Treknology and the Reality Criterion

[YARN]

OK, YARN, how do you think the Big-E's engines work, based on 1960s scientific knowledge? I reckon the big tubes sticking out the ventral secondary hull react matter and antimatter and distort spacetime. What do you think?

Wasn't there an actual research history here? Wasn't there some consulting with scientists at the beginning? I'd start there.

If not, I'd guess that warp engines are analogous to electrical generators. You have these engines (I don't know if warp coils are actually mentioned in TOS) which generate a "field." The most advanced ships in the 1960's would have been nuclear powered, so I think it is safe to say that we're supposed to imagine that these powerful engines are like nuclear-powered dynamos that somehow warp space-time with their power.

 

[Pavonis]

Exactly. And that's as far as we can go, because that's as far as the producers went. So the game ends here. How is this fun, then?

 

[YARN]

Exactly. And that's as far as we can go, because that's as far as the producers went. So the game ends here. How is this fun, then?

Depends.

Is someone criticizing Star Trek for failing to predict professor X's theory of Z which just came out in journal C? If so, we can defend Trek from anachronistic judgments under my criterion. Contrary to what you suppose, this is how I would give the writers a break.

Is someone guessing what a duty shift is really like in engineering on TOS? Well, the best answer will be informed in terms of what duty shifts were like on navy ships from that era (what the writers were drawing on and how the audience would have understood the same).

Is someone trying to guess what a warp field would have looked like on TOS? Well, we can retroactively suppose that it looks like graphical representations we've seen on other shows (which is one way). OR... we could consider how electromagnetic fields are shaped - instead of a bubble we might imagine that it was shaped somewhat like the Earth's magnetosphere.

My criterion also allows for the presence of analogue gauges on an advanced spaceship. This is not a feature to be explained away (or erased, as does TOS-R), but simply accepted. The Enterprise has analogue gauges, not because it has a retro-style design (they're so quaint in the future!), not because they are defending against Cylon-style hacking, not because the ship's electronics displays are vulnerable to interference. No, the ship has analogue gauges, because that's what ships had in the 1960s.

They should be described as old-fashioned gauges. We should presume that their inner workings are mechanical. And how should we judge this feature? Under the reality criterion, the analogue gauges are an embarrassment (which is why they're altered in TOS-R). Under my criterion, however, we can defend this feature. The Enterprise has analogue gauges, because this was what you'd expect in 1967.

Alternatively, we might have an interesting discussion about whether the set designers could have or should have predicted the widespread use of digital displays in the future and if they knew it, it this could have been incorporated into the production budget. John Carpenter did a faux 3D display for cheap in Escape from New York. Perhaps a projected image of counting numbers could have served economically? Perhaps we should have never been shown the gauges at all (they always kept us guessing about what Spock was looking at when he was hunched over the science station). Under the reality criterion, however, we can only conclude that this is a dated feature and lower our evaluation of Trek's predictions of the future on this score.

 

[Pavonis]

In terms of universal principle, you run out of traction too. There can only be one hardest substance in the universe, even if that universe is fictional.

Only one hardest substance forever and forever and never a change allowed? I threw out two viable explanations for the supposed continuity problem. Either the UFP's enjoying rapid change in their known "hardest substances", or they're referring to different kinds of "hardness" (e.g., tensile versus compressive, yield strength vs fracture strength).

Certainly, if we were to evaluate the science and technology of TOS, it would be most unfair to compare it contemporary science and technology. That would be like judging a song to be a failure (even if it were the smash hit of its time), because it does not fit with today's contemporary pop.

Why's it unfair? And who does that kind of apples-oranges comparing, anyway? Do you often see examples on the boards?

My criterion also allows for the presence of analogue gauges on an advanced spaceship. This is not a feature to be explained away (or erased, as does TOS-R), but simply accepted. The Enterprise has analogue gauges, not because it has a retro-style design (they're so quaint in the future!), not because they are defending against Cylon-style hacking, not because the ship's electronics displays are vulnerable to interference. No, the ship has analogue gauges, because that's what ships had in the 1960s.

What makes you think the analog gauges are really analog? I can make my iPhone display an analog clock, but that's an affectation only. Perhaps there's an ergonomic reason for retaining analog gauges, or at least their look. They are easy to read, for one thing, which has to be the first priority for a readout.

They should be described as old-fashioned gauges. We should presume that their inner workings are mechanical.

Based only on their look? That's no reason to assume mechanical innards! My iPhone doesn't have cogs and gears inside even though it can display an analog clock!

 

[YARN]

I threw out two viable explanations for the supposed continuity problem. Either the UFP's enjoying rapid change in their known "hardest substances", or they're referring to different kinds of "hardness" (e.g., tensile versus compressive, yield strength vs fracture strength).

