Treknology and the Reality Criterion

[Pavonis]

If you want to seriously maintain this claim, then you are basically arguing that the subforum is unjustified.

What claim do you think I'm making?

So, why doesn't Bones recommend lasik surgery instead of Retinax V? Under the reality criterion (if we allow for extrapolation), it seems highly unlikely that Kirk would be limited to glasses. Why wouldn't Bones recommend something more convenient that glasses? If, however, the future is sacrosanct and unknowable, all we can do is shrug and suppose there must have been some good reason -- the game is over and we are reduced to being passive observers.

We don't know what Retinax V does. We know it's the standard therapy for myopia and/or presbyopia, and that some people are allergic to it. McCoy's recommended alternative to Retinax V for Kirk was a pair of reading glasses, antique ones at that, as Kirk has a fondness for antiques. Would every other physician recommend glasses instead of Retinax V? Are there any other alternatives - Retinax VI perhaps? Can't say.

Rather the Treknology game is one of comparing one guess about the future against our own best guess about the future.

Is that what it is? Are you sure?

...You, however, would obliterate this criterion, bringing all of our discussions to a standstill.

Me? What?? Certainly we don't lack for discussions, and I'm not trying to bring anything to a standstill.

My argument is that you reach a point where the fiction lies so far in our past that it is no longer profitable to play the game this way.

And I think the rest of us would say that Trek is not that far in our past yet.

EDIT: A Note About the Coming Singularity for All You Biomeat Puppets

Your objection was to linear extrapolation. The curve of modern technology, however, is often curve-linear (e.g., Moore's Law). If Ray Kurzweil is correct, then you are more right than you know about our inability to extrapolate future technologies! Star Trek is in many respects a linear extrapolation to future technologies. Since no one can say what exactly is on the other side of the singularity, we can have no reasonable discussion about Treknology.

I don't think Kurzweil is correct, and I don't think you can predict or foresee a singularity. I don't think a singularity is at all inevitable, as you seem to think.

In actuality, the singularity hypothesis is not that stark. It proposes a fusion of man and machine and the arrival of machine consciousness, so it does make some positive claims.

Machine-man fusion? Really?

Either way of reading the singularity (either as a true unknown, or as a mostly unknown that follow human-machine fusion and machine life), however, basically makes Star Trek steampunk(ish). Whatever the future is, it ain't likely to be analogue gauges and portable memory cards the size of a ham sandwich.

We already had a discussion about what steampunk is and what it is not. The definition is clear, albeit recently formalized, and it's not helpful in discussions for you to twist the term to your liking.

What I am saying is, if you want to make the nuclear move, I can adapt to it. I might (then again I might not) have to give up my particular critique, say that analogue gauges have no place on a starship, but consider the outcome! We would not be able to say anything reasonable about the future Trek might inhabit or reflect. ----Game Over---- I, however, could still argue for an alternative criterion that has no pretensions to knowing the actual future. I would, in effect, be the only game in town.

What's the "nuclear move"? I have no idea what that means to you.

I'm interested enough in your proposition to continue a dialogue with you, but I really have difficulty understanding your position and your proposal. I think it would help if you would give examples in other threads here, instead of detailing and pushing your idea in just one thread.

 

[YARN]

Yes, depending on who's building them. The MFDs used on modern aircraft and spacecraft are the primary/basic display method, but analog indicators are still in place for things that have to be displayed even when an LCD-type display may not be functional (i.e. in the event of a power loss or something).

This is addressed up thread. See a few posts backs where I already dealt with this.

And you, being an expert in aerospace engineering, can think of a dozen reasons why it is impractical to place analog gauges on a starship. That's perfectly understandable.

So, a little ad hominem and ad verecundiam?

Seriously, does a person NEED to have an aerospace engineering degree to talk about the universal trend of digitization of instrumentation?

Your personal assessment of plausibility, however, doesn't a technical analysis make.

I don't know about that, but your swapping object and verb does not you a Yoda make. Profound your grammatical arrangement is not!

Instead of throwing jabs at expertise, why don't you just deal with the analysis and the examples?

We've seen a few analog indicators on the Enterprise (not to mention analog controls, buttons an dials). If we take what we know about modern vehicles as a starting point, there are some plausible explanations for their presence; the more you theorize about what should be or what might be or what ELSE might be, the more complicated those explanations become, but it doesn't change the fact that the BASIC reason to use analog gauges in the digital age is that analog gauges don't become useless during a power failure.

First, see my point upthread about digital displays that don't use power. We have them now, which implies that they will only be more readily available in the future.

Second, we also know that analogue gauges are increasingly being replaced by digital gauges. There was a time when wind powered warships fought alongside and with metal hulled monsters that moved under their own power.

Third, you have failed to deal with the FIVE disadvantages I have raised to analogue gauges. Instead, you have merely raised ONE advantage (when the power fails) which was already repudiated before you even wrote this post.

This isn't reality. This is FANTASY.

A point that I have been making throughout this discussion. Congratulations on catching up.

And considering the "reality criterion" is something you made up yourself, I and pretty much everyone else here is left still asking you the question: "So what?"

LOL, and I suppose that people weren't having "sex" before someone "made up" the word. My term is not a prescription, but a description. It does NOT matter if anyone used the term before, what matters is does the term fit? Does it describe what we often do in these discussions? This isn't something I just pulled out of the air, this is a very basic interpretive activity. Walter Fisher, for example, argues that ALL human narratives are evaluated in terms of coherence and fidelity. My reality criterion is just another way of saying "fidelity."

The question, therefore, is not "So what?," but rather, in what wacky universe do you live where people don't compare stories to their own lived experience and knowledge?

Did anyone on this board ever claim otherwise?

See Pavonis upthread defending the proposition that turbo-lift doors might be made of hardened sugar. See just about any refutational post made by Timo. People around here tend to the game in terms of absolute proof. Trek is often defended on grounds that if one cannot absolutely disprove/falsify an aspect of Treknology, then Star Trek is vindicated. It results in silly things like arguing about whether a 22nd century starship would have "steam gauges." So long as we can come up with a weak plausibility argument we can justify control panels that explode every time the ship is hit by weapons fire.

My expression of a juvenile fascination with science fiction in general and Star Trek in particular, plus the desire to exchange thoughts and opinions with like-minded individuals over the internet. Also, I'm bored.

Are you here for a hugely different reason?

Ah yes, the inevitable anti-intellectual response. You are just here out of boredom and "juvenile" interest. You're too cool to take this seriously (even though you are here in the tech sub-forum making detailed responses), right? I mean, you wouldn't want someone to think you're a Trek nerd or something.

I am here for similar reasons to you, but unlike you, I am not here to pretend to be too cool when the going gets rough. This is literally the form of your argument: "Well, none of this matters anyway, so I say BOO! to your proposal." It's a pretty convenient escape hatch. If push comes to shove, you can just play the cool card and dismiss an idea for being to structured or nuanced.

