The 11 Footer E flaws, shoddy construction or by design?

[YARN]

Well, the best way I can answer this is to say that what we're talking about here is subjectivism, i.e. interpretations, opinions, and even the concept of "validity" or relative worth; are subjective ideas and cannot be "proven" right or wrong.

So is this your personal subjective assessment or are you actually objectively correct about this point?

I leave it to you to decide which horn of the dilemma you wish to impale yourself upon.

Therefore in this sense, everyone's opinion is indeed indeed equally valid (or invalid).

And futhermore, it's a waste of time to try to "convert" anyone over when they have strongly held subjective beliefs, so as I said, it's best to agree to disagree.

If in your personal canon, the TAS ship is the only "correct" design, you're entitled to your opinion, and no one can, or should try to disuade you from that, IDIC RULES!

If so, we should simply give up on communication and live in our own subjective worlds for the very use of language involves our attempt to influence others to see the world our way.

And IDIC taken as a blind slogan is foolish -

Bob: "Hey, this culture deep fries puppies and babies and eats them with BBQ sauce!"

Bill: "Leave them alone because IDIC!"

Bob: "It is my interpretation of history that the moon landing in 1969 was not only faked, but that they shot that footage on the surface of Mars after using the Stargate to set up a sound stage there."

Bob: "Well, I can't tell you that you are certainly wrong, almost certainly wrong, or even probably wrong. IDIC! If it works for you do it!"

Moreover, IDIC as a command imperative is self-defeating. That is, if we reject the idea that there are any objective truths or ethically correct stances, why should we accept (as a universal objective stance) the notion that we should unreflectively embrace infinite diversity in infinite combinations?

 

[Warped9]

But we do have the original blue prints for the ship.

We do? To my knowledge I've never seen actual detailed drawings of the TOS E by MJ's hand other than the drawings seen in The Making Of Star Trek. And certainly nothing that purports to be the construction drawings for the 11 footer. I believe those drawings exist and that some lucky few have managed to see them, but I and I suspect the vast majority has never seen such drawings.

Please enlighten me if I'm mistaken because I'd love to see such renderings.

 

[YARN]

But we do have the original blue prints for the ship.

We do? To my knowledge I've never seen actual detailed drawings of the TOS E by MJ's hand other than the drawings seen in The Making Of Star Trek. And certainly nothing that purports to be the construction drawings for the 11 footer. I believe those drawings exist and that some lucky few have managed to see them, but I and I suspect the vast majority has never seen such drawings.

Please enlighten me if I'm mistaken because I'd love to see such renderings.

I'll leave the answer to this question to those better versed in Trek history. I thought it was common knowledge that we have MJ's drawings and sketches for the ship preserved and available to the public.

Even if we don't have the design plans for the 11 foot model, we do (unless I am mistaken) have MJ's plans for what the ship itself (as an ideal object) should look like. To my knowledge, the producers settled upon a final design and this design was used as a template for the models (and for the design plans for the models).

 

[scotpens]

. . . And IDIC taken as a blind slogan is foolish -

Bob: "Hey, this culture deep fries puppies and babies and eats them with BBQ sauce!"

Bill: "Leave them alone because IDIC!"

Mmmm . . . deep-fried puppies and barbecued baby back ribs!

Bob: "It is my interpretation of history that the moon landing in 1969 was not only faked, but that they shot that footage on the surface of Mars after using the Stargate to set up a sound stage there."

Well, to be fair, there's a difference between embracing diversity and being batshit crazy.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

. . . And IDIC taken as a blind slogan is foolish -

Bob: "Hey, this culture deep fries puppies and babies and eats them with BBQ sauce!"

Bill: "Leave them alone because IDIC!"

Yeah, and what are you gonna do about it?

Some extraterrestrial force might feel the same way about our eating cattle.

In any event, you're confusing the Roddenberry merchandising concept of IDIC with the in-continuity regulation governing Starfleet interactions with non-Earth derived cultures called the "Prime Directive." They're two different things.

 

[YARN]

Bob: "Hey, this culture deep fries puppies and babies and eats them with BBQ sauce!"

