ST Writers don't seem to get logic

[Thorius]

As I've watched various ST series, I come to the same conclusion over and over - Vulcans are supposed to be the Logical species, but as the ST writers portray them, they are, most of the time, not very logical.

The latest example that's irking me is that in "Enterprise", they portray Vulcan's as not particularly interested in exploration. Exploration isn't some human wimsy, an emotional impulse. Ok, for some people it may be, but there is a logic beneath the emotion which presumably drove its evolution:

Exploration allows us to increase our knowledge of threats and opportunities. What you don't know *can* hurt you. What you don't know also can't help you. Exploration is *completely* logical. Vulcans *should* be explorers.

Another example that bothers me is one I've seen portrayed at least twice - once in TOS with Spock, and once on Voyager with Tuvok, and that is the scenario where the Vulcan is in a command situation, and completely alienates his crew, which almost results in disaster.

While Vulcans may personally suppress emotion, when commanding other species which do not, the LOGICAL thing to do is to factor emotions, and the reactions of the crew to your decisions, in how that will affect the chances of success of a mission.

If you, as a human, are dealing with animals, you try to understand them, and treat them appropriately for that species. You don't treat a dog, generally, exactly the same way you would treat a cat, and you don't treat either of them the way you treat other humans. That is because logic tells us that you have to interact with a particular species according to the nature of that species to attains favorable outcomes. Yet Vulcans never seem to "get" that logic.

 

[Thorius]

A follow-up thought. I sometimes wonder if this may actually be somewhat intentional, from the standpoint of trying to tip off to the audience that the Vulcans aren't all really quite as logical as they would like to admit.

 

[7thsealord]

The latest example that's irking me is that in "Enterprise", they portray Vulcan's as not particularly interested in exploration. Exploration isn't some human wimsy, an emotional impulse. Ok, for some people it may be, but there is a logic beneath the emotion which presumably drove its evolution:

Yet the Vulcans have quite large exploration vessels and seem to have done a fair bit of exploration (various onscreen references to Vulcan data about a number of locations and phenomena). Their primary (if not only) objection to Terrans heading "out there" is that belief that they are "not ready".

By comparison, I suspect the Vulcan exploration effort was probably much more cautious right from the start. Less risk, fewer casualties and smaller waves made in the process - but it probably took them a lot longer.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Being logical does not mean being perfect.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

I don't know how far you are along in Enterprise, but the "Vulcan Trilogy" in season 4 does a good job of trying to fix the Vulcans of Enterprise and explain why they're such dicks.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

While Vulcans may personally suppress emotion, when commanding other species which do not, the LOGICAL thing to do is to factor emotions, and the reactions of the crew to your decisions, in how that will affect the chances of success of a mission.

That presupposes that the Vulcan in command understands those emotions. In the TOS example you cite, Spock's lack of understanding of human emotions is the very crux of the episode. He is, in fact, surprised and bewildered by his subordinates' emotional reactions to his purely logical decisions.

 

[T'Girl]

Vulcans *should* be explorers.

There is (seemingly) vast Vulcan Data Base that came from somewhere.

Vulcans have a monastery in a different star system that was constructed thousands of years before. Thousands of years is a long time for any culture to be exactly the same. The uncurious, nonexporation, Vulcan society we see in ENT might not be the same Vulcans who voyaged forth thousands of years ago. They changed as a people in that area.

The High Command might have something to do with it too. The Vulcan leadership might have more interest in controling what they have in front of them. hanging on to their existing planets, not looking for more.

So part of the cultural change I suggested, might be purely political.

 

[SchwEnt]

Being logical does not mean being perfect.

This is true.

Vulcans being logical is their claim and their tradition. Unlike the pointy ears, they aren't born logical, it is not inherent in the species as self-evident. They must overcome and master their emotions and aspire to be logical. And sometimes, their logic is fallible and is not absolute.

Isn't that how Vulcans have been established?
They aren't "born that way", they must strive to be logical and do not always succeed?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Being logical does not mean being perfect.

This is true.

Vulcans being logical is their claim and their tradition. Unlike the pointy ears, they aren't born logical, it is not inherent in the species as self-evident. They must overcome and master their emotions and aspire to be logical. And sometimes, their logic is fallible and is not absolute.

Isn't that how Vulcans have been established?
They aren't "born that way", they must strive to be logical and do not always succeed?

Exactly. As such, logic can be used to rationalize all sorts of actions (or inactions).