Yes, if you want to contort yourself into a pretzel to attempt to explain it away, if you want to add a lot of details that were never seen on screen, you can certainly do that.

At any rate, the particulars of the example isn't really isn't the point, but rather that there are particular examples which we could discuss.

Why's it unfair? And who does that kind of apples-oranges comparing, anyway? Do you often see examples on the boards?

People do this sort of thing all the time. Indeed, the spirit of it is reflected in your question "Why's it unfair?" People tend to go full steam ahead with the reality criterion and if old Trek looks all the more dated under that criterion, then whither old Trek.

What makes you think the analog gauges are really analog? I can make my iPhone display an analog clock, but that's an affectation only.

Because they're analogue gauges (you actually see the numbers turning in cylinder read outs).

Because in the 1960s no one had any idea about IPhone displays that could mimic old clocks.

Because Star Trek was intended to be futuristic, so it is goofy to presuppose that it would predict that it would be out of date in 2012 and offer a retro-design feature before it was retro.

Because it was entirely reasonable in the 1960s to assume that even the most advanced ships and planes would have analogue gauges. Space ships had analogue gauges in the 1960s, so why wouldn't the Enterprise?

Based only on their look? That's no reason to assume mechanical innards! My iPhone doesn't have cogs and gears inside even though it can display an analog clock!

Because that is what both the writers and audience would have had in mind in 1967. No one in that audience would say, "Well, I've got an IPhone that spoofs old-style clocks..."

I prefer my explanation because it is straightforward (if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck), because it does not involve anachronistic apologetics, because it is consistent with real-world analogues at that time (i.e., ships, planes, and spacecraft), because it what the producers of Trek would have had in mind, and because it is what the audience would have had in mind. You, on the other hand, have your IPhone and the unmodified reality criterion.

 

[Pavonis]

Because they're analogue gauges (you actually see the numbers turning in cylinder read outs).

Oh, pish. I can see the numbers turning on my iPhone, too. The flat panel display can easily mimic a three-dimensional analog readout.

Because in the 1960s no one had any idea about IPhone displays that could mimic old clocks.

So? No one in the 1960s had any idea how to build a warp drive, yet they still imagined the possibility, which obviously requires several innovations and discoveries that weren't detailed or mentioned in the show, because they didn't relate to or advance the story being told. So why can't the "analog" display be an affectation? Why can't it be a fake analog display because it conforms to 2260s style?

For that matter, why is an analog display necessarily outdated? The future must use futuristic technology exclusively? Why can't the 2260s use analog readouts?

Because that is what both the writers and audience would have had in mind in 1967. No one in that audience would say, "Well, I've got an IPhone that spoofs old-style clocks..."

Why is the audience of 1967 the only one that's valid? We're still watching Trek almost 50 years later. Why isn't our opinion of the show just as valid as the viewers' opinions and thoughts from 50 years ago? Maybe our opinions aren't more valid, but they're certainly not less so.

 

[YARN]

Oh, pish. I can see the numbers turning on my iPhone, too. The flat panel display can easily mimic a three-dimensional analog readout.

And how many IPhones existed during the broadcast run of TOS?

So? No one in the 1960s had any idea how to build a warp drive, yet they still imagined the possibility, which obviously requires several innovations and discoveries that weren't detailed or mentioned in the show, because they didn't relate to or advance the story being told. So why can't the "analog" display be an affectation? Why can't it be a fake analog display because it conforms to 2260s style?

Why can't the whole ship be a hologram?

Why can't the whole TV show simply be the dream of Capt. Pike still trapped on Talos IV?

Why can't it be that the doors be made of a hardened sugar? "NO CHARACTER EVER SAYS THE TURBOLIFT DOORS AREN'T MADE OF SUGAR! AND YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY AREN'T MADE OF SUGAR!" Indeed they may be made of the hardest sugar known to man and we might ponder the mysteries of their possible tensile and compressive strength properties.

You can make weak plausibility arguments via the argument from ignorance all you want, but this does not mean that you have produced particularly compelling arguments.

I've offered several reasons otherwise -- you've offered an argument on a par with arguing that the doors "could" be made of sugar... ...or IPhones.

For that matter, why is an analog display necessarily outdated? The future must use futuristic technology exclusively? Why can't the 2260s use analog readouts?

We're not talking in absolutes here. We're talking about which explanation is more competitive. I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a teapot orbiting the planet Mars, but this does not mean that the "teapot hypothesis" is on all fours with the hypothesis that there is liquid water under the surface of Europa.

Under the reality criterion it simply is not significantly likely that a high tech FTL space ship would have mechanical gauges. It's possible that the Enterprise has a steam boiler somewhere, but it is not a likely enough possibility to care about.

