Which doesn't mean that we should expect a fantasy epic. "It's fiction, so nothing matters" is needlessly reductionist. I think Trek, more than Star Wars, can be expected to be somewhat grounded. And again, we each have our thresholds.
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x04 - "Memento Mori"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Oh, I don't want them to keep mistaking DNA for cells or say the galaxy has only 10 billion stars but there comes a point where one needs to take off the Carl Sagan hat and put on the Rod Serling hat and just have fun.
What is this "fun" you speak of? Could you give me a technical definition?
The sensation of enjoying an action-adventure show without the need to pull out a textbook to fact-check something or send a strongly worded Tweet to the producers about how they've ruined a generation of schoolkids with lies. 
On a TV show? Easy money.
Is is though? There are a lot of Dr. Frankenstein and his Monsters in Star Trek. Especially in TOS and when dealing with A.I.s. "SCIENCE AHEAD. APPROACH WITH CAUTION!"
Dr. Richard Daystrom was a clearly unstable man who created an AI system that killed hundreds of Starfleet officers on five different starships and they went on to name the Federation's most important technology research institute after him. So...yeah.
Daystrom, Soong, Darwin Station, Korby, Dr. Adams, and those are the ones I can recall off the top of my head for Trek.
Trek really isn't about science so much as it is about celebrating differences and working together.
Fully agreed. But as a fan of astronomy it's easy for me to be slightly annoyed when they get the easy stuff wrong.
I use to get annoyed by that.
But, then, I realized, if they get it wrong and I can easily check it then it's a win for me. It keeps my research and enjoyment of astronomy going. So, I can't get annoyed when I just end up devoting time to a favorite hobby anyway.
But, then, I realized, if they get it wrong and I can easily check it then it's a win for me. It keeps my research and enjoyment of astronomy going. So, I can't get annoyed when I just end up devoting time to a favorite hobby anyway.
Which are examples I pointed out. Dr. Crusher transposing DNA with cellular bodies and someone getting the number of stars in the galaxy wrong. Those are things that do annoy me. But the fictional science of Trek(warp speeds, transporters, how fast a photon torpedo travels during a battle, etc.) are flexible since they're just beholden to the story needs anyways and not something you can test in a lab here in real life America to see actual results. I'm a fan of Trek for the adventure and for the messages, not to get ready for a pop quiz in science class.
Shows the class a Trek episode and announces, "Yes, this will be on the quiz."
"Dammit, Eddie, you get 100's on all these Trek quizzes. Nerd."
Wait until you get to third period philosophy and have to solve "The Tuvix Problem".
I don't know from science. If they can have sound in space without air, move ships at the speed of plot and communicate vast differences until they can't...well, as long as it's not a boring story and they don't have people doing spacewalks without some kind of EVA wear, I'm good.
That's okay. I'll just split the difference with the teacher.
Prof. Janeway approves.
"Delete the exam."
Great movie!Captain Bateson agrees.
I was half expecting Ortegas to quip “Five degrees down bubble: aye aye, sir.”
precisely.
I believe the term is "dramatic convenience."