The Pro-Diversity in Trek Lit thread
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
And unfortunately, guys like Socrates who weren't nearly so glib.
Personally as I've said somewhere else, I'd like to see a Vulcan terrorist, even though I see that too often as it is.
Corporate greed, usually. You don't want to offend anyone in the audience, and you don't want to offend your sponsors, and you don't want to plant any ideas in people's minds that make them question the corporate-dominated society that profits off of things like racism, sexism, and militarism. And if one of your TV show's writers do that -- well, we can't have that, now can we?
What's that? Oh, he's doing some science fiction show about monsters from outer space now? Well, okay, that's alright then.
Yeah, the power of sponsors in '60s TV to control and dictate content in television was even greater than it is now, because it was typical for a given show to have a single primary or exclusive sponsor. Serling was often frustrated by their arbitrary demands, like one time where he had to change a line about someone getting a drink of water because the sponsor was a beverage company that apparently considered water to be a competitor. But of course it brought down far more heat whenever Serling tried to tell a story condemning racism (which was still quite rampant in much of the country at the time) or making an anti-war statement while the country was embroiled in Vietnam.
I just read this thread. Cool. Who is Salma Hayek? I guess I have to watch TV sometime. I have not even seen much of ST Canon -- and that is interesting to know that the Canon is what is viewable on TV. Diversity is about handicapped and stigmatized people too. Relative to the Organians, we are all handicapped.
"The Politics of Terrorism" is a book that describes myths and truths of terrorism and then gives a good definition of it. It is about theatre. Intended for an audience. The acts do not have to be done if the threats and the terror happen anyway. There was a BBC program "The Power of Nightmares" which used a more critical approach to the war on terror.
War (and peace) are topics in the ST universe. Perhaps war is downplayed and peace is emphasized. "Modern Strategy" would be a good thing for people to know about as would Realist analyses of capabilities and intentions and how those are constructed and interact.
Diversity of character(s) is a good thing. Depth of character(s) is a good thing. Is it equally true that one man's science is another man's [sic] ideology? Ideology and science may sometimes be interchangeable. Do I have to be a Kuhnian to say this?
What Asimov called First Foundation (hard sciences and technologies) miss out on the Second Foundation (soft sciences and technologies). Surely good SF can ask the question of what is science anyways?
I commend Star Trek with bringing in the supernatural to scientific discussion. It is an act of brave diversity (especially to the atheistic minds). It cannot be easily dismissed. And it shall take a more than Augustinian path to address all of the issues adequately.
If science is about description, classification, experiment, explanation, and control, then, need there be any counter-controls? Control in the wrong hands could make science an instrument of terrorism and scientists into terrorists (either wittingly or unwittingly). Freedom fighters (sounding a bit too libertarian) could oppose this government sponsored terrorism. Too far fetched?
"The Politics of Terrorism" is a book that describes myths and truths of terrorism and then gives a good definition of it. It is about theatre. Intended for an audience. The acts do not have to be done if the threats and the terror happen anyway. There was a BBC program "The Power of Nightmares" which used a more critical approach to the war on terror.
War (and peace) are topics in the ST universe. Perhaps war is downplayed and peace is emphasized. "Modern Strategy" would be a good thing for people to know about as would Realist analyses of capabilities and intentions and how those are constructed and interact.
Diversity of character(s) is a good thing. Depth of character(s) is a good thing. Is it equally true that one man's science is another man's [sic] ideology? Ideology and science may sometimes be interchangeable. Do I have to be a Kuhnian to say this?
What Asimov called First Foundation (hard sciences and technologies) miss out on the Second Foundation (soft sciences and technologies). Surely good SF can ask the question of what is science anyways?
I commend Star Trek with bringing in the supernatural to scientific discussion. It is an act of brave diversity (especially to the atheistic minds). It cannot be easily dismissed. And it shall take a more than Augustinian path to address all of the issues adequately.
If science is about description, classification, experiment, explanation, and control, then, need there be any counter-controls? Control in the wrong hands could make science an instrument of terrorism and scientists into terrorists (either wittingly or unwittingly). Freedom fighters (sounding a bit too libertarian) could oppose this government sponsored terrorism. Too far fetched?
Sorry about dual posting. The book The Politics of Terrorism (3rd ed.) edited by Michael Stohl (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1988) is old enough that is is free from current issues.
The best definition of terrorism therein given is: "The purposeful act or the threat of the act of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat." (footnote deleted). p. 3.
The ten myths are:
1. Political terrorism is exclusively the activity of non-governmental actors.
2. All terrorists are madmen.
3. All terrorists are criminals.
4. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
5. All insurgent violence is political terrorism.
6. The purpose of terrorism is the production of chaos.
7. Governments always oppose nongovernmental terrorism.
8. Political terrorism is exclusively a problem relating to internal political conditions.
9. Devil theories of cause: The source of contemporary political terrorism may be found in the evil of one or two major actors.