Bill: "Leave them alone because IDIC!"

Yeah, and what are you gonna do about it?

If I see my neighbor doing it, I'll call the police. And if there is a baby about to be thrown into the deep-fryer, I'll intervene while the police are in route.

If one country sees another country do it (e.g., the holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the genocide in Rwanda), then the country should (if it has the power) use foreign intervention.

I suppose you would just shrug and start sketching another starship?

Some extraterrestrial force might feel the same way about our eating cattle.

And they might be right. In which case, they should do something.

In any event, you're confusing the Roddenberry merchandising concept of IDIC with the in-continuity regulation governing Starfleet interactions with non-Earth derived cultures called the "Prime Directive." They're two different things.

No, I am arguing with people who are deploying the slogan as justifying moral relativism and subjectivism. The fact that these ethical stances have ramifications for the "prime directive" is irrelevant.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Some extraterrestrial force might feel the same way about our eating cattle.

And they might be right. In which case, they should do something.

Who gets to decide that they're right and that I can't have my hamburger? What are they entitled to do if I say they're wrong, and resist.

You can only be comfortable with this simplistic moral absolutism because no one has the power to force you to live in a way that you object to.

This isn't about morality. It's about power, period.

When it gets into the political and social realms, most people who object to "moral relativism" have an agenda they wish the rest of the world to be required to heed, and they believe they're entitled to coerce that...only because they believe they have the potential power to coerce others.

Think harder; think it through.

 

[Warped9]

But we do have the original blue prints for the ship.

We do? To my knowledge I've never seen actual detailed drawings of the TOS E by MJ's hand other than the drawings seen in The Making Of Star Trek. And certainly nothing that purports to be the construction drawings for the 11 footer. I believe those drawings exist and that some lucky few have managed to see them, but I and I suspect the vast majority has never seen such drawings.

Please enlighten me if I'm mistaken because I'd love to see such renderings.

I'll leave the answer to this question to those better versed in Trek history. I thought it was common knowledge that we have MJ's drawings and sketches for the ship preserved and available to the public.

Even if we don't have the design plans for the 11 foot model, we do (unless I am mistaken) have MJ's plans for what the ship itself (as an ideal object) should look like. To my knowledge, the producers settled upon a final design and this design was used as a template for the models (and for the design plans for the models).

We have some drawings and sketches, but I don't think we've ever seen drawings by MJ of what the ship ideally was supposed to look like released publicly. I know a number of people have made very nice schematics using the 11 footer as the template---namely Alan Sinclair, Charles Casimiro and at least one or two others---and that there have been a number of blueprint style drawings released (and the ones I've seen look inferior compared to the work aforementioned names).

 

[YARN]

Some extraterrestrial force might feel the same way about our eating cattle.

And they might be right. In which case, they should do something.

Who gets to decide that they're right and that I can't have my hamburger? What are they entitled to do if I say they're wrong, and resist.

The question isn't Who, but How.

The How is answered by looking to the facts of the case, applying reason, and arriving at a position. One might find something to be praiseworthy, blameworthy, required, optional (supererogatory), or amoral or non-moral. One might find, in some cases, that there is no clear-cut determination available.

You can only be comfortable with this simplistic moral absolutism because no one has the power to force you to live in a way that you object to.

You seem to be unaware of the option between unflinching absolutism and uncaring subjectivism, it's called moral objectivism.

This isn't about morality. It's about power, period.

Really? Your response to the very idea or right & wrong is to reduce all morality to the exercise of power?

If your child asks you whether or not she should steal a candy bar, is your answer "Well, do you have the power to get away with it?"

The only sense in which power comes into the equation is the in sense that "ought implies can." That is, I can only be said to have a moral duty, if it is within my power to perform that duty. Even if, however, it is not within my power to stop a genocide in a far away nation, this does not prevent me from exercising moral judgment and calling it "wrong."

When it gets into the political and social realms, most people who object to "moral relativism" have an agenda they wish the rest of the world to be required to heed, and they believe they're entitled to coerce that...only because they believe they have the potential power to coerce others.

