Spoilers A list of bad scientific errors in Discovery
- Thread starter ISS_Einstein
- Start date
In all seriousness, it's almost impossible to have a discussion with dialectic development on a forum like TrekBBS. Some replies are people who haven't read the unfolding discussion and are just dropping sass on the original post. Some people take isolated points out of context. Others genuinely engage with you genuinely, but get lost in the jumble of replies. I'm often left confused as to what a person has read. I've not read everything either, so I'm just as bad.
What has happened so far in the discussion is this:
1). I argued DSC is less scientifically rigorous than previous Treks, and I was deliberately provocative about it. 2). Other people objected and said they thought it was not worse - providing the usual examples of past lack of realism - both sides opinions are subjective - my subjective criteria of measurement still measures it as worse, using criteria like language - but I think some people are unaware that their own criteria of measurement is also subjective. 3). I explained why I think it's worse - getting into the real nitty gritty of why I hold my opinion. The main reasons were: the language and assumptions behind the exposition - the assumed lack of a science advisor - my opinion that the dialogue sounds almost satirical as a result. (Like applying a biologist like Paul Stamets work about soil-based and in-atmosphere fungi, to a space phenomenon in a pure vacuum, to begin with, is pretty... fantastic. We as audiences have to reason the fungi are multi-dimensional life-forms, or quantum entangled or whatever, or it's one of the least sensible ideas in all of Trek.) I also gave some counter-points to 'errors' in previous Trek, arguing that dilithium is not presented as a 'magic rock', and is not a fuel source in Star Trek. I pointed out some of the comments on realism, set down in the original writer's guide, which the show does not seem to follow. I argued that this might be raising the ire of a portion of the fanbase, and argued it was an easy fix. Basically @eschaton articulated what I was getting at very well - it's largely a matter of emphasis.
Does anyone have an actual objection to that part of the criticism, or have we reached a kinda point we can agree on?
Philosophy isn't a democracy, or a popularity contest - the least popular opinion can be the most valid. I am happy to change my opinion about DSC being a particularly low tide in Star Trek's engagement with realism, if people can make a better argument. Even though I know that we are both picking a subjective place to start caring about realism, I think there is a very good argument for the subjective place I am picking - that the kind of Wizarding World type exposition that treats science as a talismanic source of superpowers, is a bit too far. There has been a lot of rhetoric, and I am having trouble pulling out serious points amongst the replies, especially not having a lot of time. It's not that I'm dying on this hill, it's just I think we can reach a consensus
When watching Barclay in the matter stream, I was thinking about potential explanations - maybe there briefly exists a duplicate on the ground during transport - or maybe the partially de-materialised body is sort of filled in by the 'confinement beam' or force fields or whatever. I sorta thought if a blood vessel de-materialises in the wrong order, you can have blood spurting out of a partially de-materialised carotid artery.
However, as perplexing as those questions are, I do think there are things in DSC that are harder to swallow. With things like that, I have an easy time assuming that the Federation has found ways around these things - fringe physics is something liable to big changes - but it's a little bit harder when they find say a random inter-dimensional fungi has attached to a crewmen, been pulled out of her by a chunk of dark matter (not even in sickbay..), but then it become a transporter pad, and then finally cloned someone - and all they said was they were going to inject the DNA of the person into the fungi - if you see what I mean. Like literally, they have run through the entire spectrum of science there - it can basically do anything by happen-stance. It's in some ways worse than Warp 10 lizards.
Why do you believe everybody has to agree with and/or consent to your particular form of discussion as the only way?
That's almost as disconcerting as expecting everybody to accept your particular starting premise ad hoc.
Why is anyone on a forum Davey? Why does anyone discuss things instead of keeping their opinions to themselves? If you want some insight into why I care about this particular topic, I think Star Trek aided in my education as a kid, gave me a lot of love for science, and would love if it did future generations too.
Which is a bad argument, Trek science blows going all the way back to TOS.
I don't know about that? I think some people just accept Star Trek being "Star Trek".
The only criteria you've injected is your own confirmation bias by using mental gymnastics like:
None of what you argue here changes the fact that dilithium crystal is a made-up substance whose function (as a fuel, component, or a paperweight) is scientifically impossible. It is a rock that serves a magical purpose. That isn't a subjective argument.
