Will Discovery promote the natural sciences?

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

An important part of Star Trek is it's acknowledgment of the sciences as being in a position of authority in the solving of problems, and the understanding of the universe. It may not have consistently adhered to science, but it always maintained the primacy of them in attitude.

This is not true of all drama - many reject rationality, in favor of obscuritaniam and mysticism - entertaining purely through emotionalism like a soap opera but not engaging the rational part of entertainment. Star Trek mostly avoids mysticism - something I think we could do with compared to the obsession with religion (BSG) or miracles (Lost) or just very statistically unlikely occurrences fobbed off as chance (Smallville).

Reading the war thread the other day I noticed people saying that two massive influences on the tone of the trailers and visual designs seemed to be Star Trek 2009 and Battlestar Galactica - and like others I'm not really sure these two influences are the best for a Star Trek TV show. I have always found it odd that a show as staunchly positivist as Star Trek ended up with a person known for their mystical/obscuritan stories (JJ Abrams).

Along with some levity/comedy, I hope that Star Trek gives us stories that provoke wonder about the universe.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Gov Kodos]

That will be a first after all the empaths, telepaths, magical superbeings, and other wackiness in this show from the beginning.

 

[Timo]

I guess it's a matter of approach: when facing the wonders of the universe (many seemingly supernatural), our heroes deal with them using an analytical approach. Miracles are studied, their characteristics and limitations defined and then exploited. Gods are reduced to relevant facts and the irrelevant fluff discarded. Fate is identified as a tactical concern and a potential asset and utilized with care.

It goes beyond deadpanning when the Talking Carrot threatens the heroes. It's a matter of never surrendering in the face of the mystic, of never giving up rationality as the only way forward. Even if this ultimately manifests as puncing God in the jaw or playing hopskotch in a dream.

Personally, I wouldn't worry: giving up this old gig and inventing spiritual ways of dealing with the Talking Carrot would take extra effort the writers are incredibly unlikely to bother with.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

That will be a first after all the empaths, telepaths, magical superbeings, and other wackiness in this show from the beginning.

Haha, I knew someone would say it - but like I say "in attitude if not in fact" - and we frankly don't know the mechanism of action by which say a Q operates.

 

[cultcross]

Yeah, Trek had some stuff which on the face of it is pretty magical, but you're right, there was a different angle on it than other shows - the feeling is that these things have a scientific explanation, even if we don't know what it is. Q isn't mystical, his species are just able to access scientific knowledge and skills which we can't. Sisko doesn't have a magical destiny, his timeline was physically manipulated by beings who don't live in linear time. The science of the 24th century should be way ahead of ours, and they obviously can't explain it in full because we don't have that science for the writers to reference, so I'm ok with accepting the characters understand more than we do about the mechanisms of it all.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Haha, I knew someone would say it - but like I say "in attitude if not in fact" - and we frankly don't know the mechanism of action by which say a Q operates.

The audience doesn't care how Q operates. They enjoy John de Lancie's scenery chewing performance and some simplistic fortune cookie lesson at the end that makes them feel happy. Entertaining stories will always trump whether the show is scientifically focused or not.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

The audience doesn't care how Q operates. They enjoy John de Lancie's scenery chewing performance and some simplistic fortune cookie lesson at the end that makes them feel happy. Entertaining stories will always trump whether the show is scientifically focused or not.

I've heard this sentiment a few times recently, but you are underselling the objective nature of Trek a bit - audiences imbibe an attitude whether they realise it or not - like cultcross said the assumption in Trek was always that things had a rational explanation no matter how bizarre - this gave Star Trek a kind of down to earth realism that other genre shows sometimes lacked.

 

[Mach5]

No reason why the show couldn't have fun plots, humor, action, social commentary and promote some science at the same time.

 

[Timo]

I guess Q is a perfect example of the Trek Way. "Gentlemen, be seated. I was visited by God again last night." "Good. What did He have to offer this time? And should we pay?"

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gov Kodos]

I've heard this sentiment a few times recently, but you are underselling the objective nature of Trek a bit - audiences imbibe an attitude whether they realise it or not - like cultcross said the assumption in Trek was always that things had a rational explanation no matter how bizarre - this gave Star Trek a kind of down to earth realism that other genre shows sometimes lacked.

The so scientifically advanced that's indistinguishable from magic is just a rhetorical dodge to avoid explaining something utterly ridiculous in the story. Or doing inane technobable to do the same. Neither one provides any down to earth realism, rather it allows avoiding realism. That's just as well, Star Trek has done pretty good for itself without worrying about realism. Hopefully, it can get that simplistic moralism stick out of its story telling ass.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I guess Q is a perfect example of the Trek Way. "Gentlemen, be seated. I was visited by God again last night." "Good. What did He have to offer this time? And should we pay?"

