Best Use for Enterprise-E would be...

[Kamakazie Sith]

And of course, there things like the ships flying apart without the SIF. The fact that it has an incredibly volitatile fuel source.

In short, the Ent-E has so many flaws that no Imperial safet inspector would allow it to ships paying passangers.

What flaws does the E-E have again? Name them, make sure these flaws are backed by canon and not your assumption.

[Typhonis 1]

Use it to transport condemed prisoners(like Star Fleet Engineers) with a droid crew aboard that way if anything happens well no great loss

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

If you would replace the warp core, and fix all the design flaws and dumb engineering, it would make a good civilian ship. It has the sleek design people love, and civilian facilities. Phasers might be good for mining operations, just hook them up to a power source more powerful than that on the E-E.

[Moonshadow]

i still think the SSD hood ornament is the best idea

[Darth Wong]

And of course, there things like the ships flying apart without the SIF. The fact that it has an incredibly volitatile fuel source.

In short, the Ent-E has so many flaws that no Imperial safet inspector would allow it to ships paying passangers.

What flaws does the E-E have again? Name them, make sure these flaws are backed by canon and not your assumption.

He's just listing known flaws of the E-D, and assuming that they carried forward into the next class. While this is not guaranteed, it seems reasonable enough that the burden of proof should be on you to show that they were not.

[Enlightenment]

He's just listing known flaws of the E-D, and assuming that they carried forward into the next class. While this is not guaranteed, it seems reasonable enough that the burden of proof should be on you to show that they were not.

Reasonable assumption or not, you're asking him to prove a negative.

Furthermore, it is not particularly reasonable to assume that the design flaws on the Galaxy class carried through into the Soverign class. The Constitution class' robustness did not carry through to the Galaxy for instance. Outside of Starfleet there generally isn't much commonality between successive generations of classes in real world ships. For example witness the differences between AEGIS and pre-AEGIS AAW ships. The hullforms are largely identical but the guts are completely different.

[Darth Wong]

He's just listing known flaws of the E-D, and assuming that they carried forward into the next class. While this is not guaranteed, it seems reasonable enough that the burden of proof should be on you to show that they were not.

Reasonable assumption or not, you're asking him to prove a negative.

How so? We're not talking about the existence or non-existence of a phenomenon; we're talking about the KS's claim that we must assume the E-E had a completely different design than the E-D just because its outer shell looks different. KS is claiming a difference based on superficial appearances; if anyone is asking for proof of a negative, it's actually him.

When you're trying to figure out whether something is affirmative or negative, you must look at what is being described, not just whether the semantics appear to look negative. KS is claiming massive systemic differences between the E-D and E-E, so that all of the flaws do not carry forward. The onus is upon him to provide some evidence of these differences which is more substantial than the cosmetic exterior changes.

Furthermore, it is not particularly reasonable to assume that the design flaws on the Galaxy class carried through into the Soverign class. The Constitution class' robustness did not carry through to the Galaxy for instance.

Correct, because we have positive evidence of that. Do not generalize to claim that differences should always be assumed without evidence.

Outside of Starfleet there generally isn't much commonality between successive generations of classes in real world ships. For example witness the differences between AEGIS and pre-AEGIS AAW ships. The hullforms are largely identical but the guts are completely different.

However, many basic aspects remain: the use of propellers for propulsion, the fact that a major hull breach will cause it to take in water, etc. You cannot assume that any and all flaws of the previous class do not apply to the next class unless you produce some evidence of this difference.

[Kamakazie Sith]

He's just listing known flaws of the E-D, and assuming that they carried forward into the next class. While this is not guaranteed, it seems reasonable enough that the burden of proof should be on you to show that they were not.

The evidence that I need then does not exist. However, like you said it is not guaranteed that the design flaws from the GCS followed over into the SCS. Judging from the previews of ST: N, I would say the design flaws are gone, but then again maybe the ejection system actually worked this time.