In terms of "profitability" the only move to make is to stop talking altogether, since these discussions cannot and will not produce anything of objective value to anyone. We derive PERSONAL value from these discussions on a purely emotionally/intellectual level.

And isn't this enough? Why then did you say

Nobody is paying any attention to these conversations except a handful of uptight nerds on the internet and half of us aren't really paying attention anyway. Even if we find a way to reconcile all these supposed inconsistencies, guess what? A year from now half of the people who were present for that discussion will have either stopped posting or have gone into permanent lurk and six noobs will have taken their place who didn't see that thread, don't have the same interpretation or just plain don't care about forming a consensus, and round-and-round we go.

Case in point: some of us just like to feel like we're saying something terribly important to everyone else, so they put on their Philisopoher hat and post threads admonishing other posters to behave in a different "more productive way."

More ad hominem? And a little strawman in there too.

NOTE: I haven't demanded that anyone play the game my way. I have simply argued that there is another way to play the game.

Right. Which is why your "reality criterion" is just a silly bit of pedantry. If we go by the "reality criterion," the REALITY is that Star Trek is just a TV show. Any other explanation than that is just self-indulgence.

A silly bit of pedantry? Is "reality" a pedant word? Is "criterion" a word that makes you reach for your thesaurus? It's simply a label that describes common practice. You watch a science fiction film; part of how you judge the film is how well it fits your understanding of the world. You COULD do a science fiction film where helicopters fly over the surface of the moon, but it will be hard for the audience to invest, to "suspend disbelief" (don't worry this is just another silly pedant term from your POV), precisely because we know there is no atmosphere on the moon. We judge the quality of the writing based on what we know (or think we know). This is how we use the reality criterion, we use it all the time.

Of course Star Trek is self indulgence. Fiction is self-indulgence. Most people experience fiction and move on. Treknologists like to simmer in fiction and flesh it out. They want to know how warp coils might work. They want to know if any of this stuff could happen some day. They go deeper. If you don't like Treknology, then move along to another subforum.

And since self-indulgence is the only reason we're here in the first place, virtually any answer OTHER than an appeal to reality will usually be preferable.

Read the above paragraph. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Pavonis]

Seriously, does a person NEED to have an aerospace engineering degree to talk about the universal trend of digitization of instrumentation?

Well, it wouldn't hurt.

First, see my point upthread about digital displays that don't use power. We have them now, which implies that they will only be more readily available in the future.

I don't think the one follows the other.

My term is not a prescription, but a description. It does NOT matter if anyone used the term before, what matters is does the term fit? Does it describe what we often do in these discussions?

I, for one, don't think it accurately describes what is discussed in this forum.

See Pavonis upthread defending the proposition that turbo-lift doors might be made of hardened sugar.

Don't you recognize a joke when you see one? You brought up doors made of sugar; I was just playing along.

See just about any refutational post made by Timo. People around here tend to the game in terms of absolute proof. Trek is often defended on grounds that if one cannot absolutely disprove/falsify an aspect of Treknology, then Star Trek is vindicated. It results in silly things like arguing about whether a 22nd century starship would have "steam gauges." So long as we can come up with a weak plausibility argument we can justify control panels that explode every time the ship is hit by weapons fire.

Exploding consoles have already been discussed, and an electrical engineer weighed in on the subject, giving a plausible explanation for the consoles of doom.

NOTE: I haven't demanded that anyone play the game my way. I have simply argued that there is another way to play the game.

OK, there's another way to play the game. It just seems no one wants to play your way.

... We judge the quality of the writing based on what we know (or think we know). This is how we use the reality criterion, we use it all the time.

In any other fiction genre, I'd agree with you. In science fiction, though, what's "plausible" will vary among the audience members depending on their depth of scientific knowledge. For someone who isn't aware of the moon's lack of atmosphere, a helicopter flying over the lunar surface wouldn't make them bat an eye. Some of us here have broader backgrounds in science and technology than others, so we all have different thresholds for what we find "plausible" in Trek.

 

[YARN]

Well, it wouldn't hurt.

I'm not sure it would help. At any rate, I don't stand on the real-world credentials I do have when I post on anonymous forums. What's the point? There are Wiki-Phds everywhere.

What's your PhD in?

I mean, since we apparently have to earn the right to enter into these discussions, what are your qualifications? And how would you prove them?

I don't think the one follows the other.

That's not an argument. You need to offer justification for your belief (or lack therof) if you want it to have rational influence on anyone else.

I, for one, don't think it accurately describes what is discussed in this forum.

See above. Rinse and repeat.

Don't you recognize a joke when you see one? You brought up doors made of sugar; I was just playing along.

You made the joke on the 22nd and are just now letting us in on the punchline on the 27th?

Many a true word is spoken in jest and the sugar door example has a valid point -- it's not far from what we do here.

I brought up the example as a bit of a joke, but you said, that even with this example we could think of a reason if we tried hard enough. And that's precisely what posters do. They try very hard to explain away what are obviously just examples of the show aging.

Exploding consoles have already been discussed, and an electrical engineer weighed in on the subject, giving a plausible explanation for the consoles of doom.

Are you sure your not joking again? Because those exploding consoles are pretty silly.

Again: The mere possibility that you or anyone else might come up with a tortured apologia for any aging bit of Treknology, does not mean that yours should be the preferred explanation.

OK, there's another way to play the game. It just seems no one wants to play your way.

Well, if everyone already agreed with me, there would be no point in suggesting a change.

It is not uncommon for new ideas to find resistance.

If you really don't like the idea, then don't post in the thread. But don't make bad arguments and complain or protest that you are only joking when your feet are held to the fire.

In any other fiction genre, I'd agree with you. In science fiction, though, what's "plausible" will vary among the audience members depending on their depth of scientific knowledge. For someone who isn't aware of the moon's lack of atmosphere, a helicopter flying over the lunar surface wouldn't make them bat an eye.

Most people are aware that there is no atmosphere on the moon. To succeed, the film has generate suspension of disbelief for most people. As for the few who are not aware of this word of mouth gets around pretty quickly. The film would be mocked by critics and theater goers. Plausible is what is plausible to the target audience. If they don't buy it, then the story fails.

You are, however, (wittingly or not) stepping in the direction of the sort of terrain that needs to be explored.

Some of us here have broader backgrounds in science and technology than others, so we all have different thresholds for what we find "plausible" in Trek.

Some of us? All of us? Most of us? What is Sc-IQ of your average TrekBBS poster? Reading a book by Hawking or Kaku doesn't make you a science genius.

But let's suppose that our average BBS poster has a broad background in science and technology and, therefore, has a higher threshold for plausibility than other viewers. There is truth to this. Ever want to here a police officer complain? Watch a cop movie with them. They will pick apart everything that is wrong. Want to watch a doctor complain? Watch a medical drama with them (there is even a blog called Polite Dissent where an MD gripes about the medical inaccuracies on each episode of HOUSE). Watch the sci-fi movie Sunshine with a physicist and s/he will howl when they say it is minus 273 Celsius outside the ship. What this means is that our discussions here are bound to be more unfair to Star Trek as it ages. This only reinforces my point that for the purposes of our discussions, the reality criterion threatens to push us into absurdity (we've already been there for years) or into silence.

