Great, Overlooked TNG Episodes

[Xhiandra]

Why does early Winn never get a vision from the Prophets? Why does Winn get a vision from the Pagh-wraiths? We as viewers know why and could probably explain it using only the terms and concepts within Bajoran theology to any given Vedek ....WITHOUT EVER BEING DIRECTLY TOLD BY THE WRITERS.

It's not nuance, it's No True Scotsmanning. The message we're supposed to get is simple: Winn is not a True Prophetian™.
Add a dash of Golden Mean Fallacy (between two carefully selected "extremes" that fit the biases of the writers) and you've got the message we're supposed to absorb from DS9 about the Bajoran religion (and, in turn, christianity, since it's an allegory).

No True Scotsmen and Golden Means do not constitute nuance.

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

It's not nuance, it's No True Scotsmanning.

How so? Cite evidence please.

The message we're supposed to get is simple: Winn is not a True Prophetian™.

Well sure: we even know to a solid degree, she wasn't. Cite evidence from an episode? See, if you cannot find that *explicitly* stated anywhere - even if you only deduce it from pieces of Winn's monologues about the "days she used the Orbs to seek the will of the Prophets" - then it was a nuanced position we gleaned that fact without being directly told.

Add a dash of Golden Mean Fallacy (between two carefully selected "extremes" that fit the biases of the writers)

Uh, fallacies apply to argumentation. The writers were trying to tell a story, not debate an issue in a formal setting. You seem to suggest all "good vs. evil" structures in storytelling are guilty of a fallacy that only applies to logical construction of a position.

Storytellers need only provide the nuance and stakes for characters. The need for nuance is subjective (Tolkien used practically zero),

but the fact the DS9 writers did use nuance with Winn and others is not really debateable. For some reason, you think it's worth debating the DEGREE of nuance applied. Weird, but this is the internet so not too weird.

and you've got the message we're supposed to absorb from DS9 about the Bajoran religion (and, in turn, christianity, since it's an allegory).

Bajoran religion is supposed to be an allegory of Christianity? Citation fricking needed. Thanks in advance.

No True Scotsmen and Golden Means do not constitute nuance.

The only sentence I agreed with is this last one. Alas, the Ds9 writers committed none of these - particularly since they were not even debating anyone or presenting a position and the logical case for any position.

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

Nope. All Geordie said was "the ability to defeat Data". A hologram of a stronger faster android would've fit the bill. Pure accident. Apparently with no record of what the computer did or how, because they were still studying it years later (but, again, letting any one use the holodeck as usual).

Not really. The context was "defeat Data" in terms of intelligence and gamesmanship of wits which would require the same level of cognition and hyper-dimensional thinking on the level of "the ability to gain awareness of holo-technology and the external universe beyond the holodeck"

Others here think it's ok to have AI have mobility in the form of holograms (I presume)

but then think it's "dumb da dumb dumb" to have AI be debatably sentient BECAUSE it has the mobility of light waves vs. mechanized limbs(??).

I cannot account for anyone's enjoyment level or level of suspension of disbelief, that's subjective. I thought it was a refreshing counter to The Measure of a Man that comments more on the qualia of the lifeform in question in regards to how our Heroes treat the claims of sentience.

They act very differently for Data's claims than they do Moriarty's. And if one applies Picard's closing statement in TMOAM to Moriarty, does it not still fit? Why or why not?

 

[Xhiandra]

Well sure: we even know to a solid degree, she wasn't. Cite evidence from an episode? See, if you cannot find that *explicitly* stated anywhere - even if you only deduce it from pieces of Winn's monologues about the "days she used the Orbs to seek the will of the Prophets" - then it was a nuanced position we gleaned that fact without being directly told.

So, by "nuance", you don't mean a nuanced position, you mean it's not stated directly? Ok, I'll grant you that. Incredibly low bar to clear, but I'll grant you that.
Only incredibly poor fiction does its characterisation by telling you the character traits directly.

