I haven't heard anything in response from you to support your assertions other than comments implying (essentially) "Because I know so". I have given you ideas of how I know science and scientific investigations to currently work, and can see no reasonable logic to how they'll be different in the future. You can believe these things, but they are unsupported by any evidence that I have seen.
I have the evidence of what has been shown on screen. Your "back off man, I'm a scientist" riff is getting old.
Despite you saying how we've "been shown how those sensors work", we indeed never have peeked inside Spock's scanner or had an explanation (if so, I'd like to hear which episode) of details of how analysis works.
No, but we've been TOLD what the results were, and can logically infer how they work from the results they get and the way they get them.
I really don't think I came off as telling you to "Back off". I simply asked to hear more of the logic and some concrete references taken from the rest of Trek to support your statements. Since I did not feel that you had provided anything that really supported your contentions, I asked a couple more times for specifics. Frankly, you still haven't given me anything to substantially support what you propose to counter my opinion that the writers did a poor job in portraying how Reliant's survey might have been conducted and what resulted.
What "gets old" for me is when I hear strong proclamations over and over again with only weak supporting facts that do not address the other person's specific points. As Michael Palin pointed out, simply exchanging "Yes it does" and "No it doesn't" is not an argument and I find such discussions pretty pointless.
I regret that you felt offended, annoyed, or cornered by my requests. I think that they were valid requests and was hoping I might hear an argument backed up with some "Trek facts" that might be interesting and might challenge my own understanding of the subject. It has not yet happened.
As far as me identifying my own science background, it always helps me to hear what a person's background is when two people are discussing a subject, and that is why I offered it. When there are discussions on astrophysics here (which I know little about), I might tend to put more faith in the opinion of the guy who teaches the subject vs. the neurologist (possibly) who is offering a different opinion. Sorry, but that's how I think through discussions.
-----------------------
^ Wow- - Regarding your second comment above-- I guess this is the 'game-over' signal for me! Please reread your last response. Does that statement actually make sense to you? Essentially, you are stating that 'all we need to be given is some data from an instrument, and we can then infer how that instrument works'? I can not debate that brand of curious logic, and I regret to say that I believe that it would only be a waste of my time to try.
My point is this:
Unlike our present-day aircraft carriers and subs, Trek starships are traveling around in unknown territory. Even when they ARE in somewhat familiar territory, space is still big and strange and a crew can encounter unknown phenomena almost anywhere. It makes tremendous sense to have a range of scientists onboard to deal with such circumstances. Even apart from missions primarily devoted to research (like Kirk's Enterprise's 5-year mission), Starfleet would have science teams on their large vessels. I think this fits with Roddenberry's vision of Starfleet being primarily an organization of exploration and diplomacy (but military muscle, too - if needed) and also from what we've seen in TOS (regarding the ship's science labs referenced). I am not 100% sure if canon supports this to the degree that I am outlining things, but to me, this concept makes a lot of sense.
Their studies would add to the knowledge of Starfleet and the Federation, in addition to what is gathered by ships like the Grissom, whose missions are purely scientific. It would be a waste of valuable opportunities (and also be an issue of a Starfleet vessel's safety and security) to not have these people routinely gathering and analyzing data.
Reliant is a good-sized, Miranda-class vessel. Even on a routine mission (whatever that would be!), she would have science labs populated with crew members whose expertise would cover the spectrum of science disciplines to study planets, stars, and spatial phenomena. Their proportions and numbers may vary according to the ship and its mission, but they'd be there working away in their facilities offscreen.
A problem in Trek can be that the audience wants to focus the people that they CARE about, AND keep the plot moving right along. For dramatic purpose, we show only the one or two guys on the bridge looking over readings. But even in Trek reality, IMO, it would not simply be Chekov working, but a team of professionals in one of those labs off-screen that would also be looking at a range of readings. I perceive that you do not agree with this concept, but -for me- it is foolish to think a big Miranda-class ship has just one guy on the bridge peeking through a viewer doing science. I personally chalk it up to sloppy writing coming from a poor understanding of the scientific method. They need to create drama, but this bit was just poorly thought out, IMO.
The main difference (I think) that you and I have is with what data is gathered by a ship's sensors (both routinely and in a specific type of survey) and how it is displayed. I get the idea that you believe that the ship's computer automatically digests incoming data (which is limited very narrowly to only very direct evidence of life: possibly heartbeats(?), DNA(?), brainwaves(?), B.O. (?), belching(?) etc.,) and simply pops a very simple-to-read output into the little viewer at Chekov's science station- perhaps either a "+" if there is life, and a "-" if there is not life..... like in the pregnancy tests (In this case, heaven help the poor little Hortas or any other strange, differently-based life forms that Starfleet hadn't yet encountered! ).
The environment affects organisms (cactus won't be found growing on a barrier reef) and organisms affect their environment (cyanobacteria, plankton and trees put oxygen in the atmosphere). We are currently searching for signs of water (a non-biological component of our ecosystems) on other worlds because it could be a factor that would help foster the development of life. If there is a life-form, there are probably other life-forms, perhaps an associated ecosystem, and most likely there will be tell-tail affects on (or from) the surrounding non-biological environment. From what I know about biology, if these guys (all of 'em, not just Chekov) were not looking also at geology, soil chemistry, atmospheric composition, etc., for indirect indications of biological activity, these guys are doing only about half of the research necessary. Sloppy work.
In reality, the study of life does overlap these other fields, whether you chose to accept it into your personal canon or not.
This is a tiny and silly part of a movie that I actually enjoy and it seems that you enjoy it also. I was just pointing out something that I thought could have done better in the movie. I am not sure why you hold so strongly to your view (as I admittedly am doing to mine, but I think I have better reason on my side), but the main thing is you enjoyed the movie. Live long and Prosper!
Joker offered "Internet Nerd Fight!" earlier regarding a different exchange, and I will chuckle and plead guilty here, too. I have said (probably) way too much. I'll take my calculator and get on my way.....
)