 

[Pavonis]

Well, it wouldn't hurt.

I'm not sure it would help. At any rate, I don't stand on the real-world credentials I do have when I post on anonymous forums. What's the point? There are Wiki-Phds everywhere.

What's your PhD in?

Geophysics. Rock mechanics and mineral physics, specifically. What's yours in?

I mean, since we apparently have to earn the right to enter into these discussions, what are your qualifications? And how would you prove them?

It's not about "earning" the right to participate, it's about knowing what other posters' expertise is in, so that when someone weighs in on a subject, we all know whether they're bullshitting or not. As for proving anything, well, how do we know any of the authors that post here are actually authors? Does TrekBBS have a vetting system? I don't know; if they did, would that help? Short of an authentication system, we just have to take each other at our word.

I don't think the one follows the other.

That's not an argument. You need to offer justification for your belief (or lack therof) if you want it to have rational influence on anyone else.

Well, it's not really meant to be an argument, it's my opinion. I mean, we have e-ink displays now, so they must be more common in the future? Why? Just because you find it plausible?

You made the joke on the 22nd and are just now letting us in on the punchline on the 27th?

I thought it was an obvious joke. Did you really not recognize it as a joke, or did you just not find it funny? Hey, not all my jokes are amusing, but I do think they're always recognizable as jokes.

I brought up the example as a bit of a joke, but you said, that even with this example we could think of a reason if we tried hard enough.

Right, especially if Scotty had said they're made of sugar and hadn't offered any further explanation or justification. Given what's shown and stated onscreen, do we scratch our heads and say "Oh, well, it's just a TV show"? That's no fun. From an in-universe perspective, how would we justify an oddity like sugar doors?

And that's precisely what posters do. They try very hard to explain away what are obviously just examples of the show aging.

And you object to this practice, yes?

Because those exploding consoles are pretty silly.

What part of it is silly? You don't think surge protectors can fail? You don't think an electrical engineer can know what they're talking about? You don't think an expert can offer some insight that you lack?

Again: The mere possibility that you or anyone else might come up with a tortured apologia for any aging bit of Treknology, does not mean that yours should be the preferred explanation.

Please, calling it "tortured" is melodramatic, don't you think, YARN?

If you really don't like the idea, then don't post in the thread. But don't make bad arguments and complain or protest that you are only joking when your feet are held to the fire.

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I don't freaking get it! I've tried! You're not even using examples to demonstrate, just objecting to all other explanations offered. Instead of discussing your alternative game play in this thread, why don't you use it in other threads? That'd help me understand your point of view better.

You are, however, (wittingly or not) stepping in the direction of the sort of terrain that needs to be explored.

Do tell, sensei. And if you could, cut the mysterious crap, please. Just spit it out!

Some of us? All of us? Most of us? What is Sc-IQ of your average TrekBBS poster? Reading a book by Hawking or Kaku doesn't make you a science genius.

I don't know. I've never taken a survey of the educational background of the TrekBBS membership. I know we have a few people with graduate degrees, though, in a variety of fields. I know this from my own experience around the boards, especially in the Science and Technology forum. If you want to take a survey of the members, please do so. I'd be interested in knowing some statistics about the typical TrekBBS poster.

But let's suppose that our average BBS poster has a broad background in science and technology and, therefore, has a higher threshold for plausibility than other viewers. [/B]There is truth to this. Ever want to here a police officer complain? Watch a cop movie with them. They will pick apart everything that is wrong. Want to watch a doctor complain? Watch a medical drama with them (there is even a blog called Polite Dissent where an MD gripes about the medical inaccuracies on each episode of HOUSE). Watch the sci-fi movie Sunshine with a physicist and s/he will howl when they say it is minus 273 Celsius outside the ship.

Isn't that what I said previously? That we all have different thresholds for what is plausible? As a geophysicist, watching The Core (and every other geo-disaster movie) makes me chuckle because the science is so obviously wrong, and I'm not at all surprised that physicians, lawyers and cops feel the same way about stories told about their occupations. But when a cop watches Grey's Anatomy, they don't cringe or complain, because they don't know any better. But if a cop cringes and complains about a particular detail in Grey's, because it strikes them as "implausible", even though the show's depiction is accurate, where does that leave us? Is the cop right because he didn't find it plausible? If the details are right in all particulars, shouldn't the cop concede to having been wrong once he's made aware of the facts?

What this means is that our discussions here are bound to be more unfair to Star Trek as it ages. This only reinforces my point that for the purposes of our discussions, the reality criterion threatens to push us into absurdity (we've already been there for years) or into silence.

Tell you what - I'll concede that your idea is premature (assuming I really understand it at all). Star Trek might not age well in the next fifty years, but it's not at From the Earth to the Moon levels of implausibility yet.

 

[YARN]

Geophysics. Rock mechanics and mineral physics, specifically. What's yours in?

Prove it.Until you do, I'll maintain that I have an endowed chair of "Star Trekology" at Big Time University.

As for myself, I don't stand on my credentials. I stand (or fall) on that arguments I can produce here.

It's not about "earning" the right to participate, it's about knowing what other posters' expertise is in, so that when someone weighs in on a subject, we all know whether they're bullshitting or not.

The most flagrant BSers I know have PhDs...

As for proving anything, well, how do we know any of the authors that post here are actually authors? Does TrekBBS have a vetting system? I don't know; if they did, would that help? Short of an authentication system, we just have to take each other at our word.

No, you COULD, in fact, identify who you are IRL, if you were willing to give up your anonymity (full disclosure - I won't).

You've bragged on your credentials. Prove them or take them off the table. Give me your name, your degree, the date your degree was conferred, your institution, your graduate advisor, the title of your diss, and your pubs (if any), or pipe down and enjoy the anonymity that we share here.

Well, it's not really meant to be an argument, it's my opinion. I mean, we have e-ink displays now, so they must be more common in the future? Why? Just because you find it plausible?

Well, if we're just talking opinions, in my opinion I'm right and you're wrong. Pretty cool, eh? No? Well, I didn't think so either.

As for the rest, I did NOT argue that they MUST be more common in the future.

Stay with me now...

The argument from my opposition is that it is important that gauges would provide info about systems status at the time the power went out. That is, it is in their commitment store that this information is valuable -- it is their position.
Well, if this were important, we should not that present day LCD screens can work in a case of total power failure (providing the information). So, working from the knowledge that we have the technology today, and the assumption (advanced by the League of Analogue Gauge Worshippers) that such a technology is valuable, we arrive at the conclusion, that analogue gauges would not provide a necessary advantage over digital gauges. Also, we should note the five disadvantages of analogue gauges I listed which are STILL unanswered.

I thought it was an obvious joke. Did you really not recognize it as a joke, or did you just not find it funny? Hey, not all my jokes are amusing, but I do think they're always recognizable as jokes.