Here is moral principle I would "push" on the world if I had the power to do so: "Don't torture people for the fun of it."

This is not an absolute, but rather an objective principle. If I had to torture someone for a dictator's amusement in order to prevent the total nuclear annihilation of the Earth, I would do so.

I want other people to heed to this principle, and even if it were legal to torture people for the fun of it, I would implore people not to do so.

Indeed, it is because I don't have the power to simply force people to my will, that I would attempt to use moral reason.

Think harder; think it through.

I encourage you to do the same.

 

[TIN_MAN]

So is this your personal subjective assessment or are you actually objectively correct about this point?

I leave it to you to decide which horn of the dilemma you wish to impale yourself upon.

There is no delemma in what I said, at best the above remark by you is a weak attempt at humor, at worst, it's a weak attempt to bait me? Either way, I doubt further discussion on the matter will be profitable to anyone here, so let's drop it.

If so, we should simply give up on communication and live in our own subjective worlds for the very use of language involves our attempt to influence others to see the world our way.

Honestly, what is it about this thread that incourages peeps to indulge in hyperbole? And if you truly think the use of language "involves our attempt to influence others to see the world our way" then I will indeed give up further attempt at communication with you, as you have made it clear that there is no possibility of a meeting of minds.

And this...

And IDIC taken as a blind slogan is foolish -

Who said any thing about a blind slogan? My use of the term was not foolish, nor a blind generalism, but very specific to the case in point. But to assume otherwise,as you have done is foolish, as is the following...

Bob: "Hey, this culture deep fries puppies and babies and eats them with BBQ sauce!"

Bill: "Leave them alone because IDIC!"

Bob: "It is my interpretation of history that the moon landing in 1969 was not only faked, but that they shot that footage on the surface of Mars after using the Stargate to set up a sound stage there."

Bob: "Well, I can't tell you that you are certainly wrong, almost certainly wrong, or even probably wrong. IDIC! If it works for you do it!"

Aside from being more -out of context- hyperbole, you're obviously missing the distinction (for your sake I hope, perposely) between personal subjective opinion and demonstratable objective proof.

Moreover, IDIC as a command imperative is self-defeating. That is, if we reject the idea that there are any objective truths or ethically correct stances, why should we accept (as a universal objective stance) the notion that we should unreflectively embrace infinite diversity in infinite combinations?

Never mind, I believe I've already answered this, and so have others so let's just agree to disagree (but you'll probably argue that that's not possible either)?

 

[YARN]

There is no delemma in what I said, at best the above remark by you is a weak attempt at humor, at worst, it's a weak attempt to bait me? Either way, I doubt further discussion on the matter will be profitable to anyone here, so let's drop it.

The dilemma ramifies from what you said; simple forms of relativism fall prey to self-contradiction.

I appreciate your gesture at civility, but not at the loss of the belief that rational discussion between two or more people (in such matters) is possible. If descriptions, interpretations and evaluations are equal, then discussion is moot.

Honestly, what is it about this thread that incourages peeps to indulge in hyperbole? And if you truly think the use of language "involves our attempt to influence others to see the world our way" then I will indeed give up further attempt at communication with you, as you have made it clear that there is no possibility of a meeting of minds.

Are you really surprised that communication involves attempts at inter-influence?

It's a two-way street. When I advance a point, I hope to get you to (minimally) understand what I am saying and in many cases (maximally) to get you to agree with me. When we listen to others, we expose ourselves to the possibility of being changed. We desire to understand and to be understood, to influence and to be influenced.

I do not speaking in the hopes of having no effect upon my hearer, and neither do you. Moreover, I do not listen with the expectation that I will not be surprised, challenged, enlightened, etc., by what the other person says, and neither do you.

This is not hyperbole, this is how it is. It's why we started using symbols in the first place.

Who said any thing about a blind slogan? My use of the term was not foolish, nor a blind generalism, but very specific to the case in point. But to assume otherwise,as you have done is foolish, as is the following...

