Hell, even phasers are iffy considering the sheer amount of energy generation it would take for a small handheld weapon to emit a beam so powerful it can literally vaporize something.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Indeed.
Vaporizing a person would require an intense amount of energy just due to mass alone. Game Theory on YT did a discussion on Fallout's energy weapons and the calculations to vaporize a person based on those weapons.
So there then, that’s why hew-mon is okay.
For all its reputation as some kind of seriously written and researched show, 99% of the science in Star Trek is utter shit.
For all its reputation as some kind of seriously written and researched show, 99% of the science in Star Trek is utter shit.
Of course it is. Star Trek is more Space Opera than Science Fiction.
I see such research as mostly a tip of the hat to actual science, and to make things sound somewhat credible, which helps immersion in turn again.
EDIT: perhaps I should have said soft Science Fiction (vs. hard sf) instead of Space Opera
Last edited:
Yes, it is.
And it's damn frustrating to have newer iterations lambasted as "dumb action" as if earlier Trek didn't use action tropes and was a serious lecture on scientific possibilities.
I knew Thatcher was an ILM guy and became credited as producer because he was Nimoy's go between with ILM and Nimoy trusted him. I had NO idea the he was a writer on Muppet Treasure Island, aka The BEST Muppet Movie.
Which for television makes it seriously written and researched.
Yep. Trek may be scoffed at in some hard scientific circles but for popular entertainment and television it might as well be a marathon of PBS documentaries on the formation of the universe. 
^Not really, I'd say. It's mostly just entertainment.
But it seems to foster interest for science and technology, which already is quite a valuable contribution to society in itself. Some people that went into STEM fields or engineering have cited Star Trek as a significant influence in their formative years.
But it seems to foster interest for science and technology, which already is quite a valuable contribution to society in itself. Some people that went into STEM fields or engineering have cited Star Trek as a significant influence in their formative years.
Last edited:
Is it ever meant to be more than entertainment?
Saying that people cite Star Trek as their interest in STEM is about as interesting to me as the stupid Pepsi vs. Coke commercial that shows a young Jimmy Hendrix feeling thirsty, picks one brand that happens to be outside a guitar shop while the other is outside a violin shop.
Saying that people cite Star Trek as their interest in STEM is about as interesting to me as the stupid Pepsi vs. Coke commercial that shows a young Jimmy Hendrix feeling thirsty, picks one brand that happens to be outside a guitar shop while the other is outside a violin shop.
I thought phasers were cooler back when they could dematerialize instead of just vaporize.
Perhaps it's not meant to be more than just entertainment, but I'd think it's still an objectively beneficial side effect for society. In many countries there's a shortage of such people.
For the life of me, I cannot think of such a beneficial side effect of entertainment 'reality TV' shows or 'keeping up with the Kardashians', but that might be my limited imagination as well
For the life of me, I cannot think of such a beneficial side effect of entertainment 'reality TV' shows or 'keeping up with the Kardashians', but that might be my limited imagination as well
I think its a tendency to give Trek too much credit.Perhaps it's not meant to be more than just entertainment, but I'd think it's still an objectively beneficial side effect for society. In many countries there's a shortage of such people.
For the life of me, I cannot think of such a beneficial side effect of entertainment 'reality TV' shows or 'keeping up with the Kardashians', but that might be my limited imagination as well
I think you need a break from posting here. You’re down on *everything* these days it seems and it’s making you into a maudlin individual to have a conversation with.
I'm not "down" on Trek's influence. I'm fascinated, deeply, by the value placed on it.
I'm not down at all. I'm introspective, intrigued by the value of things.
You could be right, I don't know. I only have the testimonies of those who said they went into STEM fields (partially under the influence of Star Trek), including myself.
However, to actually convince me otherwise, I'll need somewhat more substantive arguments than 'I think ...'.
However, to actually convince me otherwise, I'll need somewhat more substantive arguments than 'I think ...'.
I don't know either.
But it is fascinating on a profound level to see the value and how it is placed.
Introspection and intrigue?
You said this idea is not interesting.
And overstated.
I’m really not feeling the intrigue and introspection here.
You said this idea is not interesting.
And overstated.
I’m really not feeling the intrigue and introspection here.
Probably could have worded it better.
I'm intrigued by the value and the tendency to give Trek a substantial amount of credit for people's personal development.
To further muse, the assertion is that Trek has positive social value. Is it not a reasonable question to ask why that is and what other influences carry similar weight?
Or is it just valuable and should not be questioned? Just because I find the idea suspect (I'll ammend from "stupid") does not make it less interesting as a subject of query.
Last edited:
There are lots of people (both public figures as well as people I know personally) who have cited Star Trek as a primary source of inspiration to go into STEM. Sure there are probably people who were inspired by the Addams Family to go into taxidermy. But the sample size is much smaller. Maybe they just need better press?
Star Trek, for whatever reason, has more inspirational science cred than almost any other form of popular media. (Maybe not even almost? What else is in the running? Cosmos?)
It might not be so much the case anymore (for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that lots of shows try to be at least a little bit Star Trek) but for decades Star Trek was just different.
You can question the daylights out of "why". But it's tough to question the basic fact that it is somehow inspirational to real people.
Star Trek, for whatever reason, has more inspirational science cred than almost any other form of popular media. (Maybe not even almost? What else is in the running? Cosmos?)
It might not be so much the case anymore (for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that lots of shows try to be at least a little bit Star Trek) but for decades Star Trek was just different.
You can question the daylights out of "why". But it's tough to question the basic fact that it is somehow inspirational to real people.
Similar threads
- Locked