You are making it easier for me to take less seriously with each successive post. In three days time I'll learn that this last post of yours was all just a simple ruse that I should have recognized.

It's too bad too, because you show flashes of goodwill.

Right, especially if Scotty had said they're made of sugar and hadn't offered any further explanation or justification. Given what's shown and stated onscreen, do we scratch our heads and say "Oh, well, it's just a TV show"? That's no fun. From an in-universe perspective, how would we justify an oddity like sugar doors?

Wait are you joking or serious now? Do I have to wait five more days to find out?

And you object to this practice, yes?

Not in all cases. Sometimes, a clever compatibilist argument is offered which is very plausible and which defuses the dilemma. In other cases, however, it is like watching Cinderella's stepsisters cut off their toes in a vain attempt to make the glass slipper fit.

What part of it is silly? You don't think surge protectors can fail? You don't think an electrical engineer can know what they're talking about? You don't think an expert can offer some insight that you lack?

The part where every time the Enterprise is hit with weapons systems they are quite familiar with (e.g., Romulans and Klingons), that their main control panels still start going off like cheap fireworks. That part.

And when the alleged engineer offers a hasty apologia that offers a fig leaf for this incongruity, that's nice as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far.

Please, calling it "tortured" is melodramatic, don't you think, YARN?

No, I don't. "Tortured" also means curvy, hard to follow, implausible.

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I don't freaking get it! I've tried! You're not even using examples to demonstrate, just objecting to all other explanations offered. Instead of discussing your alternative game play in this thread, why don't you use it in other threads? That'd help me understand your point of view better.

We already are. You are on the right path in recognizing that I am ruling out anachronisms. Under my view, for example, we would evaluate the plausibility of analogue gauges in terms of what could have been reasonable projected (or less rigorously, what an audience would have expected) in 1966-69. Lo and behold these gauges (probably) would make perfect sense. We might, for another example, seriously discuss warp drive in terms of relativity theory, but only in terms that fit the era.

Isn't that what I said previously? That we all have different thresholds for what is plausible? As a geophysicist, watching The Core (and every other geo-disaster movie) makes me chuckle because the science is so obviously wrong, and I'm not at all surprised that physicians, lawyers and cops feel the same way about stories told about their occupations.

LOL, if you really are a geophysicist I don't know if you would want to laugh or cry watching The Core.

But when a cop watches Grey's Anatomy, they don't cringe or complain, because they don't know any better. But if a cop cringes and complains about a particular detail in Grey's, because it strikes them as "implausible", even though the show's depiction is accurate, where does that leave us? Is the cop right because he didn't find it plausible? If the details are right in all particulars, shouldn't the cop concede to having been wrong once he's made aware of the facts?

A nice question. Since artworks are designed to work for audiences, I would say that suspension of disbelief requires the appearance of truth more than actual truth. And if an artist is concerned with the whole truth, then it is her job to make the truth believable.

Since the artist's job is to present a compelling story, I would be inclined to say that the artist has to be more concerned with real rather than ideal audiences and that they must be primarily concerned with the center mass of their target audience.

We do not, however, have to be concerned with pragmatics as a matter of necessity. For some purposes we might invoke an ideal audience (especially when focusing on the science-of-the-age).

Tell you what - I'll concede that your idea is premature (assuming I really understand it at all). Star Trek might not age well in the next fifty years, but it's not at From the Earth to the Moon levels of implausibility yet.

True, but TOS and TNG are definitely showing their age. And I maintain that in some instances (not all), we might be more profitably served by adjusting the reality criterion to something more local.

This is a touchy subject, but I think that when you see that this does not amount to an assault upon, but rather a defense of these artworks, and that the alternative criteria are workable, that the idea isn't so irritating.

 

[Pavonis]

The part where every time the Enterprise is hit with weapons systems they are quite familiar with (e.g., Romulans and Klingons), that their main control panels still start going off like cheap fireworks. That part.

What does familiarity have to do with it?

No, I don't. "Tortured" also means curvy, hard to follow, implausible.

Yes, I know what "tortured" means. I don't agree that any of the definitions apply. You're not having any difficulty following the explanations, are you? If you are not, then for whom is the explanation "tortuous"?

We already are. You are on the right path in recognizing that I am ruling out anachronisms. Under my view, for example, we would evaluate the plausibility of analogue gauges in terms of what could have been reasonable projected (or less rigorously, what an audience would have expected) in 1966-69. Lo and behold these gauges (probably) would make perfect sense. We might, for another example, seriously discuss warp drive in terms of relativity theory, but only in terms that fit the era.

Thank you, sensei. I see, for now.

LOL, if you really are a geophysicist I don't know if you would want to laugh or cry watching The Core.

Laugh, of course. It's hilarious!

But when a cop watches Grey's Anatomy, they don't cringe or complain, because they don't know any better. But if a cop cringes and complains about a particular detail in Grey's, because it strikes them as "implausible", even though the show's depiction is accurate, where does that leave us? Is the cop right because he didn't find it plausible? If the details are right in all particulars, shouldn't the cop concede to having been wrong once he's made aware of the facts?

A nice question. Since artworks are designed to work for audiences, I would say that suspension of disbelief requires the appearance of truth more than actual truth. And if an artist is concerned with the whole truth, then it is her job to make the truth believable.

If the artist is completely accurate and factual in the depiction, but the audience fails to find it plausible, despite it's accuracy, what then? The artist has failed because the audience is ignorant?

True, but TOS and TNG are definitely showing their age. And I maintain that in some instances (not all), we might be more profitably served by adjusting the reality criterion to something more local.

How would you quantify "profitably"? When is one explanation superior to another in your "reality criterion"? Because it still doesn't strike me as being objective. It seems to simply be what you find most plausible, based on your own knowledge and experience.

This is a touchy subject, but I think that when you see that this does not amount to an assault upon, but rather a defense of these artworks, and that the alternative criteria are workable, that the idea isn't so irritating.

Touchy? Assault? Defense? I'm not understanding why you're casting the discussion in those terms. This isn't an adversarial forum, really, despite your best attempts to turn it into a courtroom. The only thing irritating to me is your casual dismissal of everything everyone else posts here.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Seriously, does a person NEED to have an aerospace engineering degree to talk about the universal trend of digitization of instrumentation?

If you're trying to apply the "reality criterion," then yes. Otherwise it's just an argument from plausibility.

Instead of throwing jabs at expertise, why don't you just deal with the analysis and the examples?

Because you went out of your way to start this meta-thread about HOW we deal with analysis and examples.

It does NOT matter if anyone used the term before, what matters is does the term fit? Does it describe what we often do in these discussions?

As far as I can tell, it doesn't.

See Pavonis upthread defending the proposition that turbo-lift doors might be made of hardened sugar. See just about any refutational post made by Timo. People around here tend to the game in terms of absolute proof. Trek is often defended on grounds that if one cannot absolutely disprove/falsify an aspect of Treknology, then Star Trek is vindicated. It results in silly things like arguing about whether a 22nd century starship would have "steam gauges." So long as we can come up with a weak plausibility argument we can justify control panels that explode every time the ship is hit by weapons fire.