10. Political terrorism is a strategy of futility.
You shall have to access the book to get the author's discussion.
The best definition of terrorism therein given is: "The purposeful act or the threat of the act of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat." (footnote deleted). p. 3.
The ten myths are:
1. Political terrorism is exclusively the activity of non-governmental actors.
2. All terrorists are madmen.
3. All terrorists are criminals.
4. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
5. All insurgent violence is political terrorism.
6. The purpose of terrorism is the production of chaos.
7. Governments always oppose nongovernmental terrorism.
8. Political terrorism is exclusively a problem relating to internal political conditions.
9. Devil theories of cause: The source of contemporary political terrorism may be found in the evil of one or two major actors.
10. Political terrorism is a strategy of futility.
You shall have to access the book to get the author's discussion.
Only if the "science" is being done completely wrong. If done right, it's the exact opposite of ideology. Ideology is starting out by deciding what you want to be true and then selectively interpreting the evidence to fit those beliefs. Science is starting out by gathering the evidence and formulating your conclusions based on that evidence. To the ideologue, if new evidence comes along that contradicts one's preconceptions, the evidence must be ignored or discredited. To the scientist, if new evidence comes along that contradicts one's preconceptions, and if the evidence proves sound, then the preconceptions must be modified or discarded.
Respecting diversity is good, but it's dangerously wrong to claim that beliefs derived from ignorance or willful rejection of the facts are equally as valid as conclusions derived from overwhelming evidence.
Science is already an instrument of terrorism, in the sense that bomb-making is dependent on an understanding of chemistry and electricity, their correct placement is a matter of understanding fluid dynamics, structural engineering, and the like, and so on. But that's a trivial point, because science is equally an instrument of those who fight terrorism and of those seeking alternatives to terrorism and conflict. Science is simply the attempt to understand the universe. The universe is what it is regardless of what anyone wants to believe about it. Its nature is the same for everyone who exists within it, and anyone who wants to make any headway in it, regardless of what cause they support, needs to understand how it works in order to do so. Both sides in a conflict are playing on the same field, and science is how that playing field is understood.
As I've already said, terrorism is not an ideology or an identity, simply a strategy used in support of various different ideologies or goals. It's a means to an end, rarely an end in itself. So talking about something being an "instrument of terrorism" is misguided. Rather, terrorism itself is an instrument of some particular agenda. Science can also be coopted to serve an agenda, but ideally it's agenda-free, aside from the agenda to understand how the world really works and be able to function effectively within it. (And of course, many agendas rely on the willful rejection or denial of science, as seen in creationism, global-warming denial, and the like.)
Philosophy of science can get needlessly complex it is true. It is not just a matter of prefering Kuhn over Popper (or vice versa). There is the debate between presuppositionalists (presuppositions matter) and evidentialists (evidence matters -- more). Perhaps a false dichotomy. Maybe good science has to address the control issue as it can be very political as can the unmentioned prediction issue which goes with experiment and explanation.
There are principles for good theories: parsimony (Occam's razor), falsifiability, beauty, heuristic value (generates further research), scope, perhaps verifiability, but I guess the accepted emphasis is consistency with observations or empirical validity. Along, too, with reliability of observations. Accuracy and precision are often important. But, it nevertheless seems to me that not all science is the same. Hard science and soft science and some applied sciences may be less 'scientific' in the standard sense. Perhaps it still remains to be seen. Science and religion are much closer than people in the two camps (or both or neither) may commonly wish.
I am not so sure of the ideal of universal scientific progress. Distinguishing science from ideology may not so easily be a simple dichotomy. It may sometimes even be a dilemma over which falsehoods to embrace. Religion has obviously had its failures at any semblance of universal progress. Taking the long view of science and examining our presuppositions is important. Religion often deals with the conscience -- perhaps even sometimes better than science alone.
When science examines our culture and beliefs and our political policies, it becomes much closer to religion too. Sometimes the assumption of repeatability is not possible too -- as with the study of history. It is true that the phenomenology of science has been examined quite carefully: objectivity and the naturalistic outlook are important. But an easy science-ideology split is not so easy. Am I arguing a half full half empty agument: science reliable versus science unreliable?
But I will grant that my original impression that diversity could be applied to different kinds of science (like cultures and languages) might be contestable and subject to correction. Perhaps there is only one true science though I feel somewhat uncomfortable suggesting this.
