Treknology and the Reality Criterion

[Pavonis]

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

If it's hit hard enough, often enough, it's going to fail eventually. Doesn't matter if you're familiar with the weapons or not.

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"?

What is or is not perceived as plausible varies with members' scientific literacy. If an expert says that an example of treknology is plausible, why should a layman ignore the expert?

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.

OK, I don't need an exhaustive list. How about saying that, in addition to analog gauges, what else strikes you as out-of-date? I remember reading you objected to the presence of crew on the Enterprise as an anachronism, that not having the defense systems automated struck you as implausible, things like that. You must have quite the list of objections, I imagine.

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.

What's wrong with easy? Posting here isn't my day job, so I have no interest in making it too challenging. Amusement and stimulation are what I get from posting here; I have no problems with sticking to the low hanging fruit.

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.

I told you, it's not the price of admission. You don't have to earn the right to post. But does it hurt you to listen to people who know more about particular subjects than you? You asked me what my PhD was in - were you being sarcastic when you asked? Even if you were, all I could do was answer honestly, which I did.

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.

I wasn't talking down to you. If anything, I think there's a great deal of condescension from you towards everyone else that posts here.

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.

No, I was trying to say that if an aerospace engineer weighs in on the subject of aerospace engineering, it's a good idea to pay attention. I have no idea what your background is, because you won't share. If it's aerospace engineering, though, I'd definitely listen to you if were to discuss the topic.

 

[YARN]

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.

I am not familiar with Transformers lore, but my understanding was that they (the robots) were trying to blend in as seamlessly as possible. Their non-robot form was supposed to be camouflage. If that is the purpose, then you wouldn't want to stand out, right? For example, you wouldn't want to appear to Victrola record player as a transformer, because you would stand out as a curiosity.

Now if I saw a micro-cassette recorder in an office, I wouldn't think much of it. It would pass the prima facie test that a robot-in-hiding would need to pass. Consequently, it would also pass the narrative prima facie test. The cutting question, however, is whether the target audience for these films (kids) would be off-put or confused by (from their perspective) this old technology. If the target audience no longer recognizes the robot's disguise form as a useful everyday object hiding in plain sight, then there would be some trouble (I have this amusing image in my head of robots that disguise themselves as muskets, Edsels, back yard fire pits, analogue TV antennas that used to dominate the roofs of homes like masts on ships, etc.).

It might be better, perhaps, if the robot looked like an IPad, but ironically, those things will probably have a much shorter product cycle life than micro-cassette recorders.

This is a pretty good borderline case. At the present time, it seems to me that it would be acceptable if a robot turned into a micro-cassette recorder. At least, it isn't so out of whack that I would say that it definitely fails the prima facie test. As you said, people are still using these devices, and these robots are supposed to pretend to fit in amongst today's technology.

Analogue gauges, on the other hand, to visit the persistent example in this thread, look dated. If you got into a plane that had no visible digital gauges and the only gauges you could see were analogue, you wouldn't be wrong to suspect that you were on an old plane. The problem for Trek -- unlike the Transformers -- is that it is not trying to pass inspection for 2012, but rather 2212 and beyond. The idea of analogue gauges that far in the future would be as odd as micro-cassette recorders in regular use that far into the future.

The sad thing for science fiction is that nothing ages faster than the future.

My goal is to reset the bar so it is neither too high (the harsh reality of change) nor too low (saving Trek on grounds of bare possibility, ending the possibility of falsification, and as a result, productive discourse). I don't want to just shrug and say, "Well, it's only a show" (although this is the sanest response) and I don't want to end the possibility of falsification on the grounds that anything could happen in the future.

I'm not sure that the criteria I have proposed are the answer, but I think it is worth considering how to keep the game going as the years stretch into decades. TOS and TNG are already dated.

 

[blssdwlf]

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.

That's an interesting line of thinking. I see no reason why Soundwave couldn't appear as his G1 form in our equivalent timeframe of 2012 since we have precedences of Bumblebee masquerading as an old-school Camaro and Jetfire a museum piece SR-71.

