The Trek 'Mass Ignorance'

[Jon]

I can admit, that before visiting sd.net I to was spellbound under the mass ignorance of being a Star Trek fan, believing that Star Trek was a symbol of real(istic) science set in a not too unachievable future.

Latley elsewhere (my trek site) I have been trying to set the record straight a little, but it's hard work. A few examples:

One
Two

Where does this 'mass ignorance' come from? Why do trekkies implicitly believe that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars, is it because they fail to see past the thin surface of the main storylines, Trek is often passed off as being a dwelling of science fact while Wars is percieved as fantasy?)

Now, aside from calling these people simply 'stupid idiots', where does this common belief that Star Trek harbours scientific fact and superiority come from, who is really to blame?

[brianeyci]

1. Technobabble.
2. Transporters.
3. Fighter craft (or lack of fighter craft).
4. Clothes.
5. Borg.
6. Phasers and Lasers.
7. Death Star Weakness.
8. Replicators.

Whose to blame? Who knows. In early TNG (and I'm talking really early) there was no sound in space, so Star Trek got that right. Where it went wrong was when it caved into market pressure. IMO, Star Trek should never have gotten into the business of portraying massive fleet battles or technobabble, although in all fairness DS9 was probably the best written series next to TOS. They should have tried to recreate the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy somehow, and not just with a half-Vulcan and a cynical doctor, but with real characters. The bridge crew should have been a tightly knit group of explorers travelling through space exploring the human condition. As well, there should have been numerous episodes dealing with the morality of the transporter rather than conveniently sidestepping it with the "soul" concept.

Before bashing Trek, consider that although Trek doesn't stand up to Wars, who the fuck really cares unless you're debating. Trek stands up by itself (except maybe early Enterprise and a few morally reprehensive episodes), with the highpoint being DS9 writing. Also consider the audience that popular series have to cater to -- people who are more sophisticated (or think they are) and are impressed with the word "quantum" and other technobabble. Technobabble makes the series seem smart, and even though it is at times psuedoscience, who really cares at all, unless you're a dofus you should be able to tell that science on television is not real science. Although technobabble left out would have created a better series IMO, technobabble is catering to the masses. "Give the people what they want", and if the people want to feel smart watching ST so be it, like sound in space. At the least though, I can't comprehend why they didn't hire people with actual science and engineering degrees to help them with the technobabble, since from DW's analysis it seems that ST is retarded in the science and engineering department.

Brian

[Karza]

Now, aside from calling these people simply 'stupid idiots', where does this common belief that Star Trek harbours scientific fact and superiority come from, who is really to blame?

I'd say it's mostly a result of scientifically illiterate people listening to The Technobabble. They can't tell it's all bullshit, so they take it as superior knowledge. It's the thing about cavemen worshipping anything they don't understand.

Wars on the other hand doesn't really discuss technology at all, machines just do what they do, who cares how. This, combined with the rather rugged look of ships, guns, etc. in Wars gives the aforementioned bunch of scientifically illiterate Trek fanboys the idea that Wars tech is inferior.

[Techno_Union]

Well I would think that most of them who believe in things like that simply don't want to hear that their favorite races can be beat.

Perhaps they are mad because ST does go through great technobable lengths to attempt to explain their tech and SW doesn't go to those lengths and can still whoop their butts.

But most people hear things like "quantum," "photon," "subspace," and it generally sounds more scientific. I would also think that ST feels more realistic because it's based on Earth and the future and what not.

[Solauren]

Star Trek being based on Earth, in the future, and more or less based on modern Western Society is also a huge factor.

Consider, the Western world has beaten everything it has faced to date. Thus giving it a feeling of superiority

In Star Trek, it's taken over the world, gone into space, and other worlds now follow it like good little lap-dogs. Foreign powers exist, but we are shown kicking there butt with what appears to be really funky high tech stuff (technobabble).

Off course they feel Star Trek in invincible, it's supposed to be US.

Then, along comes Star Wars/the Empire. No explaination on, how things work, just brief glimpses of it, and it's run by the bad guys.

That dont' want to lose, that's why. not so much for fandom sake, but for the fear of it happening to us in the future.

[Spiritbw]

The irony of the technobabble. It's amazing that it was Gene Rodenberry that said, 'People don't stand around talking about how cars work, why would they do so in the future?" and that while he was alive any request for how a particular item worked was met with "It works very well thank you." It was only after his death that Technobabble became part of the show. Even so far as to have a department that's job was to fill in sections of the script where the writers would put [technobabble] anytime the workings of something were discussed so there would be no disputes between episodes.

[SPOOFE]

Where does this 'mass ignorance' come from?