Yes, I've noticed.

So what?

Ah yes, the inevitable anti-intellectual response. You are just here out of boredom and "juvenile" interest. You're too cool to take this seriously (even though you are here in the tech sub-forum making detailed responses), right? I mean, you wouldn't want someone to think you're a Trek nerd or something.

I AM a trek nerd, which is why I'm here. What I am not is a Trek writer, which means that in the grand scheme of things our opinions and debates do not amount to a whole lot and there's no pressing reason to take them that seriously.

It's another matter when you're considering, say, fanfiction or research for a genuine writing project, but that would require still a different criterion and also involves character traits, settings and visual imagery, not just the technical aspect.

"Well, none of this matters anyway, so I say BOO! to your proposal." It's a pretty convenient escape hatch.

More like a trap door, actually. You put your soap box directly on top of it when you came in.

And isn't this enough?

Yes it is. Which leads inevitably to:

I haven't demanded that anyone play the game my way. I have simply argued that there is another way to play the game.

Yes, I've noticed. In this case, it's like going to a pickup game and suggesting that it would be better if everyone played by official NBA rules.

My response (and others responses) has been "Why would we want to do that?" You've named a bunch of technical and philosophical reasons, most often of which is that everybody "cheats" by suggesting theories that, in your opinion, don't make any sense. But will the stricter rules make the game more fun to play? And given that this is a pickup game and not something that's ever going to gain us any broader recognition, does it even make sense to insist on tightening up the rules?

you watch a science fiction film; part of how you judge the film is how well it fits your understanding of the world. You COULD do a science fiction film where helicopters fly over the surface of the moon, but it will be hard for the audience to invest, to "suspend disbelief" (don't worry this is just another silly pedant term from your POV), precisely because we know there is no atmosphere on the moon. We judge the quality of the writing based on what we know (or think we know). This is how we use the reality criterion, we use it all the time.

Except that's not reality, that's just the plausibility criterion like everyone else already uses, which whether you like it or not includes considering the possibility of altered (or made-up) laws of physics. Science fiction is FULL of things that strain believability, and we indulge ourselves by trying to think of plausible explanations for them. For example, for most of us it would actually be something of an intellectual exercise to try and explain how a helicopter would be able to fly over the surface of the moon. Whether or not those explanations are realistic is beside the point; we evaluate them on their plausibility alone, because we all know on some level that these are unofficial debates about a fictional show and there really is no right or wrong theory, just a vague consensus about what is or isn't more plausible.

You haven't really given us a compelling reason to modify that practice, which is why I think you're just being pedantic.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well, if everyone already agreed with me, there would be no point in suggesting a change.

In this case, NOBODY agrees with you.

Review the thread and what do you see? The only responses you've gotten are from people reaching out to you giving you a chance to explain your proposal more completely, just in case there IS something useful to consider in it; you've responded in every case by being a dick to everyone until they stopped posting entirely.

It is not uncommon for new ideas to find resistance.

Especially when you insult everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Terran_Empire]

As for myself, I don't stand on my credentials. I stand (or fall) on that arguments I can produce here.

Unfortunately in the real world without credentials no one is going to listen to your arguments, good or bad as they may be. Just a suggestion for you you if you ever decide to take all this energy for debating into something meaningful and constructive one day.

The most flagrant BSers I know have PhDs...

Really? The most flagrant BSers I know have far less education and a lot more time on their hands.

Also, we should note the five disadvantages of analogue gauges I listed which are STILL unanswered.

1. Digital instruments are more accurate but analog gauges are likely to be used when an operator only needs a general reading and not exact metrics. I don't care if my car is at 700RPM at idle or 723.45RPM. I just need a general reading.

2. Analog gauges are not "difficult" to read, digital instruments are just "quicker" to read. If that is an advantage, so be it but i'll remind you that when Cadillac introduced digital spedometers in their cars in the mid-90s they proved to be more trouble than they are worth and too expensive to repair for what they were supposed to measure.

And actually in a way, analog system are more friendly to an inexperienced operator. If I was sit on a bridge of the Enterprise and have a reading for engine output and it simply read "8290" I would be lost if I didn't know what that meant. However, analog gauges are almost always designed with a "red line" or an area on the gauges that denotes danger/warning that even a joe-somebody could recognize as an alert.

3. If we assume that digital equipment in the future is invunerable to wear, then so would be analog gauges made in the future. Perhaps these gauges are made so well, from the materials to design that malfunction was just as unlikely as digital malfunction? I mean we are talking about speculative fiction here.

4. Just as easily as software can be corrected, it can be corrupted. With new advances in tech we face new problems. Perhaps ship-to-ship cyber warfare (ala nuBSG) makes it practical to have analog systems as a separate contingency.

5. You can absolutely incorporate analogy technology into a network.


As for the rest of your argument about how implausible Star Trek is getting by the day, look at Stargate SG-1. Starts in the mid-90s, using uniforms and weapons that are likely not being used anymore, yet I can still enjoy it as speculative fiction because it can just as well happen with military equipment the US Air Force has as of 2012. Or even equipment we have 50 years from now.

Same with Star Trek, the concept is more important that anything else. The in-show tech just has to keep up with the real-world tech of the day so it can seem relevant but no one watches sci-fi to get a physics lesson. TOS might be outdated in small, insignificant details, but as a concept TOS is still very much plausible. You just need to update the aesthetics, and again, some small details but the mystique and appeal of concepts like FTL transportation and phaser weapons is still very much relevant for today and will likely continue to be for a while to come.

 

[YARN]

What does familiarity have to do with it?

You get familiar with the glowing red stove top and the pain sensation you get when you put your hand on the stove top. Your familiarity informs you that you probably shouldn't do that again.

Starfleet, however, is a slow learner. People are shown thrown about the bridge on a regular basis. It's not until TMP that we see seat restraints of any kind on the bridge. We've seen enough serious transporter accidents involving the Enterprise that we should realize that taking an elevator in your average building is safer than transporting to or from the Enterprise. The holodeck (a recreational device) is constantly malfunctioning and putting crew members in perilous situations.

We all know why these things happen. They are easy plot devices and dramatic embellishments. Kirk is split in two! Riker is split in two! Professor Moriarty is on the loose (again!). The reasons those displays blow up is because it is visually exciting and communicates peril much more effectively then listening to a damage reports. This is all, for the most part, acceptable under aesthetic criteria.

Under the reality criterion, however, its a bit dodgy and fans go through the looking glass when they produce apologetics that would rival those of Aquinas or Augustine to explain away exploding control consoles of death on the bridge of the Enterprise. A weak plausibility argument is produced. Content that an argument has been produced which argues negatively that it could be a reasonable phenomenon, fans (wrongly) conclude that Treknology has been vindicated. It's like people telling you that you should believe God simply because you cannot absolutely prove that God does not exist. If this were true, however, there would be no rational basis for anyone to be an atheist.