Why is the audience of 1967 the only one that's valid? We're still watching Trek almost 50 years later. Why isn't our opinion of the show just as valid as the viewers' opinions and thoughts from 50 years ago? Maybe our opinions aren't more valid, but they're certainly not less so.

Why should we care what the original audience of Romeo and Juliet would have thought the line "Wherefor art thou Romeo"? Today's audiences tend to think this line means "Where are you Romeo?" but it is really more along the lines of "Why did you have to be a Montague."

Why should we care what the year was when Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address? Why not just imagine that this speech was written for everyone timelessly? Well, for one thing, the line "four score and seven years ago" matters. It does NOT refer to the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence. Consequently, we need to know that the year was 1863 and that Lincoln is not referring to America's legal foundation, but her "spiritual" foundation, and that this gives him extra leverage to speak out against slavery ("all men are created equal" as opposed to the Constitution which recognized in the 3/5 compromise that citizens could take property in people).

The original audience is not the only one that matters, but it does matter. Why the artwork was made, the function it performed, and how it was taken to mean matter when we approach any text.

Finally, you are explicitly misreading my argument. I never contended that the audience of 1967 is the only one that matters, but rather that for some purposes we might modify the reality criterion so as to make the game playable without recourse to weak plausibility arguments in defense on the one hand and obvious "Gotcha!" (the future didn't turn out like that after all!) on the other.

 

[Pavonis]

And how many IPhones existed during the broadcast run of TOS?

Ooh, I know! I know this one! Three! Or was it twenty-thousand? How about negative one? Is that the right answer?

Wait, why's that a relevant question?

Why can't the whole ship be a hologram?

Do you mean a hologram as TNG depicted one (photos and forcefields), or the 21st century meaning of the term?

Why can't the whole TV show simply be the dream of Capt. Pike still trapped on Talos IV?

You know, that is actually a good point. We don't know if Pike actually made it off Talos!

Why can't it be that the doors be made of a hardened sugar? "NO CHARACTER EVER SAYS THE TURBOLIFT DOORS AREN'T MADE OF SUGAR! AND YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY AREN'T MADE OF SUGAR!" Indeed they may be made of the hardest sugar known to man and we might ponder the mysteries of their possible tensile and compressive strength properties.

Well, what if they are made of sugar? Why would Starfleet engineers and starship designers select pressed sugar for the doors? Would they make decent emergency rations if the ship crashed? Maybe in the event of a water landing they'll dissolve and make escape easier? If they did make the doors out of sugar, there'd have to be a reason for it. We could think of one, if we tried.

You can make weak plausibility arguments via the argument from ignorance all you want, but this does not mean that you have produced particularly compelling arguments.

Why are my arguments weak? They're certainly no weaker than anyone else's. All you're offering is an exit clause - all I get from you is that you're emphasizing that TOS is a show from the 1960s, so let's not delve too deeply into it.

We're not talking in absolutes here. We're talking about which explanation is more competitive. I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a teapot orbiting the planet Mars, but this does not mean that the "teapot hypothesis" is on all fours with the hypothesis that there is liquid water under the surface of Europa.

I suppose you can't rule the teapot hypothesis out, but then again, why would you rule it in in the first place?

Under the reality criterion it simply is not significantly likely that a high tech FTL space ship would have mechanical gauges.

Why? Must everything in the 23rd Century be flat-panel displays? I think there's at least a 50% chance that the analog gauges depicted in Trek are mechanical gauges. Call it 2260s retro-futurism. Hey, if Tom Paris can put old-style gauges in the Delta Flyer, why can't the starship designers of the 23rd Century?

Finally, you are explicitly misreading my argument. I never contended that the audience of 1967 is the only one that matters, but rather that for some purposes we might modify the reality criterion so as to make the game playable without recourse to weak plausibility arguments in defense on the one hand and obvious "Gotcha!" (the future didn't turn out like that after all!) on the other.

I did not explicitly misread your argument. I'm just not clear on the point, and was seeking clarification. Certainly from my point of view, you seem unnecessarily adamant in defending TOS from detractors, as though it needs defending or else it'll disappear from existence. Basically, all I'm getting out of your proposal is "Don't criticize Star Trek!"

 

[YARN]

Ooh, I know! I know this one! Three! Or was it twenty-thousand? How about negative one? Is that the right answer?

Wait, why's that a relevant question?

Because it speaks to the criteria we use to interpret Trek. That you would retroactively suppose (under the reality criterion) that Enterprise gauges are like digital IPhone displays introduces anachronism into Star Trek. Why not suppose that Verne's Nautilus was 3G enabled, cuz you know my cell phone has 3G, so...