If read carefully, you will see that I simply challenged the strength of the warrant that IDIC issues in a conversation. I did not say that you were being foolish per se, but rather that the warrant by itself is weak (because without qualification, it endorses foolish claims).

In short, IDIC does not get the job done by itself.

Aside from being more -out of context- hyperbole, you're obviously missing the distinction (for your sake I hope, perposely) between personal subjective opinion and demonstratable objective proof.

See above. IDIC only gets us so far.

Also, it is rather common for IDIC to be used to endorse various relativistic stances.

Never mind, I believe I've already answered this, and so have others so let's just agree to disagree (but you'll probably argue that that's not possible either)?

No, I think that you are a nice guy and that you were making a laudable call for civility.

I apologize if I have rankled you a bit here, but "agreeing to disagree" defeats the purpose of discussion.

At a certain point, of course, this is practical advice, but we should not begin with the expectation of failure, nor should we give up the game of dialectic so easily. I was conversing with Timo not too long ago about Artificial Gravity. We conversed. Arguments were advanced. Counterarguments were presented. In the end, I could see that he had the better end of the argument and conceded to his analysis. Moral of the story: It's possible to have rational discussion.

And think about your claim that everyone's opinion on this issue is equally valid. Here you are lobbying for your interpretation of the situation. By saying that all points of view are equally valid, you are also saying that they are equally invalid. In other words, this is a checkmate move - a conversation stopper. I don't think that all points of view on this matter, however, are equally invalid. Consequently, if I am to continue in an interesting discussion about the 11 foot model I must, by necessity, disagree with you.

You recommend that we give up. I recommend that we keep the conversation going. We are both lobbying for a point of view and attempting to influence others.

 

[TIN_MAN]

The dilemma ramifies from what you said; simple forms of relativism fall prey to self-contradiction.

No, the delimma is a chimera of your own making, it ramifies from you taking my comments way beyond the context in which I had originally intended. I did not intend to make an all-inclusive sweeping generality out of "simple forms of relativism". I was addressing a specific instance where two points of view are matters of personal preference and opinion, nothing more.

Nor did I intend to get into a philosophical debate on the broader, deeper, implications that you insist on reading into my post. We can discuss such things, but they are for another thread, and another forum.

I appreciate your gesture at civility, but not at the loss of the belief that rational discussion between two or more people (in such matters) is possible. If descriptions, interpretations and evaluations are equal, then discussion is moot.

Again, you take me beyond my meaning. I simply meant that in some cases, and in only some cases, such as this thread topic as a case in point, where a personal preference is strongly held by two or more people, no amount of discussion or debate by either side will ever serve to sway the other!

Are you really surprised that communication involves attempts at inter-influence?

Again you're misreading me, I didn't say communication doesn't involve attempts at inter-influence. Certainly it does, in arguments, debates, and rhetoric etc. but that's not the be-all and end-all of language or communication. You and others can use language to that end if you want, but as for me, I'd rather use it to share my thoughts and ideas with others, not to cram my opinions down others throats.

It's a two-way street. When I advance a point, I hope to get you to (minimally) understand what I am saying and in many cases (maximally) to get you to agree with me. When we listen to others, we expose ourselves to the possibility of being changed. We desire to understand and to be understood, to influence and to be influenced.

Yeah, yeah, sure. This is all great and swell, if we've got logical, fact based arguments and if the other person is open and willing to change his/her mind! All too often niether of these ideal conditions exist. A case in point is the topic of this thread, whether one personally prefers the model, or a more "idealized" version, is totally a matter of personal preferance, and I would not attempt to disuade anyone of their rightfully held opininon.

Now, if someone tries to say the models are made of cheese, well then, that can be proved false, and should be.

I do not speak in the hopes of having no effect upon my hearer, and neither do you. Moreover, I do not listen with the expectation that I will not be surprised, challenged, enlightened, etc., by what the other person says, and neither do you.

This is not hyperbole, this is how it is. It's why we started using symbols in the first place.