There are principles for good theories: parsimony (Occam's razor), falsifiability, beauty, heuristic value (generates further research), scope, perhaps verifiability, but I guess the accepted emphasis is consistency with observations or empirical validity. Along, too, with reliability of observations. Accuracy and precision are often important. But, it nevertheless seems to me that not all science is the same. Hard science and soft science and some applied sciences may be less 'scientific' in the standard sense. Perhaps it still remains to be seen. Science and religion are much closer than people in the two camps (or both or neither) may commonly wish.
I am not so sure of the ideal of universal scientific progress. Distinguishing science from ideology may not so easily be a simple dichotomy. It may sometimes even be a dilemma over which falsehoods to embrace. Religion has obviously had its failures at any semblance of universal progress. Taking the long view of science and examining our presuppositions is important. Religion often deals with the conscience -- perhaps even sometimes better than science alone.
When science examines our culture and beliefs and our political policies, it becomes much closer to religion too. Sometimes the assumption of repeatability is not possible too -- as with the study of history. It is true that the phenomenology of science has been examined quite carefully: objectivity and the naturalistic outlook are important. But an easy science-ideology split is not so easy. Am I arguing a half full half empty agument: science reliable versus science unreliable?
But I will grant that my original impression that diversity could be applied to different kinds of science (like cultures and languages) might be contestable and subject to correction. Perhaps there is only one true science though I feel somewhat uncomfortable suggesting this.
This sentence seems weird to me. It's a bit like saying there's only "one true writing," or "only one true photosynthesis" or "one true eating." Science is a process, not an single thing.
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
It is certainly true that no single scientist lacks biases. That's why many different scientists work competitively, to help weed out such biases that distort the accuracy of the process.
Well, let me put it this way:
If the scientific process, accurately followed, produces a well-tested, sound theory -- not hypothesis; theory -- that all the evidence supports and which no evidence contradicts, it is not a sign of dogmatism if a scientist then does not accept as scientifically valid a hypothesis that is unsupported by the evidence.
Blind denial of something in pursuit of an agenda is VERY different from not accepting something because of a lack of evidence, or accepting a different theory as more valid because of an overwhelming amount of evidence in its favour. I would submit that the "denial of creationism" isn't usually in service of an "agenda," but merely the logical, rational result of observation and evidence-gathering.
Last edited:
Science is often also about four groups. Solomon's four group design. Four groups in diagnostic testing or statistical hypothesis testing. Or measurement of brain damage and functional deficits in clinical samples. This is also about a kind of diversity.
C.E.S. Franks described (political) dissent with respect to four groups or categories (behaviours): Legal and Legitimate; Legal and Illegitimate; Illegal and Legitimate; and, Illegal and Illegitimate. Allows for more diversity.
With respect to scientific theories, I forgot the value of utility or usefulness (which may also compare to profitability). Maybe pragmatic theory of truth. The four groups in this case are: True and Useful; True and Not useful; Not true and Useful; Not true and Not useful. Some, perhaps misguided, scientists would suggest that if it is useful, then it must be true and if it is true, then it must be useful. Always need to consider four categories or groups.
There is also a distinction between a 'social stock of knowledge' and science in general. The epistemological criteria (for knowledge) are usually taught as:
(1) You believe it to be true; (2) You have adequate evidence to believe it is true; (3) It actually is true (replication?); (4) There is not an acceptable probability that it could be otherwise (this is more controversial). Science seems more uncertain and less constrained. What do we mean about diverse knowledge?
C.E.S. Franks described (political) dissent with respect to four groups or categories (behaviours): Legal and Legitimate; Legal and Illegitimate; Illegal and Legitimate; and, Illegal and Illegitimate. Allows for more diversity.
With respect to scientific theories, I forgot the value of utility or usefulness (which may also compare to profitability). Maybe pragmatic theory of truth. The four groups in this case are: True and Useful; True and Not useful; Not true and Useful; Not true and Not useful. Some, perhaps misguided, scientists would suggest that if it is useful, then it must be true and if it is true, then it must be useful. Always need to consider four categories or groups.
There is also a distinction between a 'social stock of knowledge' and science in general. The epistemological criteria (for knowledge) are usually taught as:
(1) You believe it to be true; (2) You have adequate evidence to believe it is true; (3) It actually is true (replication?); (4) There is not an acceptable probability that it could be otherwise (this is more controversial). Science seems more uncertain and less constrained. What do we mean about diverse knowledge?
I love how the Trek books are including a variety of ethnicities and orientations that the TV series' have avoided. I also especially like that more and more alien races are being included on ships, after all there aren't that many humans out there 
I am currently reading "Taking Wing" by Michael A. Martin & Andy Mangels and a strong theme of the book is 'diversity'. Much appreciated. I appreciate science though more of the arts side of things. However, I sometimes see myself as a 'fundamentalist' too.