Like Cinderella's desperate stepsisters you will cut off toes to make the glass slipper of today fit yesterday's Trek. This is because you insist on reading Trek as a compatible projection of the future rather than a "past future." This is your right, but it results in some rather violent hermeneutics.

I, on the other hand, propose that we need not play the game this way. We can take an archeological approach to Star Trek.

In 30 years we will no longer have IPhones, but something else and IPhones will be just as antiquated as analogue gauges. You are rather chrono-centric in thinking that today's technologies define our future's possibilities. In 30 years folks might be seriously asking why a ship would have gauges at all. And a latter day Pavonis might twist and contort and offer another tortured apologia.

You know, that is actually a good point. We don't know if Pike actually made it off Talos!

And we cannot prove a sincere solipsist of her mistake. Yet philosophers do not fret about solipsism. Why is that?

Well, what if they are made of sugar? Why would Starfleet engineers and starship designers select pressed sugar for the doors? Would they make decent emergency rations if the ship crashed? Maybe in the event of a water landing they'll dissolve and make escape easier? If they did make the doors out of sugar, there'd have to be a reason for it. We could think of one, if we tried.

The mere fact that you can contrive an explanation for a hypothesis which has no textual reference does not mean you have a good explanation or that you have a possibility that we need to take seriously.

Why are my arguments weak? They're certainly no weaker than anyone else's.

They're weak in terms of the strength we can claim for their conclusions. At most, you can claim that there is a "bare possibility" which cannot be absolutely ruled out, but you're acting as if you are saying something really profound. You're not; I can't rule out the possibility that the center of the moon is made of cheese, that my car might have had its lug nuts loosened in the middle of the night, or that Obama is a Replicant, but none of these possibilities disrupts what I believe and how I behave. The mere fact that you cannot rule it out does not mean that we must rule it in, including it as if it were just as competitive a hypothesis as any other.

All you're offering is an exit clause - all I get from you is that you're emphasizing that TOS is a show from the 1960s, so let's not delve too deeply into it.

On the contrary, I am suggesting another means by which we might delve more deeply into Treknology. Let's check it out, but let's not be slaves to one criterion alone.

I suppose you can't rule the teapot hypothesis out, but then again, why would you rule it in in the first place?

As you said, "we could find a reason if we tried" (and there will always be a Pavonis who will try). This is where weak plausibility arguments start sprouting up.

Why? Must everything in the 23rd Century be flat-panel displays?

I never said that the must be. The people who remastered TOS, however, obviously felt that the analogue gauges were an embarrassment, so they replaced them with a digital display. Ask them. They were the one's who changed TOS out their sensitivity to the reality criterion.

I did not explicitly misread your argument. I'm just not clear on the point, and was seeking clarification. Certainly from my point of view, you seem unnecessarily adamant in defending TOS from detractors, as though it needs defending or else it'll disappear from existence. Basically, all I'm getting out of your proposal is "Don't criticize Star Trek!"

No, I am simply proposing an alternate path for critical analysis (including what we commonly call critique or evaluation).

 

[Pavonis]

OK, now I get it! You're just worried about anachronisms! You don't want others introducing anachronisms into your Trek discussions. I understand your point now.

But, see, no one else agrees with you that applying our modern ideas and scientific knowledge is anachronistic. Instead, we see the same Trek you do, and imagine that the producers of it were very insightful by not getting too detailed about the technology, so that it would remain timeless (or at least age well, as it has), which lets future viewers apply their imaginations as they see fit.

 

[YARN]

OK, now I get it! You're just worried about anachronisms! You don't want others introducing anachronisms into your Trek discussions. I understand your point now.

Oh, I like the anachronisms as much as the next person. It's fun to try to figure out how and why Trek could be a possible future for slightly different Earth.

It's just that there are limits built into this game and with the passage of time, we will be forced to do more and more conjectural violence to the series to maintain the conceit that it all makes sense (from our point of view).

To keep the game going productively, I think we will increasingly need to rely on other criteria than simply holding Trek up to contemporary science.

But, see, no one else agrees with you that applying our modern ideas and scientific knowledge is anachronistic. Instead, we see the same Trek you do, and imagine that the producers of it were very insightful by not getting too detailed about the technology, so that it would remain timeless (or at least age well, as it has), which lets future viewers apply their imaginations as they see fit.

They did a pretty good job. Heck, they were prescient and influential! How many Trek-like technologies do we have today?

The problem isn't really with the show, but with Treknologists (i.e., the sort of people who post in the Trek Tech subforum).