They so enjoy the stories and such (though Lord knows why) and they want it to be true to such an extent that they NEED it to be "The Best" in every conceivable way.

[Sam Or I]

'People don't stand around talking about how cars work, why would they do so in the future?"

I stand around talking how cars work..................... I understand the point being made though.

[dragon]

Also it didn't help that they put out a book on the science of Trek. I know several die hard fans that swear by this book saying that it says it possible. I never read it my self so don't know. Has anyone here have read it and can give unbiased opinion.

[Jon]

Also it didn't help that they put out a book on the science of Trek. I know several die hard fans that swear by this book saying that it says it possible. I never read it my self so don't know. Has anyone here have read it and can give unbiased opinion.

If you are referring to Krauss' the Physics of Star Trek- it actually goes to show how most, if not all of Trek tech is and probably always will be unattainable, so if anything having read that should alter opinion adversly, but indeed- people assume because a 'real physicist' has chosen treknology to explore science, that it must have some base in reality- I wonder how many people who throw Krauss about as proof of Trek science being legit, have actually read and understood his book.

[dragon]

Some poeple just wont change their minds look at people that read the info here and still post the star trek is better than star wars. Such as that one person you guys are always bringing up. I mean I used to be a serious trekkie and never thought about the things that were wrong about trek in till I came here. Granted I still like trek and wars but I at least I can admit when I am wrong. And I gotta say learn alot from you guys about analysing information which is really paying of in my one of my masters class.

[dragon]

Hum maybe I should learn to not post when I am tired cant spell worth a damn or at least use spell checker

[Lord of the Farce]

If you are referring to Krauss' the Physics of Star Trek
-snip
I wonder how many people who throw Krauss about as proof of Trek science being legit, have actually read and understood his book.

Only the small number of people who do so to deliberately to antagonise those who do know better, and/or to mock those who don't.

[Lord Pounder]

I think the main problem stems from the fact that Star Trek producers tend to mention quite a lot how Star Treknology is "based" on real science, several years ago there was a whole night dedicatedto Start Trek on BBC2 and IIRC there where several documentries on "the Science of Star Trek" etc. This in turn gives the more rabid fan the mistaken idea that warp engines, replicators and the like are almost possible and given how badly ST has been run into the ground the rabis trekies will latch on to anything.

[Lord of the Farce]

I think the main problem stems from the fact that Star Trek producers tend to mention quite a lot how Star Treknology is "based" on real science, several years ago there was a whole night dedicatedto Start Trek on BBC2 and IIRC there where several documentries on "the Science of Star Trek" etc.

I remember seeing something like that a few years ago. This one guy in this one particular show was yacking on about how starfighters manuoevers in Star Wars is unrealistic and that Stat Trek ships are more realistic, because there's no air in space.

Of course, the idiot was obviously completely ignorant of center-of-mass, inertia, and Star Trek's own problems when it comes to space ("Full stop", anyone?). But hey, who cares about all the nagging little details?

[Spiritbw]

Would it be to much to point out that there is a book called 'The Science of Star Wars' by Jeanne Cavelos out there that goes through an examination of things in Star Wars? Pretty interesting but if the science of Trek was in the same vein then there really is nothing that could be used to try and prove one over the other.

It is a fun read if your wonder a bit how some of the stuff in the books and on screen work. Again, not anything that will say Wars is better than Trek but still a good read.

[Kurgan]

I can admit, that before visiting sd.net I to was spellbound under the mass ignorance of being a Star Trek fan, believing that Star Trek was a symbol of real(istic) science set in a not too unachievable future.

Latley elsewhere (my trek site) I have been trying to set the record straight a little, but it's hard work. A few examples:

One
Two

Where does this 'mass ignorance' come from? Why do trekkies implicitly believe that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars, is it because they fail to see past the thin surface of the main storylines, Trek is often passed off as being a dwelling of science fact while Wars is percieved as fantasy?)

Now, aside from calling these people simply 'stupid idiots', where does this common belief that Star Trek harbours scientific fact and superiority come from, who is really to blame?

Assuming such a mass ignorance exists of course, I'd say it is due to the fact that most viewers of these tv shows and movies are not trained enough in the hard sciences to realize the true extent of (un)realism in either franchise and thus are judging based on style over substance. Trek's use of technobabble and some cutting edge or fringe discoveries in their stories lend the illusion of credibility. Calling something a "quantum field generator" somehow sounds more realistic (to the layman) than a "blaster" or what have you. The names for things in Star Wars tend to be more obviously pulp based, and so they get judged that way. The "romance" (in the mythical sense) of Star Wars gets emphasized in the popular media so people assume that it's "fantasy" more readily.