I can entertain "special creation" and "naturalistic evolution" and "alien seeding" as well as other possible accounts of the (history) about how life got to be on earth. The idea of a civilized Christian being in the ST mythos with a very sophisticated character does seem appealing.
As for scientific diversity. Don't trust me all that much (after all my scientific credentials are somewhat limited). But do go to the following article:
"Underdetermination of Scientific Theory" (or a very similar title) in "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" available at their website.
I really do not wish to open a can of worms (I read that once opened it must always be recanned in a larger can than when it was opened as a corollary to Murphy's Law). But it seems that some diversity of scientific theory is inevitable even with identical evidence and experiential fields.
I am not trying to win the argument and lose the person. Neither should anyone else. Peaceful coexistence and even cooperation is more than possible between fundamentalists and people of all other diversities.
I can entertain "special creation" and "naturalistic evolution" and "alien seeding" as well as other possible accounts of the (history) about how life got to be on earth. The idea of a civilized Christian being in the ST mythos with a very sophisticated character does seem appealing.
As for scientific diversity. Don't trust me all that much (after all my scientific credentials are somewhat limited). But do go to the following article:
"Underdetermination of Scientific Theory" (or a very similar title) in "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" available at their website.
I really do not wish to open a can of worms (I read that once opened it must always be recanned in a larger can than when it was opened as a corollary to Murphy's Law). But it seems that some diversity of scientific theory is inevitable even with identical evidence and experiential fields.
I am not trying to win the argument and lose the person. Neither should anyone else. Peaceful coexistence and even cooperation is more than possible between fundamentalists and people of all other diversities.
I shall risk double posting about cosmogony or biogenesis or whatever. Besides naturalistic evolution, special creation, and alien seeding, you might also consider theories like emergent parallel binary search, holo-fractal continuity, or, maybe cosmic vitalism. They would have mythologies associated with each of them. Emergent parallel binary seach could be the serpent chasing its tail. I am sure that many more examples could be generated with connection to theories which allow for what is experienced (empirical reality). Just remember that it is not about one specific hypothesis but chains of them.
Those are not theories; those are hypotheses.
How can I take your criticisms of the scientific process seriously if you don't demonstrate a basic understanding of scientific vocabulary?
As I said earlier, I do not have adequate credentials as a scientist or a philosopher but do recommend that people may read "Underdetermination of Scientific Theory" from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy from their website.
As for being a 'fundamentalist' Christian, I would indicate that 'Christ' means anointed one and 'Christian' means a little Christ. Thus, Christians seek to become anointed ones. Anointed ones in the Old Testament were threefold: prophets, priests, and kings. We have eternity to achieve some of that calling.
Thus, I am reading the 'great political thinkers' associated with the 1969 edition of that book by Ebenstein among other things. I also like a book about counterfactuals and politics which I read which was co-authored by Philip Tetlock. Counterfactuals work well with science fiction of all kinds. Also important is J. S. Mill's "On Liberty" about free speech and social experiments that people who communicate on websites could do with reading. Some especially 'bad' social experiments can be avoided by virtue of imagining them with speculative fiction.
Just finished reading "Taking Wing" by Michael A. Martin & Andy Mangels (2005) which is about diversity. The Bible suggests that as far as it be possible, we should attempt to live peacefully with all people -- even those we may not like. We still may "speak the truth in love" but we coexist and even cooperate.
At risk of being overly assertive, I suggest that scientific experience does not adequately connect with only one theory. Theory is underdetermined by scientific experimentalism. Therefore, multiple sciences are possible and dynamic.
As for being a 'fundamentalist' Christian, I would indicate that 'Christ' means anointed one and 'Christian' means a little Christ. Thus, Christians seek to become anointed ones. Anointed ones in the Old Testament were threefold: prophets, priests, and kings. We have eternity to achieve some of that calling.
Thus, I am reading the 'great political thinkers' associated with the 1969 edition of that book by Ebenstein among other things. I also like a book about counterfactuals and politics which I read which was co-authored by Philip Tetlock. Counterfactuals work well with science fiction of all kinds. Also important is J. S. Mill's "On Liberty" about free speech and social experiments that people who communicate on websites could do with reading. Some especially 'bad' social experiments can be avoided by virtue of imagining them with speculative fiction.
Just finished reading "Taking Wing" by Michael A. Martin & Andy Mangels (2005) which is about diversity. The Bible suggests that as far as it be possible, we should attempt to live peacefully with all people -- even those we may not like. We still may "speak the truth in love" but we coexist and even cooperate.
At risk of being overly assertive, I suggest that scientific experience does not adequately connect with only one theory. Theory is underdetermined by scientific experimentalism. Therefore, multiple sciences are possible and dynamic.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