Timo Saloniemi

Being visited by super-evolved space Merlin is hardly the kind of cloying religious sentiment we see in other shows - where every little happenstance is destiny or the fulfillment of prophesy. I doubt the show will ever be that silly, but I do hope it shows some variety of tone, including the beauty of mystery and nature.

 

[cultcross]

The so scientifically advanced that's indistinguishable from magic is just a rhetorical dodge to avoid explaining something utterly ridiculous in the story. Or doing inane technobable to do the same. Neither one provides any down to earth realism, rather it allows avoiding realism. That's just as well, Star Trek has done pretty good for itself without worrying about realism. Hopefully, it can get that simplistic moralism stick out of its story telling ass.

I can't agree at all - on your first point, with possibly the odd exception, Star Trek has always told stories where any 'mystical' element is portrayed as scientifically based. It may be unknown or it may be technobabbled away, but it it's grounded in the scientific concept of a natural phenomenon. It's not all current day hard science, because it's science fiction by definition, but it is all set up in such a way that you could imagine a scientific explanation for it. Compare it to the 'destiny' stuff on BSG, which is never given a basis in even made up science and is explicitly portrayed as supernatural.
Secondly, I think the 'moralising' is one of the core elements of Star Trek. I'd hate to lose that. You may find it simplistic, but actually some simple messages need portraying sometimes because they haven't been learnt yet, and Trek has done episodes which focused on more grey moral issues, without necessarily presenting a 'right' answer. I'd love more of them.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I can't agree at all - on your first point, with possibly the odd exception, Star Trek has always told stories where any 'mystical' element is portrayed as scientifically based. It may be unknown or it may be technobabbled away, but it it's grounded in the scientific concept of a natural phenomenon. It's not all current day hard science, because it's science fiction by definition, but it is all set up in such a way that you could imagine a scientific explanation for it. Compare it to the 'destiny' stuff on BSG, which is never given a basis in even made up science and is explicitly portrayed as supernatural.
Secondly, I think the 'moralising' is one of the core elements of Star Trek. I'd hate to lose that. Your may find it simplistic, but actually some simple messages need portraying sometimes because they haven't been learnt yet, and Trek has done episodes which focused on more grey moral issues, without necessarily presenting a 'right' answer. I'd love more of them.

I find the Clark's Law, for want of a term, ends up with Harry Kim's Quantum Array Monkey-Nuggets being no different than Harry Potter's Hocus Pocus. Or Doctor Who which has become Harry Potter in many ways. The difference between science and fantasy is just costuming. The destiny stuff of BSG really is no different than the magical evolution of Trek or Babylon 5 that turns single cell critters into energy being/gods. BSG played it as mysticism. Trek calls it science but all it really is is just a pretense of rationalism because it's still Harry Potter dressed up as science.

As far as morality tales go, Balance of Terror is a great morality tale, unfortunately far too many Trek morality tales are Let That Be Your Last Battlefield or less subtle.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Ever since I first heard the term "technobabble", I've always found it misleading. What I remember from TNG is that the majority of its technical dialogue was plausible given future understanding of nature we don't yet have a scientific theory for - it therefore wasn't "babble" - a word that denotes meaninglessness - "techo-exposition" would be more appropriate if not rolling off the tongue as easily.

Stargate SG1 did the famous black hole episode which was composed almost entirely of physics concepts - it was fantastic - TNG with its 2D life forms and species that talk in metaphor was fantastic. Does the term's over-use perhaps originate with people who didn't enjoy science anyway? I enjoy what some people call "technobabble" which in reality was rarely incomprehensible - it's not a deus ex machina if the solution makes sense. I think the term should be rehabilitated. Maybe by Voyager the staff were using nanotechnology as a convenient deus ex machina far too often, but a good TNG story used science as an actual part of the story, not a big red button of plot resolution.

I would love to see the USS Discovery coming across ancient civilizations clinging to some class H planet long after it suffered a natural disaster, or the supernova fragment of the star that destroyed the Tkon civilization, or a black hole that once passed through a billion year old civilization taking one of their planets with it, or a species of life forms that lives in total symbiosis with a jungle.

It's become fashionable due to some talking head's throwaway comment to see Q as a god analogy, but thinking about it, Q shares almost nothing in common with the middle eastern myth of Jehova, who I don't recall pranking humanity with mariachi bands and cigars - and far more in common with a wizard or trickster character like Merlin or Loki. This false equivalence with Abrahamic Yahweh sounds almost like obscuritaniam - it muddies the water when Q was never presented as a source of absolute authority, law or mystical truth - and more as a space mage who derived their power from a greater understanding of the natural world.