Personally, I think that the "universes" that the various incarnations of Trek operates in are not exactly like our "reality" and at best we can only describe what we're shown and come to conclusions that fit that universe's reality even if they defy our "reality", IMHO. Like comic books.

 

[Gary7]

Science fiction is just that. Fiction. Authors have to build it up from real world facts and science in order to make it believable, or it becomes just pure "magic" and "fantasy", taken as such. But it's still make believe, no matter how much real science it is based on.

And so, older incarnations of Star Trek will certainly be disrupted by advances in real science as research progresses. Things proposed in older fiction will look less and less plausible. But you recognize it for what it is. I don't see any profit from criticizing it. How could they have possibly known and done differently?

As for the pseudo-science they base their technobabble on, it does spring from reality. But where it goes from there is up for grabs and really hard to criticize. Treknologists get all caught up in consistency and trying to make a "complete science" out of Star Trek, but it's a hollow pursuit that bears little fruit. I find it more interesting to explore the irrational or mistaken decisions, when other choices could have been made that don't require concocting some kind of assumptions based on examples of fictional science.

Personally, I think that the "universes" that the various incarnations of Trek operates in are not exactly like our "reality" and at best we can only describe what we're shown and come to conclusions that fit that universe's reality even if they defy our "reality", IMHO. Like comic books.

Very well said. Sums it all up quite nicely.

 

[sojourner]

"Let it go, Indiana"

 

[YARN]

Science fiction is just that. Fiction. Authors have to build it up from real world facts and science in order to make it believable, or it becomes just pure "magic" and "fantasy", taken as such. But it's still make believe, no matter how much real science it is based on.

I don't think anyone contests this particular point.

If we take your point rather literally, we might ask what proper purpose there really is for this subforum.

And so, older incarnations of Star Trek will certainly be disrupted by advances in real science as research progresses.

Old-Trek via canon is connected with later-Trek. Hence, what was true of Trek in 1967 is true history of Trek in in 1997. Canon infects later Trek stories with the commitment to the notion that this is all (somehow) in the same universe. If we insist for Trek to be a unity, then all of Trek is disrupted as OLD-Trek ages.

Things proposed in older fiction will look less and less plausible. But you recognize it for what it is. I don't see any profit from criticizing it. How could they have possibly known and done differently?

And this is why I propose a gentler criterion.

 

[blssdwlf]

Old-Trek via canon is connected with later-Trek. Hence, what was true of Trek in 1967 is true history of Trek in in 1997. Canon infects later Trek stories with the commitment to the notion that this is all (somehow) in the same universe. If we insist for Trek to be a unity, then all of Trek is disrupted as OLD-Trek ages.

But what if later-Trek was not exactly connected with old-Trek? Later-Treks portray two different endings for James Kirk. One where he fell to his death and the other surviving past Scotty's crash on the Dyson Sphere.

That is at least 2 different parallel universes, IMHO

 

[YARN]

Old-Trek via canon is connected with later-Trek. Hence, what was true of Trek in 1967 is true history of Trek in in 1997. Canon infects later Trek stories with the commitment to the notion that this is all (somehow) in the same universe. If we insist for Trek to be a unity, then all of Trek is disrupted as OLD-Trek ages.

But what if later-Trek was not exactly connected with old-Trek? Later-Treks portray two different endings for James Kirk. One where he fell to his death and the other surviving past Scotty's crash on the Dyson Sphere.

That is at least 2 different parallel universes, IMHO

The universe can abide an apparent contradiction, just not an actual one.

Fans have worked out, with theological zeal, rules for what counts as canon, what evidence to prefer, and what evidence to ignore, and how to interpret evidence.

There are not two facts of the matter. Either we have to treat Scotty in Relics as offering an unreliable report (he's old and may be a bit scrambled after being stuck in a transporter buffer for several decades) or we have to ignore certain features of Generations.

Even if the universe is a multiverse, it's still "the universe" (i.e., everything that is), and it still does not entertain contradictions. With a multiverse it is not the same Captain Kirk or Scotty. Kirk A is sucked into Nexus. Kirk B apparently is not.