Yes, I know what "tortured" means. I don't agree that any of the definitions apply. You're not having any difficulty following the explanations, are you? If you are not, then for whom is the explanation "tortuous"?

One can follow an explanation and still conclude that it is overly elaborate, twisting and turning, with the obvious purpose of finding a plausible (real world) loophole or exception which accords with what is depicted on the screen.

If the artist is completely accurate and factual in the depiction, but the audience fails to find it plausible, despite it's accuracy, what then? The artist has failed because the audience is ignorant?

Under aesthestic criteria, yes. Sometimes the truth is not recognized when it is presented and when it is recognized it is often not popular. An artwork is designed to a job, that job is function in a certain way for an audience. If it fails to succeed with the audience, then it fails.

A more localized scientific criterion would not judge the artwork harshly if the audience did not get it, but if it contradicted or improperly exceeded the science of it's age.

How would you quantify "profitably"? When is one explanation superior to another in your "reality criterion"?

Thank you for this question. We should note, however, that the reality criterion is not mine, but that it belongs to all of us -- it's what we do when we judge narratives.

I would say alternative criteria should be considered when

1. On face, a technology is obviously out of date in our time period. This is the prima facie test. EX: Our space ship has a coal-powered engine room. This is a necessary, but not always sufficient condition, so we have to enumerate a few more conditions.

2. When the best/only arguments in favor of a technology are weak plausibility arguments. That is, arguments that do not convincingly establish the probability of the technology, but offer an unlikely, but not impossible, justification of how the technology might make sense in its context. EX: Analogue gauges as a retro styling cue or in case of a power failure.

3. When the best explanations (relative to contemporary science) we have would legislate against the technology rather than for it. When this happens, the most mature thing to do is to shrug and say, "Well, it's only fiction." But that is a game ending move. Alternative criteria could allow us to continue to consider the technology without raising the bar unreasonably high.

I don't claim that this list is exhaustive, but it's a start.

Touchy? Assault? Defense? I'm not understanding why you're casting the discussion in those terms.

Are you a geophysicist or a psychoanalyst?

This isn't an adversarial forum, really, despite your best attempts to turn it into a courtroom.

I'm happy to have a rigorous discussion. People have certainly been holding my feet to the fire. From the very start of this thread, poster have been asking hard questions, offering criticisms, and counter-arguments.

The only thing irritating to me is your casual dismissal of everything everyone else posts here.

Respect is a two-way street.

NOTE: I haven't casually dismissed anyone. People have made posts to which I have offered detailed responses.

 

[Unicron]

Review the thread and what do you see? The only responses you've gotten are from people reaching out to you giving you a chance to explain your proposal more completely, just in case there IS something useful to consider in it; you've responded in every case by being a dick to everyone until they stopped posting entirely.

Not really necessary to go there. Let's keep this on track for the good stuff, okay? (and I think perhaps there's some of it within the thread, somewhere. )

 

[YARN]

Unfortunately in the real world without credentials no one is going to listen to your arguments, good or bad as they may be.

What happened to the good old days when all you needed was an account to post in an online forum?

When did it become a prerequisite for a thread that the poster establish external credentials?

At what point did I indicate that I was trying to change things in the real world?

Just a suggestion for you you if you ever decide to take all this energy for debating into something meaningful and constructive one day.

So posting at TrekBBS is neither meaningful nor constructive?

Are you just another cool cat who is only here out of boredom?

I am getting everything I need from posting, by posting. Isn't that enough?

Really? The most flagrant BSers I know have far less education and a lot more time on their hands.

Your mileage may vary.

1. Digital instruments are more accurate

Well, I guess that counts as a point in their favor.

but analog gauges are likely to be used when an operator only needs a general reading and not exact metrics.

Which raises the question - Would a high tech, deep space, research vessel, need general readings or precise ones? Did the Apollo missions (which only traveled from Earth to the Moon) depend on precise measurements?

I don't care if my car is at 700RPM at idle or 723.45RPM. I just need a general reading.

True.

2. Analog gauges are not "difficult" to read, digital instruments are just "quicker" to read. If that is an advantage, so be it

So, if you were... ...say... in a space battle or regularly encountered dangerous anomalies, would it be better to have the quicker-to-read display?

but i'll remind you that when Cadillac introduced digital spedometers in their cars in the mid-90s they proved to be more trouble than they are worth and too expensive to repair for what they were supposed to measure.

We had digital displays way before this. And there were difficulties before this. But, these were first generation digital dashboards. The design was bad, the reliability was bad, and drivers were used to analogue gauges. Like I said, modern high tech vehicles (planes & ships) are increasingly dominated by digital displays. We've worked the bugs out.

And actually in a way, analog system are more friendly to an inexperienced operator. If I was sit on a bridge of the Enterprise and have a reading for engine output and it simply read "8290" I would be lost if I didn't know what that meant. However, analog gauges are almost always designed with a "red line" or an area on the gauges that denotes danger/warning that even a joe-somebody could recognize as an alert.

Here's the thing though. Everyone on the Enterprise is a highly trained professional. This is especially true of the bridge crew. Kirk demonstrated on several occasions that he had expert knowledge of bridge systems.

Besides this, there is no reason that a digital cannot be every bit as simple, as user friendly, as an analogue display. I mean, personal computers really took off with virtual desktop display with icons shaped like folders and waste baskets.

3. If we assume that digital equipment in the future is invunerable to wear,

Everything is vulnerable to wear. Digital displays are more robust because they do not depend on mechanical moving parts. Friction wears stuff out. And anything (like dust and grit) which gets into the works will gum things up.

then so would be analog gauges made in the future. Perhaps these gauges are made so well, from the materials to design that malfunction was just as unlikely as digital malfunction? I mean we are talking about speculative fiction here.

Even if we were to suppose that this is true, this would not be a reason to prefer analogue gauges - it would simply be the case that this is not a reason to choose against analogue gauges. By my lights, digital gauges have multiple advantages over analogue gauges -- even magical ones made of unobtanium and which do not ever wear. And, we should note, that you are spinning conjectural possibilities to leverage a weak plausibility argument.

4. Just as easily as software can be corrected, it can be corrupted. With new advances in tech we face new problems. Perhaps ship-to-ship cyber warfare (ala nuBSG) makes it practical to have analog systems as a separate contingency.

The aliens that have been powerful enough to scan the Enterprise are so out of her league, that it didn't really matter that they could access her computers. Indeed, it did not matter whether data was networked for these higher beings.

The other problem is that the Enterprise has always had a networked computer on board. Hack that system and you have all the information Starfleet had to offer. Khan didn't even had to hack it. He just had to use a computer terminal to learn everything he needed to know.

NOTE: The images displayed on the E's computer screens were horribly primitive. Can't wait to hear the plausibility argument for these.

Finally, the Enterprise D certainly repudiates the notion that Starships were evidently vulnerable to these attacks since she was fully networked with digital workstations and capable of flying herself.