 

[Ghel]

I've never had problems with the "illogical" logic of Vulcans. I believe it was in a book on the philosophy of Star Trek that Vulcans have seemed to suppressed more overt emotional displays, but they still seem to have no problems with more subtle emotions.
Spock often cites how "fascinating" things are. A subtle eyebrow shift often expresses surprise, and a running trend in Trek is that Spock and Sarek go years without speaking to each other over disagreements. None of these things are strictly logical, yet none of these things seem particularly frowned upon by Vulcan society, unlike say, laughing.
Finally, Vulcans must act illogically. Exploration, growth, and even getting out of bed to eat all require motivation. All of us are doomed to die, as is society as a whole. Unless you have faith in something greater, all progress is ultimately pointless as the end result of all change is merely entropy. Hence, even "logical" Vulcans must have some motivation, be it hope, faith, or boredom, just to get out of bed in the morning.

 

[Gaius]

I remember Vulcan commanders shouting with their subordinates in the 4th or 5th series of Enterprise - another hint of writing failure.

Also, what is the logic behind Spock's peace mission to Romulus in TNG? He concludes that he will betrayed and goes nonetheless. Is Spock a space hippy or what?

 

[C.E. Evans]

I remember Vulcan commanders shouting with their subordinates in the 4th or 5th series of Enterprise - another hint of writing failure.

If it's noisy, wouldn't it be logical to raise one's voice in order to be heard?

Also, what is the logic behind Spock's peace mission to Romulus in TNG? He concludes that he will betrayed and goes nonetheless. Is Spock a space hippy or what?

Spock considered the reunfication of Vulcans and Romulans more important than his own personal safety. It's a common trait among social activists.

 

[Gaius]

He went there knowing that the mission will fail. Wouldn't it be logical to prepare a plan first? Even Gandhi had a plan - and he succeeded.

 

[shivkala]

As I've watched various ST series, I come to the same conclusion over and over - Vulcans are supposed to be the Logical species, but as the ST writers portray them, they are, most of the time, not very logical.

It might be a cop-out, but we are judging them by human logic. Who is to say that what's logical to a Vulcan is logical to a human. Case in point, the Vulcans see it as logical to suppress their emotions, humans do not. But, can we judge them against our logic by saying suppressing emotions is illogical?

The latest example that's irking me is that in "Enterprise", they portray Vulcan's as not particularly interested in exploration. Exploration isn't some human wimsy, an emotional impulse. Ok, for some people it may be, but there is a logic beneath the emotion which presumably drove its evolution:

Exploration allows us to increase our knowledge of threats and opportunities. What you don't know *can* hurt you. What you don't know also can't help you. Exploration is *completely* logical. Vulcans *should* be explorers.

In comics, there is a version of the "chicken or egg" philosophical question in terms of "Are there so many villains because the hero attracts/creates them?" Following this logic, there are those who believe that there would be no Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, etc. if Batman never existed.

In terms of exploration, you can just as easily make the case that not exploring keeps you safer. Many wars or skermishes in Trek occurred due to exploration and running into or claiming a sector that another race had already laid claim to. Take the Dominion for example. Exploration directly lead to that war.

Another example that bothers me is one I've seen portrayed at least twice - once in TOS with Spock, and once on Voyager with Tuvok, and that is the scenario where the Vulcan is in a command situation, and completely alienates his crew, which almost results in disaster.

While Vulcans may personally suppress emotion, when commanding other species which do not, the LOGICAL thing to do is to factor emotions, and the reactions of the crew to your decisions, in how that will affect the chances of success of a mission.

When you're leading a project, do you plan for the members of the group experiencing the range of emotions? Do you plan for one to grieve and another to lash out at the world? Isn't it hard enough to understand why someone cries or laughs. Haven't you ever come across someone so sad or angry that nothing you said or did could soothe them? Now imagine you have no clue as to how to handle emotions at all.

If you, as a human, are dealing with animals, you try to understand them, and treat them appropriately for that species. You don't treat a dog, generally, exactly the same way you would treat a cat, and you don't treat either of them the way you treat other humans. That is because logic tells us that you have to interact with a particular species according to the nature of that species to attains favorable outcomes. Yet Vulcans never seem to "get" that logic.

Yes, but animals, lacking the full range of emotions humans have are far more predictable. You can, for example, predict what will happen to a cat if you pull its tail lightly. But tap a bunch of humans lightly and you'll get a wide range of responses from someone just looking at you funny to someone punching your lights out. We're far too unpredictable and illogical for someone to apply logic to us. There is little logic to how one person will laugh and another cry at the same thing.

That presupposes that the Vulcan in command understands those emotions. In the TOS example you cite, Spock's lack of understanding of human emotions is the very crux of the episode. He is, in fact, surprised and bewildered by his subordinates' emotional reactions to his purely logical decisions.

Exactly. Vulcans dealing with emotional beings is the epitome of them trying to apply logic to something illogical. They can't quite grasp it.

