Do you have to be "dumb" to like Star Trek?

[Cepstrum]

Michael Wong at his site seems to think so. And apparently, given the number of links he has, he's not alone.

His big issue seems to be arguing about who would win in a fight between the Empire from SW and Starfleet from ST. I can't think of a sillier topic, but I agree that the Empire would win: they've got way more ships that are all dedicated to war. Starfleet is supposed to be technology that's only about 300 years in the future, and Starfleet is not a military organization.

But beyond that, he ridicules ST fans because he says everything in ST is completely unreal and stupid. He uses his credentials as (I think a mechanical engineer) to say that everything in ST is a silly fantasy.

I'm a PhD student in electrical engineering. I graduated with highest honors in EE and math, got an MS in EE, have published several articles in the top engineering journals and conferences, and have been co-author on a number of others. I've done anti-terrorism research for the US Navy, and a lot of biomedical research for traumatic brain injury, brain movement disorders, and even developed (and demonstrated at a conference) a superior method of real-time blood pressure monitoring.

I'm not trying to brag or say I'm a genius; rather, I consider myself far from it. I'm just one of countless research engineers and scientists and not renowned or anything. But I'm not a moron when it comes to the various sciences, solid-state physics, or engineering, etc., either.

I love ST even though I know much of what goes on is pure technobabble and sheer fantasy. The notion that within a few hundred years human nature will drastically change is, as I think sociologists would agree, unlikely. And yes, there have been flagrant abuses of scientific concepts, especially in Voyager (which I enjoy just as much as TNG and DS9).

What I like most about ST is the way it's presented with the veneer of plausible science, moral issues, and interesting technology. I know it's a fantasy, but I accept that. I consider it escapist fiction, and I like to pretend it's real and that Earth will soon be exploring space in a somewhat subdued manner -- ie, spending just as much (or more) time talking about the science going on around them and using that to solve problems instead of just shooting everything and blowing stuff up.

SW is fun, to be sure (well, the original trilogy), and in some sense appears more "real" -- ie, with its worn-out ships, more realistic humans, and utter lack of trying to explain how things work (though since when did lasers come in bolts that move slower than bullets?)

So what do you guys think about people such as Mr. Wong who ridicule ST fans because of the implausibility of some of the science, the ignorance of some of the writers, and the technobabble? Why can't we just suspend disbelief, pretend they're talking about real science, and enjoy imagining ourselves on a starship exploring the galaxy in a peaceful manner (when possible)?

And why the obsession with some people of imagining hypothetical scenarios of two complete different franchises fighting one another? Does anyone really care that the weapons and countless warships (and The Force) in SW could probably easily destroy the relatively small fleet of Starfleet science vessels that are supposed to represent technology just a few hundred years into the future?

Maybe I'm mistaken and there are a lot of Trek fans who like to argue with people like Mr. Wong and insist that Starfleet could defeat Darth Vader and the Empire. If there are, I sure haven't ever come across one.

So I ask you (especially fellow scientists/engineers): does the pseudo-technology in Trek bother you? (Other than in episodes like Threshold, obviously )

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Who the fuck is Michael Wong?

Starfleet is not a military organization

Okay this one tidbit might be interesting to discuss. I maintain that Starfleet is a completely new critter and does not map easily to 21st C notions of what is military or not military. It is less military than we understand the term, but still retains military characteristics appropriate to Earth and Federation culture of the time.

Starfleet was more military in the 23rd C than in the 24th and is evolving away from being military. So it stands to reason that it was even more military in the 22nd C than the 23rd. One of my many complaints about ENT is that they should have depicted Starfleet as being more TOS than TOS, and not reverted to the TNG/VOY model.

does the pseudo-technology in Trek bother you?

No. Anybody who's watching TV for hard sci fi is a fool.

 

[T'Girl]

While not a Star Wars fan, I do enjoy the movies, more fantasy than sci-fi. I never have understood why the Republic would fight the Federation in the first place, they would seem on the surface to have much in common, it's doubtful if the Jedi's would lift a finger against the Federation.

While larger and older, the technology in the Star Wars universe has some interesting holes. Their scanner do not work during FTL flight, Starfleets do. Starfleet would simply and repeatedly engages the larger SW fleets in combat solely during FTL, Starfleet wouldn't even have to fight.

Just carve up the blind warships by depositing self-replicating mines in their paths.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Who the fuck is Michael Wong?

Starfleet is not a military organization

Okay this one tidbit might be interesting to discuss. I maintain that Starfleet is a completely new critter and does not map easily to 21st C notions of what is military or not military. It is less military than we understand the term, but still retains military characteristics appropriate to Earth and Federation culture of the time.

"Starfleet is not a military organisation, its purpose is exploration." - Jean-Luc Picard Peak Performance

"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." - James T Kirk Errand of Mercy

I think Starfleet is as military as the episode requires!