5. You can absolutely incorporate analogy technology into a network.

And you can deep fry shoe leather, but that doesn't mean that it makes for a good sandwich.

As for the rest of your argument about how implausible Star Trek is getting by the day, look at Stargate SG-1. Starts in the mid-90s, using uniforms and weapons that are likely not being used anymore, yet I can still enjoy it as speculative fiction because it can just as well happen with military equipment the US Air Force has as of 2012. Or even equipment we have 50 years from now.

And I enjoy TOS and TNG with their flaws. But when I am just watching the show, we are not playing the sort of games that we play here.

 

[Terran_Empire]

What happened to the good old days when all you needed was an account to post in an online forum?

When did it become a prerequisite for a thread that the poster establish external credentials?

At what point did I indicate that I was trying to change things in the real world?

I never said anything about your rights to argue here and I didn't say that you claimed any such thing. It was just an opening jab.

So posting at TrekBBS is neither meaningful nor constructive?

Are you just another cool cat who is only here out of boredom?

I am getting everything I need from posting, by posting. Isn't that enough?

Arguing about how plausible Trek tech is in relation to our reality continuity is not the more constructive discussion I can think of putting my energy toward, alas we are all here. I am here for recreation so yes out of boredom to some extent, although I doubt i'm a "cool cat".

And fair enough.

Your mileage may vary.

How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I know you love your anonymity but level with me here.

Which raises the question - Would a high tech, deep space, research vessel, need general readings or precise ones? Did the Apollo missions (which only traveled from Earth to the Moon) depend on precise measurements?

Well, as things become more automated or "drive-by-wire" the exact calculations are left to a computer and the operator is just a variable changer. F-16 pilots don't take out graph paper and a ruler every time they change heading, they just input variables. I see no reason why even space measurements and calculations cannot be simplified as to be represented by a gauge or dial.

So, if you were... ...say... in a space battle or regularly encountered dangerous anomalies, would it be better to have the quicker-to-read display?

I think gauges would work for particular purposes, but not all purposes. Emergency systems, weapons, defenses, all that might be better represented with numbers on a digital display. Fuel levels, cabin pressure, and other less temporally urgent measurements should be represented in the most univeral way possible, just in case.

Here's the thing though. Everyone on the Enterprise is a highly trained professional. This is especially true of the bridge crew. Kirk demonstrated on several occasions that he had expert knowledge of bridge systems.

True but what is the harm of creating a system that can be vaguely understood by the medical crew, security personnel, hell even the cooks without in-depth training, you never know!

Besides this, there is no reason that a digital cannot be every bit as simple, as user friendly, as an analogue display. I mean, personal computers really took off with virtual desktop display with icons shaped like folders and waste baskets.

Jump on a friend's computer, you'll have trouble finding some programs if his interface is different from the one you are used to. Jump in your friend's car and you'll know exactly what to do. Dials and gauges are pretty universal.

Everything is vulnerable to wear. Digital displays are more robust because they do not depend on mechanical moving parts. Friction wears stuff out. And anything (like dust and grit) which gets into the works will gum things up.

At the same time they can be more vunerable to other forms of interference, like an EMP or magnetic disruption.

The aliens that have been powerful enough to scan the Enterprise are so out of her league, that it didn't really matter that they could access her computers. Indeed, it did not matter whether data was networked for these higher beings.

Tell that to any serious military. If there is a plausible contingency for a given situation, you can bet that it will be implemented.

NOTE: The images displayed on the E's computer screens were horribly primitive. Can't wait to hear the plausibility argument for these.

I think that we should update these details as needed to keep up to date but we shouldn't disregard Star Trek as a whole over a few lame 1960's props.

And I enjoy TOS and TNG with their flaws. But when I am just watching the show, we are not playing the sort of games that we play here.

YARN, there are many instance of humans using previously regarded as "obsolete" tech over it's successor technology because it is simply more practical. Turboprop and rotary engines should have be completely replaced by Jet planes by now right? Alas some age old technology still has its uses.

We could very well use tablets in the 24th century because their size is a perfect ergonomic match for human fingers and hands, for instance.

 

[Pavonis]

What does familiarity have to do with it?

You get familiar with the glowing red stove top and the pain sensation you get when you put your hand on the stove top. Your familiarity informs you that you probably shouldn't do that again.

OK, how is this point related to consoles exploding during battle? Should your reality criterion take precedence over your aesthetic criterion?

A more localized scientific criterion would not judge the artwork harshly if the audience did not get it, but if it contradicted or improperly exceeded the science of it's age.

Contradicted? Improperly exceeded? How are you to judge when the artwork has done these things? One would have to have a background in science and the history of science to make that judgment.

1. On face, a technology is obviously out of date in our time period. This is the prima facie test. EX: Our space ship has a coal-powered engine room. This is a necessary, but not always sufficient condition, so we have to enumerate a few more conditions.

So, 19th century science fiction stories meet this criterion. Star Trek doesn't, though.

2. When the best/only arguments in favor of a technology are weak plausibility arguments. That is, arguments that do not convincingly establish the probability of the technology, but offer an unlikely, but not impossible, justification of how the technology might make sense in its context. EX: Analogue gauges as a retro styling cue or in case of a power failure.

How do we establish the probability of a technology making sense in context? What's the threshold for convincing?

3. When the best explanations (relative to contemporary science) we have would legislate against the technology rather than for it. When this happens, the most mature thing to do is to shrug and say, "Well, it's only fiction." But that is a game ending move. Alternative criteria could allow us to continue to consider the technology without raising the bar unreasonably high.

Again, one would have to have a background in science and history to determine whether this criterion would be met. By contemporary science, do you mean the research that was being conducted at the time, or the level of scientific knowledge that was held by the public at the time? They are, after all, two wildly different levels of knowledge.

Are you a geophysicist or a psychoanalyst?

Still a geophysicist. I take it you've never really been psychoanalyzed? I assure you, I wasn't even trying to psychoanalyze you!

Respect is a two-way street.

Yes, and if you're not feeling respected, well, I'm not feeling it either.

So posting at TrekBBS is neither meaningful nor constructive?

Meaningful? No, not really. Constructive? Mezza mezza.

 

[YARN]

OK, how is this point related to consoles exploding during battle?

If every time you take weapons fire from Klingons and Romulans, the most important instrumentation and control panels explode, you should probably invest in better surge protectors.

Should your reality criterion take precedence over your aesthetic criterion?

The reality criterion is not mine. Aesthetic criteria are not my private property either.

This has already been answered upthread.

SContradicted? Improperly exceeded? How are you to judge when the artwork has done these things? One would have to have a background in science and the history of science to make that judgment.

Or perhaps read Discover magazine, read a few books, have some productive conversations, etc.

So, 19th century science fiction stories meet this criterion. Star Trek doesn't, though.

Don't confuse with an example under criterion for the criterion itself. The example was intentionally positioned to be noncontroversial.

