Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Also known as logic.

Nope, that's not logic at all. If that were logic, Creationism would be logical.

Everything Trekguide.com has said makes complete and utter logical sense.

Absolutely Right(TM).

And Creationism can be logical, BTW. Logic is a method, and one's conclusions depend ultimately on one's premises. One can prove almost anything logically if one selects the "right" premises. A completely logical train of reasoning can therefore can lead to a completely wrong conclusion.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

A completely logical train of reasoning can therefore can lead to a completely wrong conclusion.

I think you just desribed my marriage.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A completely logical train of reasoning can therefore can lead to a completely wrong conclusion.

I think you just desribed my marriage.

We reach, brother.

 

[ancient]

Quantum theory is actually pretty logical, and it does logically explain a lot of empirical things. That doesn't mean it's correct, but it is a logical model.

At the lowest unit of 'stuff happening', which is quatized motion of subatomic particles, there is no pattern we can see, so the course of history is 'random' rather than predestined. However, if each quantized event takes both paths rather than one, an infinite number of new universes with very slight differences is generated every instant. Over time the differences would become more pronounced.

Now, if you go back in time, you're going to end up in a 'mother universe', a slightly younger version of the one you left which will eventually give birth to your future. If you alter the mother universe...all the children will be altered also.

Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass. Thanks for reading.

 

[Augustus]

whoa.... there are an infinite number of "me's" both dead and alive in an infinite number of universes and also another infinite number of universes where I never existed...

mmm... I think I'll go eat a cookie..

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

whoa.... there are an infinite number of "me's" both dead and alive in an infinite number of universes and also another infinite number of universes where I never existed...

I can't get my credit card company to understand this...

 

[3D Master]

Nope, that's not logic at all. If that were logic, Creationism would be logical.

Everything Trekguide.com has said makes complete and utter logical sense.

Absolutely Right(TM).

And Creationism can be logical, BTW.

No, actually, it can't. Creationism requires complete ignoring of multitudes of facts, and even it's only slightly less nasty cousin Intelligent Design, requires that one declares this is as far as our knowledge will ever go, no matter how far in the future, better quit doing science now, and for the remaining holes we invoke the god we sucked out of our thumb. This is not logical, let alone rational.

Logic is a method, and one's conclusions depend ultimately on one's premises. One can prove almost anything logically if one selects the "right" premises. A completely logical train of reasoning can therefore can lead to a completely wrong conclusion.

If the only way you can justify your premise by ignoring and denying fact after fact after fact, you are NOT being logical.

 

[Alex1939]

Which just goes to show why time travel should be put on a twenty year moratorium in Star Trek. It's become a bloody crutch.

I agree completely. I really wish they where able to come up with a story that did not use time travel yet again.

Yeah, I agree.

I think what disappoints me about Orci's comments the most, is when I first became interested in this film, I didn't think there would be any time travel in it.

I figured it would be Spock (Nimoy), recounting an old story that would have some relevance to the present. I assumed Nero was an "altered" Romulan that would be the villain of the story, but that he was of that era, and perhaps his Romulan herritage would not be discovered, or at least would only be known by a select few (likely Spock).



Like others, I'm somewhat disappointed by this... but I'm definately going to see the film and see what happens. I'm still optimistic, just not as much as I was before this news came out.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, actually, it can't. Creationism requires complete ignoring of multitudes of facts...

Do you understand that logic as a process has nothing to do with accounting for all matters of fact?

The closing arguments of both a prosecuting and defense attorney in the same case may both be completely logical (very often aren't, but may be). Either side may, however, ignore or cast doubt upon quite a range of what the other - or a reasonable outside observer - would insist are facts. Has nothing to do with whether the logic of an argument is sound given the materials - premises, selected facts - the lawyer chooses to build it from.

You've confused logic with something less specialized, here.

 

[ancient]

Everything Trekguide.com has said makes complete and utter logical sense.

Absolutely Right(TM).

And Creationism can be logical, BTW.

No, actually, it can't. Creationism requires complete ignoring of multitudes of facts, and even it's only slightly less nasty cousin Intelligent Design, requires that one declares this is as far as our knowledge will ever go, no matter how far in the future, better quit doing science now, and for the remaining holes we invoke the god we sucked out of our thumb. This is not logical, let alone rational.

I don't think you even know what you're talking about, as usual.

Creationism, by it's very nature, cannot be disproven by any scientific knowledge. It can't even be addressed at all by science, let alone come into conflict with 'facts'. As such it poses no threat to science, and science poses no threat to it.

 

[3D Master]

No, actually, it can't. Creationism requires complete ignoring of multitudes of facts...

Do you understand that logic as a process has nothing to do with accounting for all matters of fact?

The closing arguments of both a prosecuting and defense attorney in the same case may both be completely logical (very often aren't, but may be). Either side may, however, ignore or cast doubt upon quite a range of what the other - or a reasonable outside observer - would insist are facts. Has nothing to do with whether the logic of an argument is sound given the materials - premises, selected facts - the lawyer chooses to build it from.

You've confused logic with something less specialized, here.

You'd be wrong. Denying cold hard facts, is illogical. And a defense attorney will lie through his teeth and spin a web of illogical bullshit in order to get his client off, so don't consider them being logical.

Absolutely Right(TM).

And Creationism can be logical, BTW.

No, actually, it can't. Creationism requires complete ignoring of multitudes of facts, and even it's only slightly less nasty cousin Intelligent Design, requires that one declares this is as far as our knowledge will ever go, no matter how far in the future, better quit doing science now, and for the remaining holes we invoke the god we sucked out of our thumb. This is not logical, let alone rational.