The writers were trying to tell a story, not debate an issue in a formal setting. You seem to suggest all "good vs. evil" structures in storytelling are guilty of a fallacy that only applies to logical construction of a position.

Do you really think that's all it is, a story devoid of allegories and free from the opinions and worldview of the showrunners?
It's undeniable that DS9 paints the Bajoran religion in a positive light (though they sometimes score some own goals in attempting to do so, which is hilarious), and in turn, (abrahamic) religion as a positive force.
(So long as it's the right religion, of course)

Bajoran religion is supposed to be an allegory of Christianity? Citation fricking needed. Thanks in advance.

Abrahamic at least, and given where it was made and by whom, it's much more likely to be christianity than islam. Could be judaism. In any case, the distinction is not that important here.
It's the same manichean drivel we've seen time and time again.

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

Only incredibly poor fiction does its characterisation by telling you the character traits directly.

Agreed on that.

It's undeniable that DS9 paints the Bajoran religion in a positive light

Yes, but that does not mean they are making any kind of argumentation that you can logically claim they are being fallacious. Not all "good vs. evil" stories are "guilty" of Golden Mean Fallacy. That was a ridiculous statement.

Abrahamic at least

How so? I see traits of Hinduism, Taoism, Zen Buddhism, ... I cannot think for the life of me one Abrahamic influence at all, almost like they went out of their way to make it Eastern. I could be mistaken or misremembering? So, again, citation needed.

It's the same manichean drivel we've seen time and time again.

What drivel? When and where makes this happen "time and time again"? What are you even talking about here?

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Ummm - take it offline, please.

 

[dupersuper]

Not really. The context was "defeat Data" in terms of intelligence and gamesmanship of wits which would require the same level of cognition and hyper-dimensional thinking on the level of "the ability to gain awareness of holo-technology and the external universe beyond the holodeck

That's not what Geordie asked, and even if true, doesn't change the simple fact that one random request accidentally created sentient life and the crew went on using the tech like nothing happened. Also, what did Moriarty say to create his girlfriend anyway? Is she also capable of defeating Data? All that work to create sapient androids in Picard seems ridiculous when all they had to do was ask a Galaxy class ship computer to make a character that can beat Data and transfer that program to an android body.

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

That's not what Geordie asked, and even if true, doesn't change the simple fact that one random request accidentally created sentient life and the crew went on using the tech like nothing happened. Also, what did Moriarty say to create his girlfriend anyway? Is she also capable of defeating Data? All that work to create sapient androids in Picard seems ridiculous when all they had to do was ask a Galaxy class ship computer to make a character that can beat Data and transfer that program to an android body.

Nitpicking here. The context was in terms of creating an AI character capable of intelligence and gamesmanship of wits with cognition and hyper-dimensional thinking; it was not to make a "stronger, faster android" to best Data in a game of wits like Holmes stories.

You seem bothered by one random request "accidentally" (How? The computer meant to fulfill Geordi's request so how is this an accident?) "creating sentient life" without realizing that our Heroes never act like Moraiarty is a sentinet life form that needs rights protected in the same way as Data or the exocomps etc.

This is revealing to me. I have no idea if the writers were being that subtle or if the writers accidentally created a nuanced story where our Heroes are not exactly consistent in treating sentient life the same or if they are not deeply considering Moriarty life at all.

Is the gf capable of defeating Data? I don't know. Are you sure creating androids does not give more "genetic control" than holo-life like the Doctor?

Your questions intrigue me rather than act as the anti-intellectual label you intend it to be for this show (especially for a sci-fi show that has ALWAYS erred on the side of introducing philosophical dilemmas over hard science which I believe you yourself acknowledged in the Mirror, Mirror thread!)

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Ummm - take it offline, please.

You mean another thread. I'm game if @Xhiandra is.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

You mean another thread. I'm game if @Xhiandra is.

What I mean is to start a private message discussion between the two of you. Your dialog has otherwise hijacked the thread.

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

What I mean is to start a private message discussion between the two of you. Your dialog has otherwise hijacked the thread.

