My thoughts on technobabble

[Lord Revan]

it's more pretending that science is magic then the reverse tbh and it's not "sin" that only Star Trek is guilty of.

[Vendetta]

it's more pretending that science is magic then the reverse tbh

Well, no. Using long sciencey sounding words does not make something into science if it doesn't display any properties of science. That's rather the point of calling it "technobabble".

What I'm describing when I say "magic" is something that does what it does because the plot needs it to, and never does it again (or does something wildly different when the plot needs it to do something else, see: Deflector Dish). It's not something that acts in the sort of consistent manner required to describe it as "science". If a fictional technology is introduced and acts consistently then it's science, even if it's called magic and the characters sacrifice a goat every time to make it work. (Warhammer 40k is good at pretending that science is magic).

[Lord Revan]

it's more pretending that science is magic then the reverse tbh

Well, no. Using long sciencey sounding words does not make something into science if it doesn't display any properties of science. That's rather the point of calling it "technobabble".

What I'm describing when I say "magic" is something that does what it does because the plot needs it to, and never does it again (or does something wildly different when the plot needs it to do something else, see: Deflector Dish). It's not something that acts in the sort of consistent manner required to describe it as "science". If a fictional technology is introduced and acts consistently then it's science, even if it's called magic and the characters sacrifice a goat every time to make it work. (Warhammer 40k is good at pretending that science is magic).

well you kind of misunderstood what I meant, what I meant (as I mentioned before) is that they twist and warp the scientific process in an effort to potray it as some mystical mumbo-jumbo that "normal people" aren't suppose to even try to understand.

[Batman]

Um no they don't? They seriously stink at understanding it mind you (hence the plethora of science boo-boos in Trek) but at no point (prior to VOY at any rate) was science presented as anything other than science (however inadequately). I have no idea where you get this from.

[Lord Revan]

Um no they don't? They seriously stink at understanding it mind you (hence the plethora of science boo-boos in Trek) but at no point (prior to VOY at any rate) was science presented as anything other than science (however inadequately). I have no idea where you get this from.

maybe I'm mixing Trek with some bad scifi "thrillers", my mistake.

[Number Theoretic]

I would prefer to say that real-world scientists and engineers tend to use language which is utilitarian. That means it's usually simple, but it also means it isn't necessarily precise, as least not in the sense that things are described fully. After all, if you're all working on something which involves a lot of toroidal magnets, you probably won't say "toroidal magnet" every time you mention them. I figure it wouldn't take too long before a bunch of engineers would start referring to them as "donuts". This is clearly not precise language, but it gets the job done, in context. It's also natural; this is the way real people talk.

This is indeed a good example of situations, where real-world scientists or engineers would abolish the precise "techno-babblish" terms in favor for simpler terms which are understood by everyone on the team. Like "magnets" instead of "torodial magnets" or even "donuts"
So, the use for overly technical terms like "torodial magnets" is to communicate with fellow scientists of the same or a related trade, who are not part of the team but who know the theory, in an efficient way. Which makes one ask "why are the voyager's engineering teams so loosely organized that they have to stick to the formal terms all the time?"

[PainRack]

My personal criteria on when it doesn't descend into technobabble is medical dramas. If the dialogue sounds more complex than ER, its technobabble.

[Sarevok]

Real world has worse things than technobabbles. It has powerpoint and backronyms and people who think speaking in techno jargon make them competent at their job.

[madd0ct0r]

the only thing owrse then powerpoint, is people who don't know how to use it, and put half a fucking book on each slide.

[jollyreaper]

any long speech filled with technical jargon is technobabble in my book

this is the defination I'm using as well.

There's color and there's babble. Watch Apollo 13. Most people don't understand what they're talking about but it provides color to the film. To the average viewer, they won't know the difference between a reaction control system and a plasma conduit but the drama holds together. The same is true if you hear orders being shouted in a sailing movie.

Where it becomes unacceptable is when the babble drives the plot and babble is used to resolve babble. Admiral Nelson! We've busted the weather gauge and will have to keelhaul the sea anchor if we are to even have a hope of reefing in the cut of our jib before we're three sheets to the wind!

Scifi is magic. Do we really want ro hear about a thaumaturgy resonance with the soul chamber that made the dead come back to life? No. We will also hate it if the witch creates a spell to devolve an enemy and he turns into a frog. Transfigure is fine, just don't screw things up.

In summary:
1. People care about human conflict.
2. Color adds verisimilitude; technobabble sucks the air out of the room.
3. Getting simple stuff wrong insults the audience and makes you look like and idiot.

Funny thing -- Akroyd had a lot of babble for Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters. Most of it was left on the cutting room floor. Did you know he explained how the car had supernatural powers? It wasn't necessary. The movie was funnier without it.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Though I haven't seen either movie, the decision not to explain something can add color to a scene too. If there are things that we don't understand but that are taken for granted as common use items in a fictional setting, people aren't going to spare a lot of words for them any more than average people now talk about piezoelectric effects when checking their watch for the time or thermodynamic cycles when starting up their car. As long as the plot doesn't hinge on a particular implication of the operation of a device, it should be up to the audience to infer its use and nature in context. Having to to figure it out also adds a sense of verisimilitude, since it's not that different from actually visiting a foreign culture and getting used to the public transportation system or some other artifact in everyday use that differs from its nearest equivalent back home.

Brevity or silence can also be used for comic effect when characters take for granted something that should be odd or magical even within the setting, such as the supernatural car.

[Darth Wong]

In summary:
1. People care about human conflict.
2. Color adds verisimilitude; technobabble sucks the air out of the room.
3. Getting simple stuff wrong insults the audience and makes you look like and idiot.

Funny thing -- Akroyd had a lot of babble for Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters. Most of it was left on the cutting room floor. Did you know he explained how the car had supernatural powers? It wasn't necessary. The movie was funnier without it.

It would have been absolutely horrible if he got his bullshit into the Ghostbusters script. Have you ever watched the special features on the Ghostbusters DVD? Akroyd explains that all of the science in Ghostbusters is realistic. Let's say that again: he thinks the movie is based on real science. I can only imagine the horrors of him trying to justify his pseudoscientific ghost-hunter bullshit on screen.

[jollyreaper]

Based on real life pseudoscience! I have to admit as a kid there was a real omg moment in reading spook books and seeing ectoplasm mentioned. PKE meters, cold spots, stuff from the movie is stuff I'm reading in the books. I'd thought the movie was 100% made up and now here's proof! Same way I felt when a teacher had said the Dracula thing is stupid and there's no such country as Transylvannia. I look it up in the library and not only is there such a place, I read about Vlad Tepis. To a young mind, this is major whoa material.

When I read Lovecraft for the first time some of the words seemed familiar and bingo, Real Ghostbusters, Collect Call of Cthulhu.

But yes, there is a difference between geeking out over obscure references and believing in actual nonsense.

[Gil Hamilton]

It would have been absolutely horrible if he got his bullshit into the Ghostbusters script. Have you ever watched the special features on the Ghostbusters DVD? Akroyd explains that all of the science in Ghostbusters is realistic. Let's say that again: he thinks the movie is based on real science. I can only imagine the horrors of him trying to justify his pseudoscientific ghost-hunter bullshit on screen.

Huh, really? I thought all the technobabble in the movie Ghostbusters was a parody of all the psuedo-science that was really popular when the movie came out around research on paranormal activity. It seems pretty seamless in the movie.

[PainRack]

The movie was played that way. However, Dan Arkoyd is a deep believer in the paranormal, having his own Crystal Skull website and other affliations with ghosts and UFOs.