Treknologists can't leave well enough alone. We want to imagine how it works. We want to argue for and about various explanation of Trek Tech. We want to evaluate the plausibility of Trek Tech. And even though the producers kept things fairly vague, the writing of the show requires meaningless details -- how do you get from point A to point B (literally and metaphorically-- well, use technology X which you briefly describe in the show) which the characters utter which then become canonical facts which TreKnologists latch onto in order to make deductions. The point of the Doomsday Machine isn't to educate us about the imperviousness of neutronium, but pointlessness and danger of ultimate weapons.

The very point of our discussions is to explore areas that weren't really meant to be developed. Consequently, it's inevitable that the seams are going to show, especial after many decades of real-world scientific progress.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

OK, now I get it! You're just worried about anachronisms! You don't want others introducing anachronisms into your Trek discussions. I understand your point now.

Oh, I like the anachronisms as much as the next person. It's fun to try to figure out how and why Trek could be a possible future for slightly different Earth.

Does it really take that much thought, Yarn? Analog gauges can't short out, so in the event of a massive power failure where all the displays short out and even the lights are gone, you can still see the last thing that was displayed on the readout when the power went out. It doesn't take a huge amount of imagination to think of situations where this would be a useful feature.

The problem isn't really with the show, but with Treknologists (i.e., the sort of people who post in the Trek Tech subforum).

Treknologists can't leave well enough alone. We want to imagine how it works. We want to argue for and about various explanation of Trek Tech. We want to evaluate the plausibility of Trek Tech. And even though the producers kept things fairly vague, the writing of the show requires meaningless details -- how do you get from point A to point B (literally and metaphorically-- well, use technology X which you briefly describe in the show) which the characters utter which then become canonical facts which TreKnologists latch onto in order to make deductions. The point of the Doomsday Machine isn't to educate us about the imperviousness of neutronium, but pointlessness and danger of ultimate weapons.

The very point of our discussions is to explore areas that weren't really meant to be developed. Consequently, it's inevitable that the seams are going to show, especial after many decades of real-world scientific progress.

And many people have repeatedly asked you the $100,000 question: So what?

Nobody is paying any attention to these conversations except a handful of uptight nerds on the internet and half of us aren't really paying attention anyway. Even if we find a way to reconcile all these supposed inconsistencies, guess what? A year from now half of the people who were present for that discussion will have either stopped posting or have gone into permanent lurk and six noobs will have taken their place who didn't see that thread, don't have the same interpretation or just plain don't care about forming a consensus, and round-and-round we go.

When you look too hard about sci-fi technology, sooner or later you will see the strings. The only solution to that is to either step out of universe for a moment and recognize the real reason the strings are there (to hold the models during filming) or imagine that the strings aren't really there and see the scene for how it was INTENDED to be seen.

 

[YARN]

Does it really take that much thought, Yarn? Analog gauges can't short out, so in the event of a massive power failure where all the displays short out and even the lights are gone, you can still see the last thing that was displayed on the readout when the power went out. It doesn't take a huge amount of imagination to think of situations where this would be a useful feature.

Voila! And with that we're back to spinning plausibility arguments.

If you get into a modern jet fighter or submarine, do you see arrays of digital or analogue gauges?

Digital instruments are more accurate, easier to read, less susceptible to mechanical wear (analogue gauges suffer wear from the friction of moving parts), are easier to recalibrate (you can adjust the software rather than have to dig out a sticky cog that won't turn), and allow for direct networking of information with computers. Also, electronic ink displays on Kindle readers do not use power to maintain a page of text. And if we have digital displays that are like this today, no doubt digital displays of the future could preserve the last read out (in the event of the ONE example you come up with to defend old-school digital read outs).

If you want to argue under the reality criterion, you are going to lose.Star Trek is from the 1960s and we are in the 21st century arguing as if it would be plausible in the 22nd century (which is manifestly absurd).

Moreover, let's get this straight. The mere possibility that you or anyone else might come up with a tortured apologia for any aging bit of Treknology, does not mean that yours should be the preferred explanation.
That we cannot, under the standard of absolute certainty, rule out every desperate rationalization Star Treknology, does not mean that we must respect every explanation equally.

EX: The milk is gone from my fridge. It is possible that a robber broke into my house and drank my milk, but it is much more likely that I or someone else who live in my house drank the milk. The mere possibility that someone could have drank the milk isn't one that I am forced to respect. Indeed, I would be a poor reasoner if I did entertain an infinitely large cluster of possible explanations as if they were equally plausible or probable.

And many people have repeatedly asked you the $100,000 question: So what?

Nobody is paying any attention to these conversations except a handful of uptight nerds on the internet and half of us aren't really paying attention anyway.

If you think so little of the conversations we have on these forums, then why are you here?