No. what I consider hyperbole is your habit of exaggerating my meaning and applying it to silly fanciful and totally ficticious examples that totally distort the issue. If that's your idea of clever rhetoric to win an argument, then more power to ya. I however, prefer to state sober logical facts and let them speak for themselves, as it were. But when someone is unsweyed by the facts at hand, then all further communication on the matter is indeed moot.

If read carefully, you will see that I simply challenged the strength of the warrant that IDIC issues in a conversation. I did not say that you were being foolish per se, but rather that the warrant by itself is weak (because without qualification, it endorses foolish claims).

In short, IDIC does not get the job done by itself.

In short, once again, you display your habit of making mountains out of mole hills. I simply mentioned IDIC in a lighthearted attempt show my respect for others opinions. I was in no way attempting to uphold, much less discuss, the deeper philisophical merits or pitfalls of such a philosiphy.

See above. IDIC only gets us so far.

See above. And I'll, say it again, you're obviously missing the distinction between personal subjective opinion and demonstratable objective proof. Anyway, IDIC doesn't have much if anything to say about these things, it's about valuing diversity.

Also, it is rather common for IDIC to be used to endorse various relativistic stances.

See above.

No, I think that you are a nice guy and that you were making a laudable call for civility.

Actually, I'm not a very nice guy, I pick my nose and fart in
the bathtub! But I am civil, which is why I don't pick my nose or fart in public (well, not usually anyway).

I apologize if I have rankled you a bit here, but "agreeing to disagree" defeats the purpose of discussion.

You haven't rankled me at all, and no, "agreeing to disagree" doesn't defeat the purpose of discussion, In fact it allows continued discussion, it does defeat endles useless bickering, though.

we should not begin with the expectation of failure

I never said anything remotely to this effect

And think about your claim that everyone's opinion on this issue is equally valid. Here you are lobbying for your interpretation of the situation. By saying that all points of view are equally valid, you are also saying that they are equally invalid. In other words, this is a checkmate move - a conversation stopper. I don't think that all points of view on this matter, however, are equally invalid. Consequently, if I am to continue in an interesting discussion about the 11 foot model I must, by necessity, disagree with you.

I'm not "lobbying" for anything, just making a suggestion that's all. My point was that It depends on ones point of view whether my point of view, or yours, or anyones is valid or invalid, again the word subjective comes to mind.

You recommend that we give up. I recommend that we keep the conversation going. We are both lobbying for a point of view and attempting to influence others.

No, I suggested we give up defensive stances on whether the 11' model or Jefferies intentions, per his plans/drawings, should be considered the "ideal" version of the TOS E, and which wasn't getting us anywhere, and which is where the thread was at (it seemed to me) when all this digression began. I made this suggestion precisely so the discussion could continue in a more conversational way!

And again, I'm not lobbying for anything, or attempting to influence others. But I will make another suggestion, you should start your own thread in the appropriate forum if you want to discuss the philosophical issues you've raised here.

 

[YARN]

And again, I'm not lobbying for anything, or attempting to influence others. But I will make another suggestion, you should start your own thread in the appropriate forum if you want to discuss the philosophical issues you've raised here.

You have a habit of equivocating and begging off your own reasoning.

In this thread, for example, you have asserted subjectivism without qualification. Here is what you said:

Well, the best way I can answer this is to say that what we're talking about here is subjectivism, i.e. interpretations, opinions, and even the concept of "validity" or relative worth; are subjective ideas and cannot be "proven" right or wrong.

Subjectivism is a philosophical stance. Who is the one raising philosophical issues here?

Feel free to make good on your escape - I shall detain you no further.

At any rate, I am interested in what amounts to the ideal of the Enterprise. I think it is less an ideal and more of a norm which is regulated (unequally) by a variety of sources.

 

[TIN_MAN]

You have a habit of equivocating and begging off your own reasoning.

No, I’m trying to clarify my meaning to you, but obviously failing miserably.

For the record, I am attempting, in good faith, to communicate my meaning here. This should not be misconstrued as "lobbying" or "influenceing" you. I know what I intended to convey, you aparently, do not. And unless your a mind reader, then the only way I can make clear my meaning is to couch my words in different ways.