If you are willing to admit that some Star Treknologies are, at a glance, out-of-date, then this preliminary criterion is met. It does NOT mean game, set, and match, but it means the burden of proof is on the one who would argue that it is not out-of-date; it is an indicator that the reality criterion may not be appropriate.

How do we establish the probability of a technology making sense in context? What's the threshold for convincing?

The threshold is whether a reasonable person of goodwill would assent. In the particulars this has to be reasoned out on a case-by-case basis. Here's a clue, however. If the people in arguing in favor of the technology are only arguing in favor of plausibility rather than probability (i.e., the "You can't absolutely disprove it" argument), then this condition has probably been met.

Again, one would have to have a background in science and history to determine whether this criterion would be met.

No deep back ground is required. People from all walks debate Star Treknology on these forums and at other forums.

By contemporary science, do you mean the research that was being conducted at the time, or the level of scientific knowledge that was held by the public at the time?

Relative to the people asking the questions. If it is us, we're talking the science of 2012.

Those who invoke the reality criterion hope to compare the artwork to our best understanding of reality. When you watch a film and think "Is that really possible?", you are not pondering whether it is possible according to popular understanding, but whether in fact it could happen in reality (regardless of popular belief). It's not an intentionally lay criterion (although in the hands of a group of laymen, the most one will get is lay understanding).

if you're not feeling respected, well, I'm not feeling it either.

I respect you as a human being. I respect that you appear to have asked some sincere questions. I neither respect nor disrespect your alleged credentials. I think the greatest respect I can pay to you is to be direct and honest.

 

[miggo]

YARN is right 100%,

 

[Pavonis]

If every time you take weapons fire from Klingons and Romulans, the most important instrumentation and control panels explode, you should probably invest in better surge protectors.

Even the best surge protectors will fail at some point.

Contradicted? Improperly exceeded? How are you to judge when the artwork has done these things? One would have to have a background in science and the history of science to make that judgment.

...Or perhaps read Discover magazine, read a few books, have some productive conversations, etc.

My only reply has already been supplied by you, YARN.

Reading a book by Hawking or Kaku doesn't make you a science genius.

If you are willing to admit that some Star Treknologies are, at a glance, out-of-date, then this preliminary criterion is met. It does NOT mean game, set, and match, but it means the burden of proof is on the one who would argue that it is not out-of-date; it is an indicator that the reality criterion may not be appropriate.

Without me going back through all your other posts, could you supply here a list of the technologies depicted in Trek that you consider to be out-of-date at a glance?

The threshold is whether a reasonable person of goodwill would assent. In the particulars this has to be reasoned out on a case-by-case basis. Here's a clue, however. If the people in arguing in favor of the technology are only arguing in favor of plausibility rather than probability (i.e., the "You can't absolutely disprove it" argument), then this condition has probably been met.

Arguing by plausibility is more fun, though. Arguing by probability is too rigorous and would exclude some posters from the fun! We don't want that.

No deep back ground is required. People from all walks debate Star Treknology on these forums and at other forums.

That's very true, we have a wide variety of backgrounds represented here. And when they speak up, someone says

... pipe down and enjoy the anonymity that we share here.

I respect you as a human being. I respect that you appear to have asked some sincere questions. I neither respect nor disrespect your alleged credentials. I think the greatest respect I can pay to you is to be direct and honest.

Shouldn't that be "alleged" human being? I can't prove I'm not a sophisticated chatbot. If you respect me enough to take me at my word that I am human, why not respect me enough to believe everything else I say? Have I given you any reason to doubt my honesty?

 

[YARN]

Even the best surge protectors will fail at some point.

And the best surge protectors on the Enterprise fail regularly when they take weapons fire from known enemies using the same weapons they use.

Contradicted? Improperly exceeded? How are you to judge when the artwork has done these things? One would have to have a background in science and the history of science to make that judgment.

My only reply has already been supplied by you, YARN.

In that case, you have misapprehended what I supplied.

It is not my contention that one needs to have an extensive background in science and history to enter the discussions we have here. I'm not the one standing on my PhD in this thread.

One does not have to be a science genius to post here, that's my point. What one can be (so as to deploy my criterion), however, is reasonably literate about science.

Sure you don't want to reconsider your "only reply"?

Without me going back through all your other posts, could you supply here a list of the technologies depicted in Trek that you consider to be out-of-date at a glance?

I am not here to provide exhaustive lists, only examples. Pretending that I did have the God list of these things would only derail the thread even more. Moreover, I am not your secretary. I have provided detailed replies to your inquiries already.

Arguing by plausibility is more fun, though. Arguing by probability is too rigorous and would exclude some posters from the fun! We don't want that.

Then keep doing it. I think the post Timo offers about mainframe computers is a perfect example of how the plausibility game is too easy. He can serve aces all day, because you can always construct a plausibility argument in favor of a Treknology. If, however, you like picking the low hanging fruit, go right ahead.

That's very true, we have a wide variety of backgrounds represented here. And when they speak up, someone says ... pipe down and enjoy the anonymity that we share here.

Under certain conditions, yes. When it is suggested to me that the price of admission for entering into a discussion on this forum is a specialized terminal degree, then yes, the answer is stop being elitist and enjoy the democracy of anonymity.

Mention what you know, especially when it is useful, but don't talk down to other posters. I don't stand on my credentials here. I stand or fall on my arguments. If that isn't good enough then TrekBBS should have an entrance exam for new applicants, complete with a review of college transcripts.

When you jab at me "it wouldn't hurt" complete with an inane emoticon, you are basically begging off dealing with the analysis I have offered on grounds that I must prove that I have the right to say it.

Shouldn't that be "alleged" human being? I can't prove I'm not a sophisticated chatbot. If you respect me enough to take me at my word that I am human, why not respect me enough to believe everything else I say? Have I given you any reason to doubt my honesty?

It is much more likely that you are a person and not a chat bot. On the other hand, there are a lot of real people who lie on the internet.

At any rate, I have never claimed that you don't have your alleged degree. I think the price of proof would be too high for your own privacy. I don't really want the proof, but in the absence of that proof any claims about your "real world" identity have to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Unicron]

If you are willing to admit that some Star Treknologies are, at a glance, out-of-date, then this preliminary criterion is met. It does NOT mean game, set, and match, but it means the burden of proof is on the one who would argue that it is not out-of-date; it is an indicator that the reality criterion may not be appropriate.

Couldn't one argue that the concept of "out of date" is somewhat relative and flexible, though? As an example, I've found it amusing how some Transformers fans think that if Soundwave were to reappear, in a form based on his original look, he'd only be realistic if he turned into a modern tool like an iPod or a CD player. He couldn't use his original form because tapes are more primitive and relatively obsolete.

My question would be, why would such an example have to be true? It wouldn't really matter much if Soundwave's G1 form might be considered out of date in terms of "cutting edge," because he's not going to use Earth technology anyway and because people do still buy and use older electronics that have tape decks and the like. That may eventually change and people will stop buying them except as cool antiques, but I don't think we're quite there yet personally.