What matters for our conversation, however, is that the relevant particulars of Treknology are intact in these different worlds. When the DS9 returns to the age to Tribbles, for example, we see the same Trek-Tech that we saw in TOS. We've seen holodeck simulations of previous iterations of the Enterprise. And it is old Treknology.

Star Trek writers have worked very hard to maintain connections between the old and the new.

The multiverse we've been shown is one in which there is a continuity of technology from TOS onward. We've seen some alternate timelines, but in each timeline the Technology of TOS era is connected to technology of the TNG era and beyond.

So even if we buy your premise that the Trek canon is a multiverse, we are still stuck with the problem of "infection."

But is Trek canon a multiverse? This does not appear to be the preferred answer of writers or fans. The preferred answer, for example, to Scotty's remark appears to be that Scotty was mistaken. We've seen an occasional mirror universe, but we always return to the main universe at the end.

Indeed, it is SUCH a big deal that all these stories somehow take place in the same universe that even the JJ Abrams reboot of Star Trek had to offer the fig leaf of being connected to the same universe we've known and loved for decades. Leonard Nimoy himself, none other than Spock Prime, had to hand the baton to the new kids signaling continuity - well it's different, but it's different because of events that take place in the original universe. Think of how many bizarre apologetic answers were offered to angry fans:

"No, the prime universe is still there. We did not negate it! It's just that this universe runs parallel to it."

How baffling to assure people that a fictional universe is "still there" and that your old DVDs are still somehow part of a valid "historical record" of its events.

To change Trek, they had to convince the fans that it was all nevertheless (somehow) still the same. That's how much continuity matters to the Trek community (makers and consumers).

 

[blssdwlf]

We can still account for the apparent similarity in look of the different eras by treating each TV series and the separate movie series as their own parallel universes with similar histories but not necessarily identical.

In TNG, Kirk survived past Scotty's marooning on the Dyson Sphere. In the TNG Movies, Kirk died on the Ent-B.

In DS9's "Trials and Tribblations", the DS9 crew simply traveled back in time in their own universe - not TOS's universe.

The point is that what is true history in old Trek might not be true history in later Trek.

Also for all we know, JJ Abram's Trek universe could have shown up as one of the Enterprise-D's parked in the field shown from TNG's "Parallels" (or not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ST-TNG_Parallels.jpg

One more thing - why not treat Trek Tech by the individual TV and Movie series rather than as a whole? It would work like the comics in how DC has their different multiverse worlds aka eras. Even TrekBBS does this to some extent by giving each series their own forum.

 

[YARN]

We can still account for the apparent similarity in look of the different eras by treating each TV series and the separate movie series as their own parallel universes with similar histories but not necessarily identical.

In TNG, Kirk survived past Scotty's marooning on the Dyson Sphere. In the TNG Movies, Kirk died on the Ent-B.

I don't know that people would go in for altering the human history of events - canon seems to be most acutely felt in preserving the continuity of human identity and presence in these stories. That is, it seems to matter to us more that it's, in some sense, the same James T. Kirk (TOS) that Picard occasionally talks about (TNG) than that the date of a battle is retconned or that a technology is quietly updated.

I do agree that the solution to the problem involves segmenting canon more than present norms allow for. This is, in fact, part of what I've proposed in this thread. So, I can dig it.

One more thing - why not treat Trek Tech by the individual TV and Movie series rather than as a whole? It would work like the comics in how DC has their different multiverse worlds aka eras. Even TrekBBS does this to some extent by giving each series their own forum.

So far as Treknology goes, I agree entirely.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

One thing to consider is that Star Trek is subjected to the reality test that it is primarily because of its own pretenses at being grounded in real science. Arguably it was at its best in TMP, but it's been all down hill from there, with increasingly dubious results.

I mention this because this situation is likely to change in the JJ verse, which so far appears to be using its technobabble very sparingly and exhibits a "keep it simple, stupid" attitude towards what little IS present. We could, in that case, feel free to deal with Trek Tech the same way we would deal with any other sci-fi franchise, without hugely overthinking it or trying to make sense of it all.

But that's not quite as fun.