Finally, Vulcans must act illogically. Exploration, growth, and even getting out of bed to eat all require motivation. All of us are doomed to die, as is society as a whole. Unless you have faith in something greater, all progress is ultimately pointless as the end result of all change is merely entropy. Hence, even "logical" Vulcans must have some motivation, be it hope, faith, or boredom, just to get out of bed in the morning.

Much of what I've seen of Vulcan logic seems to be weighing the consequences of the action, case in point, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or one)." I'd argue that the Vulcans would weigh the consequences of exploration versus not-exploring and find that their logic dictates that the needs of the many would be served by exploration, even at the cost of the lives of a few.

Also, what is the logic behind Spock's peace mission to Romulus in TNG? He concludes that he will betrayed and goes nonetheless. Is Spock a space hippy or what?

I believe this goes to Ghel's point, in that Spock views the needs of the many (both of Vulcans and Romulans) as greater than the needs of the one (himself). Isn't there some degree of logic to sacrificing yourself if it benefits others (someone we know Spock has done before). I believe he weighed the risks and found that not going and avoiding betrayal would be more illogical than going and being betrayed.

 

[C.E. Evans]

He went there knowing that the mission will fail. Wouldn't it be logical to prepare a plan first? Even Gandhi had a plan - and he succeeded.

Spock didn't go there knowing that his mission would fail. On the contrary, he went there because he believed it was possible.

PICARD: Reunification...after so many centuries, so many fundamental differences that have evolved between your peoples...

SPOCK: It would seem unlikely to succeed. But I cannot ignore the potential rewards that a union between our worlds would bring.

Spock's comment was more along the lines of "I know it sounds crazy, but..."

 

[Gaius]

Thinking that the individual's need are surpassed by the needs of the many is not a logical, but a political thought, and an idealist one for that matter. That was one of the main ideas of communism as well.

 

[sonak]

Thinking that the individual's need are surpassed by the needs of the many is not a logical, but a political thought, and an idealist one for that matter. That was one of the main ideas of communism as well.

it's utilitarianism, and in its less extreme form, it's the very basis of civil democratic societies, otherwise you couldn't have functional government and law.

 

[Caliburn24]

The problem I have with Vulcan logic is that it is portrayed as a religion and worldview instead of a way of formulating arguments.

Hence whenever a Vulcan starts to say, "Logic dictates..." I roll my eyes. Logic is a way to structure an argument, it is not a deity.

Take for example the classic line "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". There are lots of assumptions and rationalizations built into just that one line that have no connection to strictly logical reasoning. Why care about anyone's needs but your own? Logically it makes no sense from a certain point of view. All needs are not equal. All people are not equal.

Two people using logical arguments are not going to always come to the same conclusion. It is a shame we have not gotten more scenes between Vulcans arguing, both trying to use "logic" as their rationale because it would really add depth to their culture.

 

[Gaius]

Thinking that the individual's need are surpassed by the needs of the many is not a logical, but a political thought, and an idealist one for that matter. That was one of the main ideas of communism as well.

it's utilitarianism.

No, it is not, you misunderstand utilitiarinism then. In addition, utilitarianism weighs the moral worth of an action by its outcome. In utilitarian terms, Spock's action was useless.

 

[Timo]

Two people using logical arguments are not going to always come to the same conclusion. It is a shame we have not gotten more scenes between Vulcans arguing, both trying to use "logic" as their rationale because it would really add depth to their culture.

Ah, but whenever we get two speaking Vulcans in the same scene, this involves an argument more often than not!

In general, it's futile to try and describe a Vulcan course of action or reasoning as "illogical". There's always going to be a chain of logic and a selection of premises that leads to the witnessed action or reasoning being the optimal one; Sarek could no doubt justify murder just as well as he could negotiation, and he even says as much. The utility of logic is in cutting to the chase: you can always choose your premises so that you attain a goal you already desired, and any hope of objectivity or absolute truths is a futile one, but at least by proceeding logically, you don't have to fret about it and waste time in pondering side issues you can logically rule irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In this sense, logic more or less equates being a cold fish, as displays of passion don't often contribute much to the isolation of the relevant issues or shorten the path to the goal. However, there's no rule that logic would have to equate lack of passion in all cases. Quite often, the best way to hasten a process that involves argumentation is to make your opponent angry, or to knock him out with a savage punch. Displaying passion of your own is a great and logical way to manipulate others. Vulcans just don't do it much because a) they already have serious issues with emotional control and, having conquered those, have become rather immune to "passion attacks", and b) they see through each others' "passion attack" schemes anyway. A thoroughly logical human could probably be quite passionate in his arguments, though.

Timo Saloniemi