 

[Mach5]

I would love to see the USS Discovery coming across ancient civilizations clinging to some class H planet long after it suffered a natural disaster, or the supernova fragment of the star that destroyed the Tkon civilization, or a black hole that once passed through a billion year old civilization taking one of their planets with it, or a species of life forms that lives in total symbiosis with a jungle.

Well it's not going to be episodic so I think you can cross stuff like this out.

But I am curious about Lt. Stammets and his space fungi.

 

[dahj]

Trek calls it science but all it really is is just a pretense of rationalism because it's still Harry Potter dressed up as science.

I disagree completely.
Yes they both "pretend", but there's a very clear difference between Star Trek which pretends all these things are explainable, and Harry Potter which does not. On the face of it, teleporters and floo powder may work similarly, but the framing of how they're presented is important.

I don't even see how this is disputable, a casual glance at fanbases will tell you this. Nobody in the Harry Potter fandom will bother to explain how wingardium leviosa works, or why certain things go into certain potions, while on the Star Trek front you'll find pages and pages of how the stupidest of gadgets mentioned off-hand in a single line in that one episode are supposed to work.

It's disingenuous to pretend science isn't a big part of Star Trek's heritage and appeal, there's a reason a bunch of scientist, NASA engineers and the likes mention Star Trek and not Lord of the Rings as their inspiration...

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Well it's not going to be episodic so I think you can cross stuff like this out.

But I am curious about Lt. Stammets and his space fungi.

I had the impression it would be semi-episodic, with an overall arc, but also stand alone stories, like say Buffy or Babylon 5.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I disagree completely.
Yes they both "pretend", but there's a very clear difference between Star Trek which pretends all these things are explainable, and Harry Potter which does not. On the face of it, teleporters and floo powder may work similarly, but the framing of how they're presented is important.

I don't even see how this is disputable, a casual glance at fanbases will tell you this. Nobody in the Harry Potter fandom will bother to explain how wingardium leviosa works, or why certain things go into certain potions, while on the Star Trek front you'll find pages and pages of how the stupidest of gadgets mentioned off-hand in a single line in that one episode are supposed to work.

It's disingenuous to pretend science isn't a big part of Star Trek's heritage and appeal, there's a reason a bunch of scientist, NASA engineers and the likes mention Star Trek and not Lord of the Rings as their inspiration...

Trek's obsession with trying to explain its silliness is one thing that bored audiences to ratings death. It's just not important to the audience that Trek explain how the Transporter Floo works they'd rather see two Kirks and how the crew deals with it. That's why Abrams Trek works better than than the last 4 or 5 TV shows.

 

[Timo]

I wouldn't hammer a wedge between Trek and Potter, really. Both use the fantastic, but both use it in a no-nonsense, practical and (hopefully) identifiable way: these people aren't mystics but hardened space exploiters or professional magicians who wield their tools of trade like one would a drill or an electron microscope.

It's just that Potter is not hundreds of hours of television, so its tools haven't been filed to definite sharpness by a process of exposition and elimination. No, we have no idea how tricorders work, but we know what they can and cannot do, thanks to saturation (and not actual active writer input, but largely the lacunae in between). And we never get the idea the heroes wouldn't know how their stuff works. If there were something mystical about a magic wand in Potter, the heroes would want to unravel it to gain proper control of their tools - indeed, they read countless books and consult with experts to that very end.

Sheer hatred of the unknown remaining unknown is pretty common in certain types of scifi-fantasy. The opposite is common in other types. The former attitude is the one that might be beneficial in real life, which is why I greatly appreciate somebody trying to make entertainment out of it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

If someone couldn't see the difference between how Star Trek is framed, and how high fantasy or religious literature is framed, and what that means on a philosophical level, what intent it displays on the part of the staff, I don't know what to say... I would suggest maybe not ignoring these nuances. The stated metaphysics of a work of fiction is not exactly unimportant. It informs the entire thing - the fact we can actually arrive at a practical solution through understanding, instead of being perpetually stuck in a medieval world of attitudes slightly more shiny technology, awaiting the next inexplicable act of god.

I'm well aware of how some contemporary fiction likes to dismiss plot and mix in whatever fantasy advances the plot as if only the emotional elements of a story matters - with wizards randomly popping up to to magically solve a triple homicide, as plot doesn't matter as long as Det. Sally has some kind of conflict/cartharsis - but Star Trek isn't a work of freeform storytelling, it's a genre grounded in enlightenment modernism and science fiction and proud of it - it revels in scientific wonder, and fans love to study it. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Science fiction of that kind - Star Trek, Stargate SG1 and so on, are in pretty narrow company on TV - maybe only the police procedural or detective genre is the only other grounded in naturalist thinking, most fiction is entirely romanticist, with supernatural characters going through repetetive melodramas and major discoveries that do not change the material circumstances of the world at all (Smallville, various non-Whedon vampire shows, etc).