The so what question has been asked and answered repeatedly here -- what I propose is simply one way in which we "uptight nerds" might more profitably (in some cases) continue to explore Star Trek as the show grows older.

Even if we find a way to reconcile all these supposed inconsistencies, guess what? A year from now half of the people who were present for that discussion will have either stopped posting or have gone into permanent lurk and six noobs will have taken their place who didn't see that thread, don't have the same interpretation or just plain don't care about forming a consensus, and round-and-round we go.

NEITHER I, NOR ANYONE ELSE, IS UNDER ANY BURDEN TO PROVE THAT WHAT THEY PROPOSE HAS A LIKELY CHANCE OF "CHANGING THE WORLD" AS A PRECONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO DISCUSSION.

The only thing we need to justify our discussions is whether we get something useful from them. That others who come later may not necessarily care (or even know) what we had to say does not matter. That we are of little consequence is of little consequence to our discussions, because in the context of our discussions, what we get out of them matters a great deal.

And we can be wrong about our presumption of inconsequence. Abraham Lincoln once stated "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here" in what turned out to be his most famous speech and, indeed, one of the most famous orations of all time. On the off chance that we generate sustained discussions, that our ideas might stick around for awhile, it is also worth putting our ideas to the test.

When you look too hard about sci-fi technology, sooner or later you will see the strings. The only solution to that is to either step out of universe for a moment and recognize the real reason the strings are there (to hold the models during filming) or imagine that the strings aren't really there and see the scene for how it was INTENDED to be seen.

Yeah, that's great and all, but that is not the game we play in the Technology subforum. When we, and others, play the Treknology game we are in the mode of looking hard.

What you note is a non-unique disadvantage to Treknology discussions. If we take what you say here very seriously, we would have to shut down the entire subforum on the grounds that the very act of such speculation misses the point of the artworks that comprise Star Trek.

 

[Birdog]

If you get into a modern jet fighter or submarine, do you see arrays of digital or analogue gauges?

Both. Aircraft are required to carry backup steam gauge instruments. I've seen old style displays in modern subs on documentaries.

 

[YARN]

If you get into a modern jet fighter or submarine, do you see arrays of digital or analogue gauges?

Both. Aircraft are required to carry backup steam gauge instruments. I've seen old style displays in modern subs on documentaries.

Here is a picture of a cockpit of a new 777 Dreamliner. In it you will see cluster of digital readouts. There appear to be two analogue gauges in this cockpit, but nothing that resembles an array.

Here is a picture of the cockpit of an F 35. The digital readouts are obvious. There is no array of of analogue gauges. Ditto for the F 22 cockpit.

The empirical fact is that analogue gauges are increasingly being displaced by digital gauges (reasons for this are mentioned in my previous post). One no longer see arrays of analogue gauges in modern ships and planes as one would have in the cockpit of the 1960s airliner. Since the pattern that has followed since the 1960s is that of fewer and fewer analogue gauges in our most high-tech vehicles, it does not make sense (under the reality criterion) that the only gauges we are shown on Star Trek are analogue gauges. And yet there they are.

NOTE: You mention "steam gauges," instruments that are used to measure the pressure of steam in a boiler, which is something that the Enterprise shouldn't have - unless I am correct after all -- and Star Trek really is steampunk.




http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...b=13bg3thv1&sigi=13r8c9ts7&.crumb=sRILQ5znT6E

 

[Pavonis]

How do you justify taking a trend observed in aircraft controls and extrapolating it to starship controls centuries later?

 

[YARN]

How do you justify taking a trend observed in aircraft controls and extrapolating it to starship controls centuries later?

It's not just airplanes...

The Stock Exchange: Trades happen so fast in the modern market that real players need high speed internet access close to the exchange running high tech algorithms that can make purchase/sell decisions in tenths of a second. Stock Exchange used to be analogue - ticker tape machines would be crushed in today's market. Now if you were in a space ship that could say, travel faster than light, would the speed and sensitivity of your instrumentation matters?

Telephonic Communications: Yep, phones used to be analogue too. Now they're digital. Their read outs are digital too. When was the last time you used a rotary phone?

Time Pieces: We used to consult hunks of metal that had to be constantly wound (and which were notorious for losing time. Remember the scene in films where everyone one would synchronize their watches?). Alarm clocks are generally digital these days.

Television: Yes, TVs used to have analogues displays. Today, television is no longer broadcast in analogue form or displayed (for the most part) on an analogue screens. Are there still CRTs out there? Yes, but do you think that they or the eight track player are going to be making a comeback anytime soon?

Household appliances: In the old days, the controls and readouts of stoves and microwaves were analogue. Buy a new appliance, however, and what are the odds that its digital?