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm a PhD student in electrical engineering. I graduated with highest honors in EE and math, got an MS in EE, have published several articles in the top engineering journals and conferences, and have been co-author on a number of others. I've done anti-terrorism research for the US Navy, and a lot of biomedical research for traumatic brain injury, brain movement disorders, and even developed (and demonstrated at a conference) a superior method of real-time blood pressure monitoring.

And yet some internet geek manages to make you feel insecure about all of it, so you had to come here for reassurance.

 

[Biggshow]

So, I don't know who this Michael Wong person is, nor do i care, but if his central premise is that SW is more realistic than ST, let me be the first to cry "B*llsh!t!"

There are all manor of things in the SW universe that make little sense, lightsabers being key among them.

As a previous poster mentioned, if you're looking for "real" science in either of these two sci-fi giants, you're on a fool's errand.

And I would, of course, point to all the ST-inspired inventions that have come to pass in the real world, communicators, desk top computers, touch screen controls, com-badges, compact medical sensors and read-outs, hand-held medical "tricorders", laser surgery, etc., etc.

Mostly Mr. Wong misses the point of both ST and SW. These are human morality tales with a veneer of science fantasy thrown on. They are stories about us today told in times or galaxies far removed from us. Given that, ST comes out on top in terms of both telling real human stories ("The Inner Light" being one of the best examples) and overall superior acting. That last is, of course, arguable.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

There have been star trek - star wars comparisons on this forum, too.
However, they were far more unbiased than that stardestroyer site rant.
I wonder what is that Michael Wong character overcompensating for?


In my opinion, star wars is fantasy - from the themes to the technology.
Star trek is science fiction - in the themes it approaches, in the level of profoundity, and even the technology is far more consistent (by no means hard-science fiction, though).

 

[Kibbin]

Yes you do and Stephen Hawking agrees with me, 'cos you know he's an idiot too, apparantly?

 

[Goliath]

But beyond that, he ridicules ST fans because he says everything in ST is completely unreal and stupid. He uses his credentials as (I think a mechanical engineer) to say that everything in ST is a silly fantasy.

I'm sorry...what were we talking about, again?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Of course, the biggest danger is taking Star Trek and Star Wars too seriously and putting them on too high of a pedestal--at some point, both of them will fall off when you realize they were made by ordinary guys making up stuff as they went along...

 

[Cepstrum]

I'm a PhD student in electrical engineering. I graduated with highest honors in EE and math, got an MS in EE, have published several articles in the top engineering journals and conferences, and have been co-author on a number of others. I've done anti-terrorism research for the US Navy, and a lot of biomedical research for traumatic brain injury, brain movement disorders, and even developed (and demonstrated at a conference) a superior method of real-time blood pressure monitoring.

And yet some internet geek manages to make you feel insecure about all of it, so you had to come here for reassurance.

Not at all. Please assume good faith; I meant what I asked (whether other scientists are bothered by the treknology/technobabble).

I'm sure you were just kidding around, but please realize I am being serious and attacking anyone.

Maybe I'm just a strange nerd and should be more reticent. I really don't want to bother or upset anyone. I was just curious because I'd read several essays portraying ST fans as imbeciles who live in their mother's basement and can only get jobs at movie theaters. (Whereas SW fans are well-cultured and highly intelligent.) I've never seen animosity between fans of ST and SW. I like them both (just the original trilogy).

Sorry if I came across as someone needed a self-esteem boost.

 

[JiNX-01]

Who the fuck is Michael Wong?

eta:

His big issue seems to be arguing about who would win in a fight between the Empire from SW and Starfleet from ST.

But beyond that, he ridicules ST fans because he says everything in ST is completely unreal and stupid.

A Star Wars fan disses Trek as UNREAL AND STUPID?!

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Oh Roddenberry, not this Stardestroyer.net crap again.

My advice to every Star Trek fan ever is this: ignore him, ignore everyone on his site, ignore his site, ignore anyone influenced by his site, ignore anyone complaining about his site, etc.

In other words, it should exist inside of Douglas Adams's best invention: the Somebody Else's Problem Field. That way, they can have their smugness to themselves for eternity without being bothered by us stupid Trekkies.

I hope you didn't send an eMail or pester them on their forums. In any case, leave them alone. They're not really doing anything to hurt us from there.

(this post in no way represents my opinion on the Trek vs. Wars debate. I feel they sould instead team up, to destroy something god-awful like Twilight or Sanctuary, or something. It would be a curbstomp, then Kirk and Han can bro-fist and have a Romulan/Corellian Ale)

 

[RandyS]

Who the fuck is Michael Wong?

The latest idiot who wants to build himself up by tearing Star Trek fans down, that's who.

Ignore him.

 

[RandyS]

I'm a PhD student in electrical engineering. I graduated with highest honors in EE and math, got an MS in EE, have published several articles in the top engineering journals and conferences, and have been co-author on a number of others. I've done anti-terrorism research for the US Navy, and a lot of biomedical research for traumatic brain injury, brain movement disorders, and even developed (and demonstrated at a conference) a superior method of real-time blood pressure monitoring.

