posted
The way much of science is conducted is by Occam's Razor, which prefers the simplest theory that fits all the facts. Of course, "simplest" isn't always true. A thief could break into a house because he needs the money, or because he's undergoing a special ritual in his gang. All these possibilities must be taken into account and tested by a good detective.
However, do we in starship discussions need anything but the simplest theory, the one that's the least weird, that has the fewest postulates? Thing is, there's no truth to be discovered about why Yamato's registries conflict. The writer hasn't made it up. It won't show up in an episode. So we're really *making up*, not *discovering* the truth here, and why not keep it simple? Why waste time listing all the possibilities when we could just take the simplest theory that fits all the evidence and move on to more important things.
Obviously, this breaks the illusion that the Star Trek episode footage is as real as surveillance footage of a thief breaking into a house, so unless we argue about all the possibilities, we're not doing our job as detectives. But again, there's no truth about Yamato's registry unless we or the writer make it up. So why bother?
Perhaps the simplest explanation is that Yamato has the honorary 1305-E on the hull, and the official 71807 elsewhere, like the Prometheus has 5xxxx on the hull and 7xxxx elsewhere. If someone can come up with a simpler one that fits all the facts, then that's the explanation. I thought this was simpler than "it changed to 71807" because we haven't seen registries of ships change, but we've seen different registries on the hull and the Okudagrams.
The simplest theory would still be non-canon, only our best guess -- but at least it saves us time working out the other possibilities. We'd waste time figuring out what the *simplest* theory that fits all the facts is, but that kind of arguing seems a bit more productive.
posted
The only canon fact about the Yamato's registry was that in "Where Silence Has Lease" is was NCC-1305-E, and then in "Contagion" it was NCC-71807.
Those are the canon facts.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
We don't go w/ the simplest explanations because the simplest explanations usually aren't all that interesting.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So you're saying that we prefer the most creative explanations (Riker said 1305-E and nobody complained because they were all under a Nagilum force field influence at the time which altered their hearing?).
I wouldn't think so. I'd be surprised if that's how most people thought. Even if the simplest, the least weird isn't always true, it still tends to be true.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
You bring excellent points, Phelps. You'd think such tecchie Trek fans would be more open to thinking in scientific terms about 'solving' the mysteries of Star Trek. I, personally, follow scientific and engineering principles (as I know I've stated before) in trying to figure out and make sense of what we see. I also assume there is a 'why' in the mindset of the characters, seen or unseen, as to why things are done the way they are and that any explanation requires a plausible 'why' to be a valid possibility. Furthermore, if a theory can explain more about something than another and is equally as possible, given facts, than the more encompassing theory is most likely the true one (unless new facts are brought to light which don't conform to previous).
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Occam's razor refers to uninfluenced events. If a star blows up, you'd want to explain it by thye simplest theory: it went nova because that's what stars do.
Once you introduce people into the equation, anything is possible. For example, why did what's-his-face shoot John Lennon? Simplest explanation: he really really disliked him. Except that that isn't the case. He actually liked him, but was crazy.
So, if people are involved, they won't necessarily do things for the simplest reasons. Even if they aren't crazy.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
That's ignoring the facts though. All facts being the same, the simpler theory wins. But obviously, the majority of the time, the facts and a preponderance of evidence determine the winner.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Occam's razor deals with *available* facts. It's a method, saying that if you want to discover the truth about Lennon's murder, you start with the explanation that fits the *available* facts. Sure, many theories fit facts A, B, and C, but you chose the theory where everything you *don't know* yet is statistically probable, rather than improbable.
Once you fill those unknowns, if they are inconsistent with your theory, you move to the more complex explanation, still making sure that the remaining unknowns are statistically probable.
Why not start with the complex explanation, namely that he's crazy but likes him? Simple -- because statistically, more fans are sane than not, and if you start with sanity, you might be done earlier. If you start with the madness, statistics show that you'll probably have to revert to the statistically probable possibility.
In this case, you won't, because the statistically *improbable* theory is true. But in most cases, you will.
You might say, ok, but why not list all the possibilities anyway? Sherlock Holmes: "It's a capital mistake to theorize before one has any data." There's an infinite number of theories that explain the turmoil in the US. Here's one "Maybe it's an alien conspiracy." But what's the point of my listing that? No, the FBI gathers evidence -- they keep saying "we have evidence for this but not that...there is no evidence for this etc."
True, it's possible to speculate, and then go out and gather evidence, but if you don't do that after you post, you're just taking up space.
posted
Anecdotal evidence shows that most parents use Occam's Razor.
Situation: small son looking guilty, lamp broken on the floor. Son offers theory that "a green invisible monster entered through the window, broke the lamp, then fled while cackling that the son would be blamed for this heious crime".
What parent wouldn't employ Occam's Razor in this situation?
posted
Of course, you're still talking about reality. Trek is fiction. If the events we needed to explain were real, and we really wanted to figure out the real reason they really happened for real, Occam's Razor might be best. But it's fake. The explanations can be whatever we damn well please.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Of course, you're still talking about reality. Trek is fiction. If the events we needed to explain were real, and we really wanted to figure out the real reason they really happened for real, Occam's Razor might be best. But it's fake. The explanations can be whatever we damn well please.
Yes, but it lacks a certain something to be offered the explanation that the Andorians couldn't locate the Vulcan sensor array because it had been sprinkled with fairy dust by Tinkerbell and Glenda the Good Witch.
Without some ground rules like Occam's Razor, that would be just as valid an explanation as anything else.
posted
Yeah, we can't judge theories just by how much we like them. If we, as experienced techies, *like* something, then it's probably good, but it may not always be perfect.
I say that once we gather all the theories we like, we judge as the best the one that fits all the facts, keeping the unknowns statistically probable.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
