek can still be "more realistic" without being "real-world realistic". It is simply a more realistic slant on THE FAMILIAR STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

The Dark Knight is far more realistic than Batman starring Adam West.

The Dark Knight is not terribly realistic.

If gaping flaws in plot logic were show-stoppers for me I'd have abandoned Trek somewhere around 1968.

[YARN]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

^
^^ Even if there is a flaw (plot hole, inconsistency of logic, or whatever you want to call it) in this film concerning this subject, it seems that most people aren't really that concerned with it.

Of course not, it's just banter for us Trek geeks.

I do think, however, that this discussion shows the uneasy instability of inserting a walking spoiler alert into the past. As I've noted in another thread, Spock has the EZ-Button answer to every major challenge the Federation will be seeing for the forseeable future. The Doomsday Machine? Doomed. The Horta? Vindicated. The Salt Monster? Desalinized! Etc., etc., etc.

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

It all comes back to what I said before about the way we fans are so used to rationalizing away the many plot holes that have arisen in Star Trek over the past 45+ years. Rationalizing the inconsistencies and plot holes is what we do...

...We adjust the canon to make it fit what is presented to us on screen.

But if you can easily rationalize ALL plot holes without ANY resistance then the game is too easy. Our game should have successes and failures or there are no stakes.

[M'Sharak]

YARN wrote:

---

You are using bad reasons in a discussion with me. Reasons are designed to compel agreement. They are parts of proofs, things to which a reasonable person of goodwill must respond honestly. If the proof is good, I should say "Yes!" If the proof is bad, I am obligated to show how it does not command assent before saying "No."

I did not register to be presented with, for example, the intentional fallacy as a proof. When I am presented with it, I have every right, and am obligated to provide reason why such reasons are not compelling.

In that case I would be dishonest and indirect in reasoning with you.

<snip>

You know, if it would significantly reduce the sort of smug, condescending and pointedly uncooperative which currently permeates this thread, I think I'd probably be able to live with that. Yes, I think I could.

Carcazoid wrote:

---

I don't have anything to contribute here ... just wanted to say that I'm enjoying the hell out of this.

Well, I'm happy someone's been having fun, but I think we're done here.