And yet some internet geek manages to make you feel insecure about all of it, so you had to come here for reassurance.

Not at all. Please assume good faith; I meant what I asked (whether other scientists are bothered by the treknology/technobabble).

I'm sure you were just kidding around, but please realize I am being serious and attacking anyone.

Who are you attacking??

 

[scotpens]

Starfleet is supposed to be technology that's only about 300 years in the future, and Starfleet is not a military organization.

Starfleet is very much a military or at least quasi-military organization in Trek TOS. But that topic has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam.

Any comparison between ST and SW is the proverbial apples and oranges. For one thing, Star Wars isn't meant to represent humanity's future. The tagline that introduced the franchise reads: “Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.” SW is a mishmosh of stock characters and story elements taken from traditional mythology, dressed up with superficial sci-fi trappings like interstellar empires, spaceships, robots and energy weapons.

But beyond that, he ridicules ST fans because he says everything in ST is completely unreal and stupid. He uses his credentials as (I think a mechanical engineer) to say that everything in ST is a silly fantasy.

And this guy writes for a Star Wars fansite? “Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. You're black.”

And why the obsession with some people of imagining hypothetical scenarios of two complete different franchises fighting one another? Does anyone really care that the weapons and countless warships (and The Force) in SW could probably easily destroy the relatively small fleet of Starfleet science vessels that are supposed to represent technology just a few hundred years into the future?

It's what's known as “having too much time on one’s hands.”

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Wars technology isn't anymore realistic than Star Trek's. Moon-sized battle stations capable of destroying planets, laser swords, cloning facilities that can create, train and educate an army are just as fanciful as holographic recreational environments and doctors, matter transmission devices or a magical device cpapble of instantly translating any language right away. Plus both franchises have FTL starships.

And Starfleet was the military in TOS.

 

[I am not Spock]

(this post in no way represents my opinion on the Trek vs. Wars debate. I feel they sould instead team up, to destroy something god-awful like Twilight or Sanctuary, or something. It would be a curbstomp, then Kirk and Han can bro-fist and have a Romulan/Corellian Ale)

Yes, agreed. Trek and Wars share a common enemy: the sparkly vampires! They should team up and eliminate this threat to common decency! The Borg can inject freaking Edward or whatever the lunk's name is, with nanoprobes; and Darth Vader can Force choke that ninny Jacob. (I feel ashamed I even know the characters names. Sorry, I have a younger sister who's into Twilight)

Why waste time with this endless Trek vs Wars debate, when they both have more pressing enemies to battle?

 

[indolover]

Wong's reasoning/rationale is BS:

- Trek technology IS imaginary. who the heck cares if warp drive ever will be invented, or is even scientifically plausible? Sci-fi largely is fantasy and writer's licence.

- Trek, in my mind, is as big as it is since it's deep. It presents a vision of humanity (which may be unrealistic, but that's by the by) that is a positive one, and is philosophical. Compared to Star Wars, it's more artistic in that sense.

 

[Deks]

Thing is that Trek was and is being used (as an inspiration) for real scientific theories about FTL and apparently various other technological devices we made today.

Furthermore ... SF's technology is NOT only almost 400 years into the future ... it's roughly about 3000 years into the future because the Vulcans (the Humans closest allies) were a space-faring race for close to 3000 years before Humans and set a certain standard.
Humanity being exposed to those technologies caught up to everyone else in 2161 (when the Federation was founded) and effectively introduced 'fresh perspective' into it all by further advancing those technologies (plus with 150 member races in the Federation, the diversity of scientific perspective would be actually staggering and the potential for developing even more radically advanced technology faster presents itself).
And by the late 24th century, they found themselves at a transitioning point from a technological point of view yet again most notably in FTL fields, Time Treavel and various other areas.

Star Wars as such is effectively a fantasy (although I do enjoy watching the movies on rare occasion), while Trek tries to ground itself more in actual science.
But when held up to scrutiny, both fail miserably.

As for if Wars Empire would win against Trek SF ... that's highly debatable because we have limited information to form a coherent opinion on which one would emerge victorious (though I have to admit, I find the attempt intriguing).

Also ... if I'm not mistaken Wong studied the technical manual which was made for TNG and intentionally made up figures for Wars which would surpass those of Trek ships making it look so a Wars X-wing could destroy a Galaxy class ship in a single shot.

One other thing that crossed my mind was that Wars was effectively demonstrated as a technologically static universe.
While Trek's Federation hyper advanced in merely 600 years to the point where time travel is widely used, and another 400 years later where their entire technology is based around time travel in some kind of a fashion.
So, even if Trek's Federation in the 24th century would not be able to 'stand up' to the Empire ... mere 200 years later, they can probably easily wipe the Empire from existence using what they will have for 'conventional weapons' at that point (well actually, they can probably do it in the late 24th century as well)