So the reality of the situation is, that my true meaning is a "fact" known only to me. To you and everyone else, who take another meaning or intent, it's merely a suppositon or an opinion you hold, as such it cannot be a truth or a fact, there is a difference.

Now you (YARN) can take my word for it, in good faith, that I did not mean what you think I did, and accept that what we have here is a failure to communicate, or not, I really don't care anymore, this will be my last post on the matter.

In this thread, for example, you have asserted subjectivism without qualification. Here is what you said:

Well, the best way I can answer this is to say that what we're talking about here is subjectivism, i.e. interpretations, opinions, and even the concept of "validity" or relative worth; are subjective ideas and cannot be "proven" right or wrong.

Subjectivism is a philosophical stance. Who is the one raising philosophical issues here?

First: No, as should have been obvious, the qualification was inherent in the specific topic to which I was addressing, as I said before, I was making no sweeping general statement here. I was talking about opinions vs. facts! You seem to have a problem distinguishing between the two.

Second: Seeing how my statement, which you quoted above, was in response specifically to an accusation by you, it would have helped here -to avoid over generalizing- if you would have included your own statement to which I was specifically responding in this instance …

"What you suggest here is that there are no valid answers to interpretive questions, but this is overly skeptical."

"We can certainly be polite, but that does not mean that every opinion here is equally valid."

"If I propose, for example, that the correct design of the Enterprise is the TAS ship, or my modified AMT model, you could (rightly) tell me that my proposal is not as good as others."

Since my first attempt to answer didn’t get the job done, let me try once more, this time taking each sentence by itself for clarity…

"What you suggest here is that there are no valid answers to interpretive questions, but this is overly skeptical."

No, what I meant was, personal opinions and preferences, when not supported by facts, (as was the specific case to which I was referring) are subjective. This is not being overly skeptical or philosophical, it’s just life. All I’m saying is, “Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one!”

"We can certainly be polite, but that does not mean that every opinion here is equally valid."

No, here again, you’re misconstruing my meaning. What I’m saying is everyone has equal right to their personal opinions and preferences, and furthermore equal right to express those opinions and preferences. But saying so doesn’t make it so. All I’m saying is, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts!

"If I propose, for example, that the correct design of the Enterprise is the TAS ship, or my modified AMT model, you could (rightly) tell me that my proposal is not as good as others."

No, I could “rightly” disagree with you, and offer my own opinion in return. And in which case we would both be in our rights to do so, but that doesn’t make one of us “right” and the other one “wrong”, because we would both be expressing subjective value judgments not facts.

In other words, because there is no “fact” in the form of a “real” Enterprise to which a universal agreed upon standard could be applied, then any and all discussions about which is the “correct” one will always remain a matter of personal preference, to which everyone is equally entitled. Clear enough?

 

[YARN]

First: No, as should have been obvious, the qualification was inherent in the specific topic to which I was addressing, as I said before, I was making no sweeping general statement here. I was talking about opinions vs. facts! You seem to have a problem distinguishing between the two.

Here we go again. What you have articulated is a universal distinction that applies MUCH more widely than our discussion of the Enterprise. It is a sweeping general distinction you have marshaled to make a specific point. You can't invoke a universal to justify a particular and then beg off responsibility for the universal.

You seem to think that there is a realm of cold, hard, uncontestable, and eternal "facts" which is clear and distinct from the realm of "opinion" which is hopelessly subjective, changeable, and which cannot be evaluated.

Once our discussion of the 11 foot model as representing the ideal of the Enterprise in the realm of opinion, you've made your nuclear move. The discussion is pointless, so we should move on. Well, I disagree.

1. "Facts" often turn out to be controversial. Facts sometimes come into question. It was once a "fact" that the Earth was flat. Many facts are socially constructed. Paper money has no intrinsic value, and only has value because we have collectively agreed that it does.

2. Some opinions are better than others. When a physicist offers her opinion, cultivated over years of study, of whether or not we should expect to find an elementary particle in an experiment - this carries more weight than the opinion of the guy off the street who knows nothing about physics, but offers his opinion anyhow.