Also, there's the whole issue of Star Wars taking place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" (like "Once upon a time...") whereas Trek is supposed to be "our future." So again, people assume that it is supposed to be more realistic.

I grant you that they are both incredibly unrealistic franchises, and yes, as fans we can do all sorts of controtions to make sense of them and for the purposes of SOD in vs. debates, blah blah blah etc. but to me those seem to be reasonable enough reasons why many people may automatically assume that Trek is just more realistic than Wars.

As to why "Trek would win" that's up for grabs. I tend to side with the "fanboy theory" which says that the bigger fans of one franchise will assume it can beat all others, even if in both universes, the good guys always win against impossible odds, often with a deus ex machina. Pretty soap bubble shields, lots of technobabble and transporters may help the illusion along. Then there's the whole "sleek and modern look" that Mike talks about on his page, which might again make some people start to assume that Trek must be "more futuristic" and thus more advanced or more powerful, without thinking why this might be so.

[SPOOFE]

This one guy in this one particular show was yacking on about how starfighters manuoevers in Star Wars is unrealistic and that Stat Trek ships are more realistic, because there's no air in space.

The ultimate irony, of course, being the fact that Star Trek capships maneuver just like Star Wars starfighters...

[Jon]

I'd say there definately is a 'mass ignorance' amonsgt everyone who hasn't looked very far into things, any 'average' joe who I ask 'Who would win' in 90% of cases says Star Trek and then goes on to provide some of the reasons that have been brought up in this thread, indeed.

[Bellator]

The ultimate irony, of course, being the fact that Star Trek capships maneuver just like Star Wars starfighters...

Not in the olden days.

[Robert Walper]

I think the entire arguement can be summed up as Star Wars looks "cool" and Star Trek looks "technical".

[Patrick Degan]

The irony of the technobabble. It's amazing that it was Gene Rodenberry that said, 'People don't stand around talking about how cars work, why would they do so in the future?" and that while he was alive any request for how a particular item worked was met with "It works very well thank you." It was only after his death that Technobabble became part of the show. Even so far as to have a department that's job was to fill in sections of the script where the writers would put [technobabble] anytime the workings of something were discussed so there would be no disputes between episodes.

The technobabble-quotient of Star Trek started rising before Roddenberry's death (cf. ref. TNG season 3's "Booby Trap"); remember that he had pretty much ceased to have an active hand in affairs around that time. But since his death, it's gone through the stratosphere. Present-day ST is now about nothing but ridiculous technobabble plots (when they're not doing boring character soap-operas) and anal retconning (cf. ref. Boobyprise) to cover the asses of the so-called "creative team".

The irony is that the more gobbledygook they concoct to eliminate "disputes between the episodes", the more they write themselves into corners they can't get out of without more goofy technobabble, which in turn creates a whole new set of tight corners they can't write themselves out of down the line.

[Praxis]

I think that it's because of the general look and feel.

Star Wars: Practical solution to everything. They get their hands dirty when necessary, and are able to directly work with the innards of their ships (see Han Solo and the Falcon). Everything looks militaristic and PRACTICAL, rather than flashy and techy.

Star Trek: Tech everywhere, even when not practical. For everything there must be a touch screen interface and hologram- even a teachers' dumbbell. Everything is impractically designed, but their ships have smooth curves, lots of pretty lights, flashy weapons, and shiny surfaces, therefore they must be better tech. When they do repairs, they do it by going to a tube junction and using their tricorders on it, rather than physically doing any work. Additionally, they constantly use scientific terms. Most people don't understand them, but know they are scientific, so assume that it's high-tech and realistic.

Therefore, people feel Star Trek is more realistic PRECISELY because it ISN'T. Things are designed asthetically, rather than practically, therefore people think it is higher tech.

[apocolypse]

I think that it's because of the general look and feel.

Star Wars: Practical solution to everything. They get their hands dirty when necessary, and are able to directly work with the innards of their ships (see Han Solo and the Falcon). Everything looks militaristic and PRACTICAL, rather than flashy and techy.

Good point. I've seen several Trekkies argue that Wars was lower tech with one of the main examples being that they use blast doors instead of forcefields.

[Praxis]

I think that it's because of the general look and feel.

Star Wars: Practical solution to everything. They get their hands dirty when necessary, and are able to directly work with the innards of their ships (see Han Solo and the Falcon). Everything looks militaristic and PRACTICAL, rather than flashy and techy.

Good point. I've seen several Trekkies argue that Wars was lower tech with one of the main examples being that they use blast doors instead of forcefields.

Exactly. Yet the blast doors are more practical. If the ship has been damaged and vacuum is seeping in, then they're likely losing power. Therefore, a blast door is much more practical because you can close it and leave it closed, while if you raise a force field, if the ship loses power you're history.