StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Nemesis Fallacy"

Oh fun.

So...do we refute, or no?

For us non-debaters, can someone experienced at this show us all the parts of Darkstar's Nemesis statement that is wrong?

I say we wait and watch.

I don't feel that this page is worth my time responding to in anything like a comprehensive manner, but I will point out to anyone who does not know that it is in response to my page on the "Nemesis" ramming calculations. You may wish to take a look at a couple of things that he claims:

DumbShit wrote:But, this is the absurd claim, oft-repeated and even used as a basis for some baseless calculations, that inspired this page's existence. As seen, the concept ignores shield impact seen in the Trek canon (though the proponents usually claim the bug-BoP rammings from "Tears" as fully shielded incidents, claiming support while ignoring every other example).

The Scimitar's shields simply were not there. There is no flare, no sparkle, no glow . . . and yet, in every other way, these shields behaved precisely as those of the Enterprise. Where did they go, and why? The following ideas recognize the lack of shields, and try to explain it:

First of all, in "Tears of the Prophets," the JH rammed the Klingons straight away. There was NO firing observed from the JH ships, and no reason to suspect that they HAD been firing. They just plowed straight into the Klingon vessels, destroying or damaging several of them. The ships SHOULD have been shielded.

The problem with the DarkStar hypothesis is simple. In EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of a shield-on-object collision in which we observed a shield bubble, the shields remained operational at least temporarily after the impact. I would postulatea that the E-E simply overwhelmed the Scimitar's shields, to the point where the shields could not flicker, as we saw in "Tears of the Prophets" and potentially saw in "What You Leave Behind," and several of the other examples.

There are inumerable problems with the rest of Mr. Anderson's claims on this page, but that is the primary one.

BTW, I guess I should further point out that Anderson's conclusions are once again dependent on a COMPLETELY undefined theory (which he seems to find acceptable, except in other people's work, ref. The DS Firepower debates), and that his conclusion that "In any case, the Scimitar's shields were not up" is basically bullshit that is CONTRADICTED by the canonical view of the Scimitar shield display, the fact that Geordi said that phasers would be useless, and the reliance on things that he has NO evidence of, other than his own circular logic (that Skippy dropped the shields for no apparent reason). If you compare this to the debate I had with Angelblade, you'll note astonishing parallels in stupidity.

I agree that Scooter is wrong about the Scimitar's shields - his evidence merely shows that any rams successful in bypassing the shields do not trigger them at all. But I don't think you can estimate the total energy capable of being handled by the shields from this event. Consider the momentum of the E-E. The shields, and thus the shield emitters, would have to be capable of withstanding the huge momentum transfer. If the E-E interacted with the shields at all, it was too fast to observe; thus the force applied to the shield would be tremendous. (If the E-E didn't interact with the shields, again we cannot estimate maximum energy.) By this theory, an ISD ramming a Trek ship would be more likely to penetrate the shields than by firing the equivalent of its kinetic energy in the form of low-mass particle weapons.

Eframepilot wrote:I agree that Scooter is wrong about the Scimitar's shields - his evidence merely shows that any rams successful in bypassing the shields do not trigger them at all. But I don't think you can estimate the total energy capable of being handled by the shields from this event. Consider the momentum of the E-E. The shields, and thus the shield emitters, would have to be capable of withstanding the huge momentum transfer. If the E-E interacted with the shields at all, it was too fast to observe; thus the force applied to the shield would be tremendous.

Either that, or the shields would have to have a very small resistance to impacts.

(If the E-E didn't interact with the shields, again we cannot estimate maximum energy.)

Of course.

By this theory, an ISD ramming a Trek ship would be more likely to penetrate the shields than by firing the equivalent of its kinetic energy in the form of low-mass particle weapons.

Appeal to consequences fallacy. You're saying that the implications of the calculations I performed somehow destroy their validity. In fact, this MIGHT be true, if for some reason the shields on ST ships are good against energy weapons but not so against KE impacts.

There's not a lot of evidence to support this theory, and a more conventional theory is generally more accepted.

He actually contradicts himself there. He keeps going on about how the shields weren't there and then goes over alot of the reasons why we know that they were there.

The problem is that writers for TV science fiction writers seem to think that ramming is the ultimate force in the universe. That's the honest-to-god reason why the Enterprise crashed through the Scimitars shields even with the shield shrugging off multi-megaton blasts.

Gil Hamilton wrote:He actually contradicts himself there. He keeps going on about how the shields weren't there and then goes over alot of the reasons why we know that they were there.