Audio: We don't listen to analogue records and tapes anymore. Even us old timers who still listen to CDs instead of MP3s are part of digital transition.

And how many more examples could I offer?

The fact is, we are living in a digital world. This is common knowledge. I am not offering a hasty generalization from one example -- what I offered was just one illustration of what you already know.

To deny it so as to continue to spin plausibility tales defending the old E is intellectually dishonest. Under an alternative criterion, we could lay down our burden, but still play the game.

 

[Pavonis]

The fact is, we are living in a digital world. This is common knowledge. I am not offering a hasty generalization from one example -- what I offered was just one illustration of what you already know.

I still don't see a justification for extrapolating current technology trends, trends only covering a few decades, out to 300 years hence. How do you justify your assumption that technological trends can be linearly extrapolated out that far?

 

[YARN]

I still don't see a justification for extrapolating current technology trends, trends only covering a few decades, out to 300 years hence.

Would a person living toward the tail end of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (when iron weapons were strengthened with newer forging techniques), be out of line for supposing that, whatever the future held, it would NOT be one of armies fighting wars with bronze swords?

How do you justify your assumption that technological trends can be linearly extrapolated out that far?

This is a nuclear move Pavonis.

A large part of the Treknology game is based on extrapolation. The game is to look at Trek, compare it to what we know (including technological and historical trends) about the world, and use that as a way to govern inferences about the goodness of fit between fictional Trek and our as-of-yet-unrealized-future.

If you want to seriously maintain this claim, then you are basically arguing that the subforum is unjustified. In a sense, of course, any super-serious discussion of fictional technology threatens ridiculousness if not insanity, but we should note that what I am doing is not unique. If you seriously stand by your objection, then you should either be making it in all the Trek subforum threads... ...or perhaps you shouldn't be in this subforum at all (as it has an unjustified purpose).

Let's take this seriously. Let's say that no one in 2012 can reasonably extrapolate to claims about future technologies. We might hit peak oil, after all, and find ourselves on horseback again. Or we might have a nuclear war and push technology back to the stone age. Or we might create sentient pen caps in the next three years. I mean, who knows for sure, right? If so, we really can't say anything about Treknology. As you said, there could always be an odd reason as to why a seemingly out of place technology would find its place on a Starship. Those doors, for all we know, could be made of hardened sugar.

So, why doesn't Bones recommend lasik surgery instead of Retinax V? Under the reality criterion (if we allow for extrapolation), it seems highly unlikely that Kirk would be limited to glasses. Why wouldn't Bones recommend something more convenient that glasses? If, however, the future is sacrosanct and unknowable, all we can do is shrug and suppose there must have been some good reason -- the game is over and we are reduced to being passive observers.

Then again, we aren't talking about an actual world. If Star Trek really were our future, then we might justifiably get in a huff about all this. But Trek is a fiction which is itself a mere extrapolation. Trek assumed, for example, that computers would get smaller and more powerful and that personal communication devices would be wireless and have long range. How could the writers know that? Weren't they as unjustified as the rest of us?

If we keep things in perspective, then we realize that we aren't reading sacred scripture. Star Trek is not a religious prophesy which we are testing. It is not a revelation of the future which was made in the past. Rather the Treknology game is one of comparing one guess about the future against our own best guess about the future. Since we are in the future (relative to the writers), we have a leg up. We are better positioned to make judgments. Additionally, there are more fans the writers. And we have more time to think things through. The writer is not an engineer, and has to produce scripts in a tight window. Fans, on the other hand, come from all walks of life and have more time to consider the accuracy of guesses.

It's OK to use the reality criterion in a lot of sci fi discussions. I am all for it. Does the film Sunshine make sense? It's lauded as being very realistic in many ways, but we could reasonably criticize it via extrapolation. You, however, would obliterate this criterion, bringing all of our discussions to a standstill.

But haven't I been arguing against the reality criterion?

My argument is that you reach a point where the fiction lies so far in our past that it is no longer profitable to play the game this way. No one would suppose, for example, that being fired out of a large canon would be a good way for humans to travel to the moon (we've learned about the G-forces necessary to accelerate from a canon fast enough to break Earth's gravity). One of us could go on and on about implied inertial dampeners in "A Trip to the Moon," but this would be wild speculation that goes beyond the text, beyond what was intended by the author, and beyond what would have been understood by the audience. It would be an ad hoc justificatory anachronism. At a certain point, someone needs to tap us on the shoulder and tell us to let go. But you would say no before the game could even get started. I would keep the game going.