I don't think you even know what you're talking about, as usual.

Creationism, by it's very nature, cannot be disproven by any scientific knowledge. It can't even be addressed at all by science, let alone come into conflict with 'facts'. As such it poses no threat to science, and science poses no threat to it.

And therefor it is completely illogical, making me completely right, and completely knowing what I'm talking about.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

You've confused logic with something less specialized, here.

Polaris is correct. I took a debating class in college and we were often charged with creating a sound logical agrument for both sides of a single issue.

For example, we may have had to make a valid logical argument both for and against creationism (although I don't remember if this was a specific example in our class -- which was over 20 years ago -- but it certainly was the TYPE of topic we debated.). What I found out from that class is that there is sometimes no "right" and no "wrong" arguments, just logical arguments or not. A logically sound argument can be made for just about any viewpoint.

There are many people who have logically sound arguments both for and against creationism. That doesn't mean that they are both right or both wrong -- that just means that each of their arguments can hold up to logical scrutiny.

You'd be wrong. Denying cold hard facts, is illogical. And a defense attorney will lie through his teeth and spin a web of illogical bullshit in order to get his client off, so don't consider them being logical.

A defense attorney may lie through his teeth (that is, making an argument that he does not truly believe -- call that 'Bullshit' if you want), but his bullshit is not necessarily illogical. His bullshit could be 100% logically sound.

However, a defense attorney doesn't need to believe what he is saying in defense of his client -- that is irrelevant, and it certainly isn't his job to judge his client. He only needs to make a sound logical argument that could be believed by others (and who knows...it could even be a factual argument)

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

A defense attorney may lie through his teeth (meaning making an argument that he does not truly believe), but his bullshit is not necessarily illogical. His bullshit could be 100% logically sound.

Thank you.

I'm tearing up, a little...

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

A defense attorney may lie through his teeth (meaning making an argument that he does not truly believe), but his bullshit is not necessarily illogical. His bullshit could be 100% logically sound.

Thank you.

I'm tearing up, a little...

That's the one thing that could always be said about your posts, Sam...it may be bullshit, but at least it's logically sound.

Happy Holidays from me.

 

[ancient]

No, actually, it can't. Creationism requires complete ignoring of multitudes of facts, and even it's only slightly less nasty cousin Intelligent Design, requires that one declares this is as far as our knowledge will ever go, no matter how far in the future, better quit doing science now, and for the remaining holes we invoke the god we sucked out of our thumb. This is not logical, let alone rational.

I don't think you even know what you're talking about, as usual.

Creationism, by it's very nature, cannot be disproven by any scientific knowledge. It can't even be addressed at all by science, let alone come into conflict with 'facts'. As such it poses no threat to science, and science poses no threat to it.

And therefor it is completely illogical, making me completely right, and completely knowing what I'm talking about.

And you demonstrate that you have no clue what you're talking about yet again. Logic does not equal scientific provablity. Nothing about creationism is illogical, it's just impossible to prove or disprove using the scientific method.

You've confused logic with something less specialized, here.

Polaris is correct. I took a debating class in college and we were often charged with creating a sound logical agrument for both sides of a single issue.

For example, we may have had to make a valid logical argument both for and against creationism (although I don't remember if this was a specific example in our class -- which was over 20 years ago -- but it certainly was the TYPE of topic we debated.). What I found out from that class is that there is sometimes no "right" and no "wrong" arguments, just logical arguments or not. A logically sound argument can be made for just about any viewpoint.

There are many people who have logically sound arguments both for and against creationism. That doesn't mean that they are both right or both wrong -- that just means that each of their arguments can hold up to logical scrutiny.

Exactly.

You'd be wrong. Denying cold hard facts, is illogical.

Where creationism is concerned no 'cold hard facts' exist that prove or disprove it. So I don't know where you keep getting that from. You might consider it an unlikely scenario, but that's not the same thing.

And a defense attorney will lie through his teeth and spin a web of illogical bullshit in order to get his client off, so don't consider them being logical.

A defense attorney may lie through his teeth (meaning making an argument that he does not truly believe), but his bullshit is not necessarily illogical. His bullshit could be 100% logically sound.

Exactly so. A defense can come up with a completely logical (if unlikely) scenario in which his client is innocent (when he is not in reality).

 

[dkehler]

I think some people are dismissing 3-D master because he is often abrasive and unpopular, but his arguments in this thread make just as much "logical" sense as Trekguide's. Either one could be incorrect or correct depending on your point of view.

 

[Augustus]

I think some people are dismissing 3-D master because he is often abrasive and unpopular, but his arguments in this thread make just as much "logical" sense as Trekguide's. Either one could be incorrect or correct depending on your point of view.

Oh man.... too much logical/illogical, not quite right/not quite wrong, depends on how you see it irrelevant relevancy in this thread!!!!

 

[shapeshifter]

I think some people are dismissing 3-D master because he is often abrasive and unpopular, but his arguments in this thread make just as much "logical" sense as Trekguide's. Either one could be incorrect or correct depending on your point of view.

I agree and believe this is supposed to be the beauty of this timeline situation; neither side can be conclusively proven right or wrong, everybody is a winner!

 

[ancient]

Well, I think Orci's explanation is weapons-grade Balonium. But it's close enough to what quantum theory actually says to work within the Trekkian universe.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Ahem.

Lassie is a mammal.

Pigs are mammals.

Therefore, Lassie is a pig.

Perfectly logical argument, with completely true premises, with a completely wrong conclusion.

Or, we have another perfect description of logic, in somebody's sig line around here, in quoting the second Doctor:

"Logic, Zoe, only allows one to be wrong with authority!"