3. In a dialogue, we can discover which opinions are better by seeing how well they satisfy mutually agreed upon criteria.

4. If your assessment were correct, then literary critics and aesthetic critics should no longer engage in scholarly discussion, because it's only their opinion.

No, what I meant was, personal opinions and preferences, when not supported by facts, (as was the specific case to which I was referring) are subjective. This is not being overly skeptical or philosophical, it’s just life. All I’m saying is, “Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one!”

But facts are playing an important part of this discussion. How many models were there? How often was(were) the smaller model(s) filmed? Do we have the original blue prints of the Enterprise? All of these are factual questions which have an answer and which directly inform our discussion.

More than this, our shared criteria offer us standards for facthood. If a given threshold can be met, then we all agree that we have a fact.Most importantly, consider your last line where you completely disregard and disown the value of opinions.

You say opinions are like... ...what? A particularly favorable/complementary part of the anatomy?

You say that "everyone has one" which indicates that all opinions are created equal. No one opinion can be counted better than any other opinion.

Below, however, you complain that I am misconstruing your meaning. LOL.

"We can certainly be polite, but that does not mean that every opinion here is equally valid."

No, here again, you’re misconstruing my meaning. What I’m saying is everyone has equal right to their personal opinions and preferences, and furthermore equal right to express those opinions and preferences. But saying so doesn’t make it so. All I’m saying is, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts!

Which entirely misses my point about how not every opinion is equally valid or interesting. Instead, you rush to the perceived safety of the fact/value distinction.

"If I propose, for example, that the correct design of the Enterprise is the TAS ship, or my modified AMT model, you could (rightly) tell me that my proposal is not as good as others."

No, I could “rightly” disagree with you, and offer my own opinion in return. And in which case we would both be in our rights to do so, but that doesn’t make one of us “right” and the other one “wrong”, because we would both be expressing subjective value judgments not facts.

Our judgments on these matters are not subjective but intersubjective. That we can even agree about what we disagree about, indicates a background of shared attitudes, beliefs, and values which make our disagreement possible. No man is an island anymore than any of us as isolated subjective evaluators.

How could we determine that my preferred interpretation is not as good as other interpretations?

Dialectically, you could work with me directly. You could ask me about which standards that are appropriate to such judgments and then show me how my assessment does not live up to my own standards.

Intersubjectively, we could expose the proposed idea our peers for consideration. If it fails to meet our community's standards for such things, then it will be rejected.

In other words, because there is no “fact” in the form of a “real” Enterprise to which a universal agreed upon standard could be applied, then any and all discussions about which is the “correct” one will always remain a matter of personal preference, to which everyone is equally entitled. Clear enough?

There are no objective "real world" facts about many of the the persons, places, and things which populate world literature. And yet, somehow, literary critics have managed to engage in fruitful discussions about books and poems and films.

Somehow, the "opinion" that the "correct" interpretation that of Macbeth is that MACBETH was really an alien from and that Banquo's ghost was a force ghost or holo-projection is one that is easy to reject. I may be entitled to hold this opinion privately, but I am NOT entitled to claim that this opinion deserves respect publicly. Not all opinions are created equal. Some a**holes are stinkier than others.

 

[Unicron]

This really needs to get back on the original subject, now. YARN and TIN_MAN, just let it go. This isn't the forum for discussing politics, subjectivism or so forth.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

My dear old friend Jim Brooks, who was a witness to a lot of what went down in 1991, posted a good commentary on that restoration in response to a post on NASM's blog:

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/2009/06/04/starship_restoration/#comment-4959

He sums the situation up pretty well. Some of the remarks by museum staff in the thread are also good.

 

[Captain Robert April]

There is one way to verify whether or not Miarecki's paint job is accurate.

Pull the ol' girl out of the box, set her up in front of a bluescreen, light in the manner of 1968, get the right kind of camera, lay down some dolly track, and shoot some footage. Then compare with original footage.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Nobody's asking you.