Such 'trivialities' have never bothered the idiot before. Why should he start now?

I thought he did a pretty good job with the article really. I disagree with a few points and conclussions, but he did a good job collecting informatino from both sides of the issue and noting fact from assumption. He also listed a series of different theories put forward and credited them to certain locations where they were created. He chooses a theory as most likely but then goes on to stay that the scene itself is still seriously screwed up.

Basically Darkstar was saying that no theory really works when you try and apply known facts. Some are more valid then others, but they still don't work.

In other words, people are disagreeing with some of his assumptions and conclussions. However you have to credit him for giving information from both sides on the issue and posting multiple theories. That allows the reader to make their own conclussion.

Gil Hamilton wrote:The problem is that writers for TV science fiction writers seem to think that ramming is the ultimate force in the universe. That's the honest-to-god reason why the Enterprise crashed through the Scimitars shields even with the shield shrugging off multi-megaton blasts.

I got the impression that he was attempting to point out the flaws in the scene itself. Trying to show how screwed up the ramming issue is in Nemesis.

BTW, this thread belongs in the PST.

"Ramming, Shields, and the Nemesis Fallacy?"

I see he still calls EVERYTHING a "fallacy", and usually in the titles of his webpages to boot. Does he even know what the word "fallacy" means?

PS. Moved to PST as suggested by Alyeska.

Darth Wong wrote:"Ramming, Shields, and the Nemesis Fallacy?"

I see he still calls EVERYTHING a "fallacy", and usually in the titles of his webpages to boot. Does he even know what the word "fallacy" means?

His "justification" is that on Saxton's page, he refers to the Executor 5-mile myth as a fallacy. I guess it doesn't occur to Scooter that in the case of the Executor, it WAS an appeal to authority fallacy. People said the Executor was 5 miles long because some poorly researched tech book said so, even though the figure was directly contradicted by the films.

Darkstar bullshit HOSed.

(From PST)

Wait just a damned minute. This thread belongs in the PST. Regardless of it being from Darkstar it presents multiple theories, some of which come from SD.net members.

retitled and moved back.

Alyeska wrote:I thought he did a pretty good job with the article really. I disagree with a few points and conclussions, but he did a good job collecting informatino from both sides of the issue and noting fact from assumption. He also listed a series of different theories put forward and credited them to certain locations where they were created. He chooses a theory as most likely but then goes on to stay that the scene itself is still seriously screwed up.

My theory explains everything perfectly. My theory holds that any collision will produce a glow, provided that it does not overwhelm the shields of the target completely. If the shields remain up after the impact, a glow will be observed. If they are knocked out by the impact, no glow will be observed.

My theory fits with all of the incidents that Anderson presents. It's simple, and accurate. Anderson's theory, by his own admission, does not fit the facts of the incidents involved.

Moreover, my theory does not rely on ridiculous assumptions and coincidences (ie. That the Klingon ships in "TotP" and "SoA" just HAPPENED to lose their shields seconds before the impacts that eventually destroyed them).

Incidentally, Anderson's theory is also self-contradictory. It relies on weapons being more powerful than the ships themselves when turned into projectiles, but it turns around and claims that the JH would ram opposing vessels instead of doing battle with them. Now, seriously, if your weapons are more powerful than your ship is, why wouldn't you just shoot at your enemies again in the time it took you to ram them? There's no reason for [a ramming maneuver, under such conditions]. That the JH were willing to do this on so many different occasions (including one in "The Jem'Hadar" that occurred AFTER the opposing ship was shieldless to their weapons) shows conclusively that the weapons of the ST universe are considerably less powerful than the ramming maneuver. Given this information, it strikes me as being difficult to believe that rabid ST fanwhores like Anderson would refuse to accept the magnitude of the disparity between the two. My theory fits everything. Anderson's theory ignores a great deal of evidence, distorts some evidence, and comes to invalid conclusions based on the evidence that Anderson has deemed admissible.

Basically Darkstar was saying that no theory really works when you try and apply known facts. Some are more valid then others, but they still don't work.

My theory works perfectly. Concession accepted.

In other words, people are disagreeing with some of his assumptions and conclussions. However you have to credit him for giving information from both sides on the issue and posting multiple theories. That allows the reader to make their own conclussion.

I disagree with both the utility and accuracy of his summary. It is based on NUMEROUS false assumptions (not the least of which that the impact in "Nemesis" could not have overwhelmed the Scimitar's shields). It presents theories that not only rely on rampant speculation and laughably incredible coincidences, but also fail to explain what is observed by ANDERSON'S OWN ADMISSION. His page presents no relevant information, and is merely intended to distract viewers from the main crux of the argument, and from the reasonable and realistic scenarios that could actually explain what we observe.

