Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Volumetric Additions - NX and DS9
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: [qb]You'd make a lousy philosopher, Guardian.[/qb][/QUOTE]No, I'm a quite good one, actually. [QUOTE]You might want to invest in a few logic classes. :p [/QUOTE]Already did. They generally only told me what I already knew. If you do not see the difference between Gothos's 29th Century thing as "out of whack" (or Voyager "out of whack"edness, as another example) compared to the lone canon data point we have being disputed in the absence of any other valid data, then you might wish to take your own advice. [QUOTE]The point in analyzing canon is that everything in episodes might be "canon", but it's not necessarily [i]factual[/i].[/QUOTE]If we are operating under the basis of the canon policy, then that is in fact what we should accept. As my page is written in that regard, as noted quite plainly in my site's canon page, then there is nothing else to discuss on the matter in regards to my page. Now, just as a fan, yeah, I have certain opinions that don't correspond with the canon presentation. However, I'm not going to claim that my opinions are right and the canon is wrong when operating under the "basis of canon" position. That is changing the rules in the middle of the game. One of the hallmarks of philosophy, incidentally, is being able to play if-then games properly, following the rules set by the axioms and premises and understanding the world they create. [b]If[/b] we accept the canon as the basis of the Trek "reality", [b]then[/b] what are the facts? The fact is that the Enterprise weighs nearly a million gross tons. [b]If[/b] we do not accept the canon as the basis of the Trek "reality", [b]then[/b] what are the facts? The Enterprise weighs either 200,000 [b]or[/b] nearly a million tons. [b]Since[/b] they wrote the latter during an early first season episode (airing less than a month after The Man Trap), at which time we cannot expect them to have utterly forgotten the writer's bible, [b]then[/b] it makes little sense to conclude that they were simply wrong. It is more likely that they changed it intentionally. If it makes me a poor philosopher to be able to play in a dreamed-up world logically, then I question your criteria, not my ability. [QUOTE]A premise (aka a point of data) must not create a contradiction with the weighted majority of other premises in the canon. If a premise creates a contradiction with other premises, then one of them has to be ignored. Contradictions can't be tolerated.[/QUOTE]Your statements above have nothing to do with the million ton figure, because there are no other data points regarding the mass of the TOS 1701 in the canon. This is, incidentally, what I've been saying. [QUOTE]Now, of course this all depends on how you want to interpret what is factual in the entirety of the [i]Star Trek[/i] universe. However, the point is to choose what is true such that as many points as possible may be retained.[/QUOTE]This is invalid. Retaining all data is not necessary, and is oftentimes fatal to one's hypothesizing. If I want to gather up data points to make a scientific hypothesis, why would I include the Bible or acknowledged fictional writings as primary, highly-weighted sources? Naturally, I wouldn't. I would aim toward rigor. That's why there's a canon policy in the first place. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Don't you see that you're taking the writer's guide over the canon?[/QUOTE]So? Don't tell me you believe that they really traveled at infinite speed in "Threshold"... I'd call that a perfect example of taking the writer's guide over the actual episodes.[/QUOTE]As a fan, I agree. But for the purposes of canon, I do not. Sucky as it may be, going warp ten (or what they thought was warp ten) causes wacky biological effects that will be poorly explained as "evolution" by holographic doctors. Of course, there is a contradiction of this episode with "WNOHGB", in which passing warp ten produces none of the effects described. As a result, we have an exit route. Thus, as both a fan and a researcher of the canon, I can write off "Threshold"'s claims about its own plot and understand them in some other way. [QUOTE]My point is that in certain circumstances where contradictions or scientific fallacies are clearly and unarguably shown, it's acceptable to ignore that specific data.[/QUOTE]Yes, but the trick is how it is done. Take that Aridas guy, for instance, who writes off wholesale any newer canon which doesn't agree with his non-canon. That is, in principle, the exact same maneuver being made by those who want to write off the million tons in favor of less than 200,000. [QUOTE]Or do you also believe that the [i]Enterprise[/i]-A was really 78 decks tall, because William Shatner pulled the sign out of his ass and ignored the original intentions of the designers?[/QUOTE]Prime example. As given on my very page, we have clear canon evidence on the size of the Enterprise that contradicts the 78 deck value. This is not the same as having nothing contradicting it . . . if nothing did, then operating as a canon researcher I would have to accept that size. That's how it works. [QUOTE]As I see it, if the data coincides with your existing calculations, I don't see why you [i]wouldn't[/i] want to include it, simply to back up your initial work... [/QUOTE]No, because accepting that value is contradictory to known canon values. To include it would be nonsense. [QUOTE]And when that data is thrown out, you usually need something to replace it -- so you go with the next best thing, which is the Encyclopedia and the writer's guides.[/QUOTE]If you've thrown out canon data without other canon data to replace it, then you're not dealing with Star Trek anymore but your own preferences. That's cool for a fan to do if they so choose, but they can't expect to convince a canon researcher that he's wrong for not doing so. [QUOTE]Take a measurement that's obviously pulled out of the ass with a scientifically ludicrous unit of measure[/QUOTE]Hey, I don't like the US's avoidance of the metric system any more than anyone else, but the Imperial system is hardly scientifically ludicrous . . . it's worked pretty well for a good long while. [QUOTE]and you compare that to a carefully calculated number determined by the designer of the starship (Voyager). It's obvious what's more acceptable.[/QUOTE]Both. You don't think any thought was applied to the million tons figure? On what basis do you say so? And you know, all Sternbach did was to apply Apollo capsule density figures to the ships of Starfleet, with some upward and downward motion here and there. Ask yourself if using primitive and paper-hulled ships as a basis of comparison is more acceptable than giving grand starships that have to take megaton-level hits hulls and superstructures sufficiently dense to withstand them. [QUOTE]Now, I'm not saying you should just toss out the "gross tons" comment -- but I [b]am[/b] saying that you need to include the other data from the writer's guide.[/QUOTE]I will not yield. I've given you the data, and the range includes values close to what you want. If you don't wish to accept the canon value or those values based on it, then don't. All I was trying to do was share some cool stuff based on research of the canon. If you don't like it, don't read it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3