A dialogue about the DS9 writers and the Bajoran religion is fair game for another thread on the Trek boards, yes? Why are you insisting on the precise mode in which we further the discussion?

 

[Qonundrum]

I can find much to enjoy in Seasons 1 and 2. Encounter at Farpoint is very much a kind of comfort food for me and I could say the same of many episodes from those seasons. Even the worst I find watchable in a kind of 'Spock's Brain' way.

So many to choose from...

I really like:
11001001
Where No One Has Gone Before
Pen Pals
Where Silence Has Lease
The Schizoid Man
When the Bough Breaks

I hope those are deemed better than "a kind of 'Spock's Brain' way"!

Definitely a great list of episodes.

Nice to see "Bough" as well, it's refreshingly different and has its own charms.

As does "110010001".

All those episodes have moments, and ups and downs, but still have something that's above and beyond.

I think "Too Short A Season" is very underrated/overlooked, but then, I'm a fan of (most of) TNG's first two seasons. Everyone always goes on about how bad the make-up is, but if you can look beyond that it's a solid episode with a somewhat solid plot, especially for TNG's first season where things are admittedly... weird sometimes (I like weird, but not "Code Of Honor" levels of horrible, mind). Sure it kinda features the Badmiral trope but in this case it's not nearly as bad as it could get on TNG sometimes.

^^this

Hotel Royale

"The Royale", but it's another episode that grew on me and is refreshingly different despite some of its foibles.

Where we learn the Enterprise holodeck can accidentally create sapient life...and then just run it as usual for 6 years until that life creates a wife? Pass.

But Moriarty can still be only as sentient based on what the computer feeds it the conditional data. The computer was just responding via its expansive set of algorithms and function calls and there's a bug in the system that allowed full control to take place. Oops. Moriarty was never truly alive, and couldn't because that would make the Enterprise's computer even more sentient by comparison and it clearly isn't, though it's fun to romanticize such a prospect. Or, perhaps, less sentient. Sentience might be defined as "Computer sees hoo-mans controlling it. Computer want hoo-mans gone. Computer will use holodeck to make something that can do just that." instead of turning off the life support systems on a (mostly indescribable whim) because it's not above and beyond the sum of its programmed functions, but not like my previous usage of "above and beyond". That, and you don't want a computer doing that. Then again, in Startrekland, life support power - when cut - never affects gravity plating, unless it's Star Trek 6 and only with the Klingons...

 

[dupersuper]

Moriarty was never truly alive

That's certainly not what it felt like the episode is saying...

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I hope those are deemed better than "a kind of 'Spock's Brain' way"!

I quite like Spock’s Brain...

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

I quite like Spock’s Brain...

I love Spock's Brain. I don't even care who knows it.

Not at all boring, which is my primary indicator of sucky episodes. Which brings me to the first 2 seasons of TNG. A lot of the premises were interesting enough true, but the execution was so unforgivably bland and boring and really shone through on my re-watch so that my re-watches of the first two seasons is trimmed to only a handful like 4-5 in Season 1 and 6-7 for Season 2.

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

That's certainly not what it felt like the episode is saying...

I used to think like you. Until I (quite by accident) happened to watch Measure of a Man right after Ship in a Bottle. Then it hit me that maybe what the episode appears to say is not always what should be the takeaway - writers' intentions excluded from the analysis.

 

[dupersuper]

I used to think like you. Until I (quite by accident) happened to watch Measure of a Man right after Ship in a Bottle. Then it hit me that maybe what the episode appears to say is not always what should be the takeaway - writers' intentions excluded from the analysis.

This suddenly brought to mind a Northern Exposure episode...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0662407/?ref_=ttep_ep17

 

[gakelly]

The computer also created life in the awful Emergence episode.
I think they were simply cleaning out a closet, found a bunch of costumes and decided to just write a script based on those costumes.

 

[Farscape One]

That was a case of a cool idea with... strange execution.

 

[Physics of Trekkies]

Definitely not a fan of Emergence in the least.

At least the AI did not fall in love with anyone like the shuttle that fell in love with Tom Paris. Yeesh.