Edit: Altered the "it" to the statement in brackets.

RSA's arguments are generally constructed backwards from a pre-existing conclusion, rather than going forward from facts and scientific knowledge. It is not unusual among sci-fi debaters to do this, but it's always better to start from a theory with a defined mechanism and solid basis in science or observation and then see where its conclusions lead.

For example, nobody likes the idea that primitive ramming attacks are more effective, joule for joule, than "advanced" energy weapons. However, I have pointed out that the scientific principle of conservation of momentum means they very well could be, and the resulting predictions are then compared with observation and found to be surprisingly accurate. This should not come as a surprise since physical impacts look and feel as if they should be very powerful, so the FX people and writers tend to treat them that way. However, a lot of fanboys (eg. RSA) tend to start from fanboy "logic" like "they wouldn't use energy weapons if they weren't more effective than primitive KE weapons" and then try to shoehorn the science and observations to fit. I'd say the latter approach is the most common among sci-fi sites on the Internet.

The Nemesis ramming scene didn't impress me at all. Was that armor that blew away from the two ships? It looked like thusands of pieces of bathroom tile. Is ST armor THAT brittle?

Lord Poe wrote:The Nemesis ramming scene didn't impress me at all. Was that armor that blew away from the two ships? It looked like thusands of pieces of bathroom tile. Is ST armor THAT brittle?

The bathroom tiling industry had to deversify with the rationing of one actual bathroom per starship

Alyeska wrote:

Gil Hamilton wrote:The problem is that writers for TV science fiction writers seem to think that ramming is the ultimate force in the universe. That's the honest-to-god reason why the Enterprise crashed through the Scimitars shields even with the shield shrugging off multi-megaton blasts.

I got the impression that he was attempting to point out the flaws in the scene itself. Trying to show how screwed up the ramming issue is in Nemesis.

He couldn't of been, unless he wants to contradict himself yet again.

He started his article on "Nemesis" by saying that they did a "nice job" with the technology for the film.

Darth Wong wrote:RSA's arguments are generally constructed backwards from a pre-existing conclusion, rather than going forward from facts and scientific knowledge.

Exactly. Had he tried to actually start with the evidence, and then move from there, he would have immediately recognized that my theory (that the shields will glow, unless completely and instantly overwhelmed by an impact) fits all the evidence and accurately predicts what we see on screen. His claims that no theory can explain everything we see is simply ridiculous, but makes sense if you take into account his mind, in which he immediately eliminated the possibility that the E-E punched through the Scimitar's shields. Had he kept that possibility, all the evidence would have made perfect sense.

It is not unusual among sci-fi debaters to do this, but it's always better to start from a theory with a defined mechanism and solid basis in science or observation and then see where its conclusions lead.

True. This is what I did during the "Nemesis" calculations that have become such a point of contention for this debate. To be honest, I was very surprised when I read the actual figures that my method generated. I had thought that the numbers would have appeared significantly higher, but once I started going back and comparing this to other incidents I began to realize that the "Nemesis" calculation was not the exception.

For example, nobody likes the idea that primitive ramming attacks are more effective, joule for joule, than "advanced" energy weapons. However, I have pointed out that the scientific principle of conservation of momentum means they very well could be, and the resulting predictions are then compared with observation and found to be surprisingly accurate.

True.

This should not come as a surprise since physical impacts look and feel as if they should be very powerful, so the FX people and writers tend to treat them that way.

Additionally, ramming maneuvers are indeniably dramatic. Such efforts show desperation, courage, commitment, and conviction. That anyone is willing to die to protect something or destroy another is one of the most potentially noble beliefs anyone in a sci-fi military can have.

However, a lot of fanboys (eg. RSA) tend to start from fanboy "logic" like "they wouldn't use energy weapons if they weren't more effective than primitive KE weapons" and then try to shoehorn the science and observations to fit. I'd say the latter approach is the most common among sci-fi sites on the Internet.

Yes. Anderson's attempts to disprove my calculations, in this case, will only lead him further into trouble.

Lord Poe wrote:The Nemesis ramming scene didn't impress me at all. Was that armor that blew away from the two ships? It looked like thusands of pieces of bathroom tile. Is ST armor THAT brittle?

Er, they have armor?

I know Sisko put armor on the Defiant, but IIRC that was an unauthorized modification not even reported to Starfleet.