The only thing that's different is that the writers used the mycelia network as a multi-functional DXM, instead of pulling out their Treknobabble Bingo charts to make up different ones.
You missed the point of my post..
I wasn't questioning your opinion, I was asking why you think that the discussion should only be in a manner you prescribe.
And that folks have been indicating to you that your starting premise has problematic flaws.
Well is there anything that unusual there for Trek? We've seen a transporter used to de-age (Unnatural Selection) clone (Second Chances) and resurrect someone who was gone (Tuvix). Here, the pod was essentially acting as a transporter, creating a physical body using DNA and normal matter, for the spirit/katra of Culber to go into. As mentioned upthread, soul/body duality itself is long established in Trek.
Now, Discovery has definitely had its science BS - the instantaneous communication over light years by entirely non technological means between Burnham and Sarek via her mind meld palace was one that was particularly egregious. You can't even tech the tech to explain that - it's presented as a biological process. But I don't think it's that's any more nonsense than the whole katra plot from STIII which also relied on Vulcan magic.
Clearly, ranking BS is always going to be subjective and we are likely to be heavily skewed by whether we enjoyed a particular bit of nonsense, so for me, it's just worth an acceptance that Star Trek sometimes talks nonsense for plot reasons.
Perfectly in keeping with previous stuff:
Obi-Wan: I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Oh sorry wrong franchise...
KIRK: Spock?
MCCOY: What is it, Spock? Are you in pain?
SPOCK: Captain, the Intrepid. It just died. And the four hundred Vulcans aboard, all dead.
or even the Sisko pulling Kasidy into the Celestial Template in the last episode of DS9 for a quick chat...
I cannot think of a single thing we've seen in Discovery we haven't seem similar or worse elsewhere...
People get wet when they fall into water.
Davey, I think the answer to that is implicit in my conduct - I haven't forced anyone to do anything - I've just presented a viewpoint, and yes suggested a dialectic approach, which you are free to engage or not.
I'm happy to speak, to not speak, whatever. If you dislike what I am saying, or how I am saying it, nobody is forcing you to be here. These things are getting personal, asking why I am enthusiastic about a certain kind of dialogue (I note you frame it in a deliberately pejorative way: "only in a manner I prescribe"), as if other people don't also implicitly proscribe things through how they communicate.
People don't usually get asked fundamental questions about their inward motivations for doing so; because as free adults, we understand that each of us is here for our own varied reasons, and respect that we are alike in that. Can we drop this now? I don't intend to respond.
I'm happy to speak, to not speak, whatever. If you dislike what I am saying, or how I am saying it, nobody is forcing you to be here. These things are getting personal, asking why I am enthusiastic about a certain kind of dialogue (I note you frame it in a deliberately pejorative way: "only in a manner I prescribe"), as if other people don't also implicitly proscribe things through how they communicate.
People don't usually get asked fundamental questions about their inward motivations for doing so; because as free adults, we understand that each of us is here for our own varied reasons, and respect that we are alike in that. Can we drop this now? I don't intend to respond.
even in the holodeck and when they leave said deck, they are still wet...because reasons
Alton would tell you they are one in the same!
I thought that was because not everything is just force fields? I thought that simple things were replicated?
That they are - so it is MORE bad science.
One of my favorite TOS episodes is “The Galileo Seven” and it has an embarrassing misunderstanding of quasars. Ultimately, I don’t care because the episode isn’t actually ABOUT quasars.
It's an element or compound that hasn't been discovered or invented yet. In my thinking, those are both natural substances - we have elements and compounds in real life - and haven't discovered them all yet. Magic entails the supernatural; things that do not exist in nature, and never can. So even if dilithium is non-existent, it can be still be intended as a fictional natural phenomena, just as Sherlock Holmes is a fictional natural character.
To put it another way: If something was magic, simply because it was made up, any device that does not exist in fiction, including genres like the detective novel, or spy novel, would be magic.
To be fair, he says "quasar-like phenomenon" - I know that isn't much better given the difference in scale - but we don't know what weird criteria for classifying things the Federation has
