I wasn't gonna write any more because I said everything I meant to - whether people want to excuse DSC because of unbelievable things in past Treks is entirely up to them - I am aware of past examples, but I hoped that it would at least also stimulate some discussion about whether DSC can do better.
But, reading some replies, there is something I would like to point out: - the examples people tend to provide in response to this kind of thread (i.e. of past Trek problems) are made less egregious by the fact that they were often couched, to a reasonable degree, in the correct language - like "Heisenburg Compensator" did in fact make a lot of physicists happy, just because it acknowledged that there was actually a process there that needed accounting for - like
@eschaton said, the dialogue was filtered through a science advisor and thus even though the physics is sometimes portrayed as beyond our understanding (and might actually remain impossible), we could suspend our disbelief and say
"maybe they will discover a way to shunt communications through another dimension/universe in 300 years - physics has changed massively since the 1900s, how much more might it by the 2300s?"
"Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy; whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre, must have some basis in either fact or theory and stay true to that premise"
"IMPORTANT: The writer must know what he means when he uses science or projected science terminology. A scattergun confusion of meaningless phrases only detracts from believability."
"What have been the "big problem areas” in past story and script submissions? Again, it has been in areas of believability. Many otherwise good writers tend to pepper their science fiction with "out of left field” coincidences, un-explained and illogical actions, unmotivated character changes, things they would never dream of perpetrating on even a kiddies show script."
- 1967 Star Trek Writer's Guide, Third Revision
The current, seemingly un-edited, dialogue sounds almost sarcastic or satirical - like how Doctor Who often deliberately chooses for tongue-in-cheek, wink wink, nudge nudge, effect. Now, we all know that the original treatment for Star Trek called for a show that made 'working in space' look plausible, like the Police Procedural genre of the day - it wasn't a satire - perhaps this is the key thing, that it's starting to hurt plausibility, with science officers sometimes talking like they are kids playing at space opera.
As opposed to magic "dilithium" crystals . . .. .
I'm not seeing the difference between magic FTL mushrooms and magic FTL crystals.
Are you kidding??? How are space mushrooms more scientific than space rocks? Pleeeease.
Or an Iconian gateway, or Borg transwarp hubs, or magical organic beings who can throw starships across galaxies, or a dozen other weird travel methods.
Just want to point out, something that I'm sure you all know already - that dilithium isn't a fuel - it's a component, like the heat tiles that used to need replacing on the space shuttle after each re-entry. Even in the Original Series, where the show may not have been consistent yet, the engines are mentioned as being a Matter-Antimatter reactor - I'm pretty sure Scotty describes them as such in a 1960s episode. So, even if this was formalised into a solid rule later, there is enough evidence to say that dilithium is not a magic rock, even during TOS.
As for things like Iconian Gateways and the like, cmon, it's not really the same thing - extra-dimensional portals, and the like (common tropes in all sci-fi, even harder ones), defy current physics, it's true, but they likewise aren't necessarily something we will never have when you consider science on a deep time scale - like we have only been doing modern physics for a couple of centuries - the microscope and the telescope are relatively recent inventions in human history - how much might our current models change over the course of centuries, especially considering the difference in capacity?
People are exaggerating their objection to these things, as usual, to make a point - but Babylon 5 had telepaths, Stargate SG-1 had wormholes that look like a portal - and all of them are medium-hard sci-fi like Star Trek - it's strange how people are so unforgiving of Star Trek, labelling it as excessively soft.
2) Should DISCO be more rigorously scientific than previous Treks?
The latter is perhaps a more interesting question . ...
I would love to discuss that actually - I knew that the first few pages would be largely a pile-on of critical replies, but how better to broach the topic and get attention, than give a critique?
I think, for the reasons at the top of this post, that the show could make more of an effort, and should make more of an effort, because the original series was trying for 'real life in space' and procedural elements, and the current science exposition kinda seems almost self-knowingly satirical. I mean, I don't think DSC intends to be a comedy, but the approach Star Trek 2009 and DSC has taken is similar to the revived Doctor Who - sort of equate Treknobabble with Wizarding World exposition - and that is undermining it for a portion of the audience, in my honest opinion. It's also unnecessary and an easy fix.
I do think it's worth mentioning however that unlike Berman Trek, DIS does not appear to have a science adviser. I mean, we all know the point of the folks like Naren Shankar wasn't to make Trek science make sense. It was really about making the nonsense they came up with to help plot the plot sound plausible - or at least buried underneath so much jargon that you even lose your train of thought trying to follow the sentence.
IMHO, that's kinda DIS's problem for some people. The Treknobabble is being written by someone who doesn't actually have a scientific background. So instead of our eyes just glazing over when they say "have you tried reversing the polarity" there's some jaw-dropping line which comes across as...well...fantastic. Because it hasn't been warmed over with strings of big words like we're used to.
Exactly this.