__________________________________________

EDIT: A Note About the Coming Singularity for All You Biomeat Puppets

Your objection was to linear extrapolation. The curve of modern technology, however, is often curve-linear (e.g., Moore's Law). If Ray Kurzweil is correct, then you are more right than you know about our inability to extrapolate future technologies! Star Trek is in many respects a linear extrapolation to future technologies. Since no one can say what exactly is on the other side of the singularity, we can have no reasonable discussion about Treknology.

In actuality, the singularity hypothesis is not that stark. It proposes a fusion of man and machine and the arrival of machine consciousness, so it does make some positive claims.

Either way of reading the singularity (either as a true unknown, or as a mostly unknown that follow human-machine fusion and machine life), however, basically makes Star Trek steampunk(ish). Whatever the future is, it ain't likely to be analogue gauges and portable memory cards the size of a ham sandwich.

What I am saying is, if you want to make the nuclear move, I can adapt to it. I might (then again I might not) have to give up my particular critique, say that analogue gauges have no place on a starship, but consider the outcome! We would not be able to say anything reasonable about the future Trek might inhabit or reflect. ----Game Over---- I, however, could still argue for an alternative criterion that has no pretensions to knowing the actual future. I would, in effect, be the only game in town.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Does it really take that much thought, Yarn? Analog gauges can't short out, so in the event of a massive power failure where all the displays short out and even the lights are gone, you can still see the last thing that was displayed on the readout when the power went out. It doesn't take a huge amount of imagination to think of situations where this would be a useful feature.

Voila! And with that we're back to spinning plausibility arguments.

If you get into a modern jet fighter or submarine, do you see arrays of digital or analogue gauges?

Yes, depending on who's building them. The MFDs used on modern aircraft and spacecraft are the primary/basic display method, but analog indicators are still in place for things that have to be displayed even when an LCD-type display may not be functional (i.e. in the event of a power loss or something).

Digital instruments are more accurate, easier to read, less susceptible to mechanical wear (analogue gauges suffer wear from the friction of moving parts), are easier to recalibrate (you can adjust the software rather than have to dig out a sticky cog that won't turn), and allow for direct networking of information with computers.

And you, being an expert in aerospace engineering, can think of a dozen reasons why it is impractical to place analog gauges on a starship. That's perfectly understandable.

Your personal assessment of plausibility, however, doesn't a technical analysis make. We've seen a few analog indicators on the Enterprise (not to mention analog controls, buttons an dials). If we take what we know about modern vehicles as a starting point, there are some plausible explanations for their presence; the more you theorize about what should be or what might be or what ELSE might be, the more complicated those explanations become, but it doesn't change the fact that the BASIC reason to use analog gauges in the digital age is that analog gauges don't become useless during a power failure.

If you want to argue under the reality criterion, you are going to lose.

This isn't reality. This is FANTASY.

And considering the "reality criterion" is something you made up yourself, I and pretty much everyone else here is left still asking you the question: "So what?"

Moreover, let's get this straight. The mere possibility that you or anyone else might come up with a tortured apologia for any aging bit of Treknology, does not mean that yours should be the preferred explanation. That we cannot, under the standard of absolute certainty, rule out every desperate rationalization Star Treknology, does not mean that we must respect every explanation equally.

Did anyone on this board ever claim otherwise?

If you think so little of the conversations we have on these forums, then why are you here?

My expression of a juvenile fascination with science fiction in general and Star Trek in particular, plus the desire to exchange thoughts and opinions with like-minded individuals over the internet. Also, I'm bored.

Are you here for a hugely different reason?

The so what question has been asked and answered repeatedly here -- what I propose is simply one way in which we "uptight nerds" might more profitably (in some cases) continue to explore Star Trek as the show grows older.

In terms of "profitability" the only move to make is to stop talking altogether, since these discussions cannot and will not produce anything of objective value to anyone. We derive PERSONAL value from these discussions on a purely emotionally/intellectual level.

Case in point: some of us just like to feel like we're saying something terribly important to everyone else, so they put on their Philisopoher hat and post threads admonishing other posters to behave in a different "more productive way."

The only thing we need to justify our discussions is whether we get something useful from them.

Exactly. The operative word here is "useful." Debating Star Trek Tech is about as useful as watching Star Trek, which all of us do, probably much more often and more attentively than 90% of the human race.

And we can be wrong about our presumption of inconsequence.

In this case, I don't think we can.

Then again, we don't debate Star Trek because it's important. We debate Star Trek because we like it and we want to talk to other people who like it.

Yeah, that's great and all, but that is not the game we play in the Technology subforum.

Right. Which is why your "reality criterion" is just a silly bit of pedantry. If we go by the "reality criterion," the REALITY is that Star Trek is just a TV show. Any other explanation than that is just self-indulgence.

And since self-indulgence is the only reason we're here in the first place, virtually any answer OTHER than an appeal to reality will usually be preferable.