Suspending Disbelief?

[Gil Hamilton]

I've got a question about the practice of suspending disbelief. It states that we treat an event we are seeing as if it is really happening, like a documentary.
So this leads me to ask, doesn't that imply that we have to say some events are wrong?
For example, in an episode of The Next Generation, Doctor Crusher was giving people something called a "radiation vaccine". Now, a "radiation vaccine" doesn't make sense on alot of levels. Radiation isn't a viral agent, it's actual physical damage done by radiation. You can't insert dead or weakened radiation into a persons body to make them immune (the vaccine part). It's very much like giving someone a vaccine to prevent a broken leg. It makes no sense at all.
So tell me, if you saw a doctor giving out "radiation vaccines" in real life, you'd assume she was a quack who was on her way to a malpractice suit. Since we are treating the event as something that "really happened", don't we have to make the same assumption?

Just an idle thought. Don't flame me too hard.

[Master of Ossus]

In the case of the radiation vaccine, we can probably chalk that one up to a different nomenclature. We essentially know what it does. There are many instances, however, when what we hear is going on differs from what is shown. In those cases, we try to find some way to reconcile the two facts. If there is no reconciliation, we must try to find the best explanation for the visual effect, and assume that the dialogue is wrong. There are some gray areas, but for the most part those are the steps that allow us to come to valid conclusions.

[Gil Hamilton]

In the case of the radiation vaccine, we can probably chalk that one up to a different nomenclature. We essentially know what it does. There are many instances, however, when what we hear is going on differs from what is shown. In those cases, we try to find some way to reconcile the two facts. If there is no reconciliation, we must try to find the best explanation for the visual effect, and assume that the dialogue is wrong. There are some gray areas, but for the most part those are the steps that allow us to come to valid conclusions.

That's the problem. Even if we do assume different nomenclature and just assume that when they mean "vaccine", they mean anything that will prevent radiation damage, it still doesn't make any sense. Like I said, it's like giving a shot to prevent something from breaking their leg. It doesn't make any sense.

[Master of Ossus]

Maybe (and I'm not saying it's possible, but...) the hypospray in question contained a bizarre form of nanotechnology that magically shielded people from radiation (or something). That's really the best we can come up with, and then we assume that it's possible. In the case where they have light made up of ions, we have a more difficult choice to make. If dialogue contradicts itself, or if dialogue DIRECTLY contradicts scientific law (cracking an event horizon?) then we have a more serious problem that no amount of suspension of disbelief can deal with. In such cases, we must try to find an explanation, or explain what we can and ignore the dialogue.

[Darth Wong]

I've got a question about the practice of suspending disbelief. It states that we treat an event we are seeing as if it is really happening, like a documentary.

True. Although, to be fair, there are certain exclusions that are normally made because of the film format. For example, we don't conclude that Captain Picard is actually a 20th century Shakespearean actor named Patrick Stewart because they look the same, and then conclude that he was brought forward in time. Some people take the "documentary" approach and use it as an excuse to attack trivialities in an effort to transform the debate into a war of sophistry.

So this leads me to ask, doesn't that imply that we have to say some events are wrong?

The preferred explanation is always that some people are wrong, or some interpretations are wrong. An event cannot be wrong in real life, so suspension of disbelief means that an event cannot be wrong in Star Trek or Star Wars either.

The only question is whether Star Trek or Star Wars are rational universes. If they are, then we can suspend disbelief. If they are of such poor quality that they can be considered completely irrational, then we cannot suspend disbelief. However, this also means that no predictions of any kind can be made (good or bad), so a "vs" debate (or indeed, rational analysis of any kind) is impossible. I find that some Trekkies on the losing end of an argument like to try to prove that ST is irrational, by essentially claiming that it follows no intelligible laws whatsoever. The problem is that they still insist on generating predictions and claiming rational analysis anyway, which contradicts their position.

For example, in an episode of The Next Generation, Doctor Crusher was giving people something called a "radiation vaccine". Now, a "radiation vaccine" doesn't make sense on alot of levels. Radiation isn't a viral agent, it's actual physical damage done by radiation. You can't insert dead or weakened radiation into a persons body to make them immune (the vaccine part). It's very much like giving someone a vaccine to prevent a broken leg. It makes no sense at all.

Agreed. This is a huge realism problem in Trek. But we must accept that it occurred anyway, just as we accept things like faster-than-light travel.

However, there are ways to rationalize it, even if they require rather large stretches of the imagination and pre-conditions. Intense radiation causes massive burns and other problems, but we are not talking about prompt radiation in this case; any prompt radiation capable of penetrating an entire ship in lethal doses would produce other manifestations such as damage to the hull surface and disruption of internal systems.

So we are talking about low-level ionizing radiation and/or fallout, which is dangerous because it causes cancer. It is assumed that the term "vaccine" is literal. However, we have seen that the Federation has butchered terminology in the future, so we can assume that this is simply another example. Therefore, we have a couple of possible explanations:

• Their radiation "vaccine" may be something which can somehow identify and kill cancerous cells caused by ionizing radiation. This might be a nanotech solution, or they may have discovered some natural or bio-engineered agent which can do it.
• Their radiation "vaccine" may be something which coats mucous membranes and prevents the ingestion of small particles, thus keeping fallout from entering their bodies.
• Their radiation "vaccine" may be something which saturates certain organs which tend to retain fallout particles (IIRC, the gallbladder and liver) and prevents absorption.

It is generally assumed that their radiation "vaccine" is a cure-all, ie- there is no damage whatsoever thanks to the vaccine. However, this may not be the case; for all we know, it merely retards the damage long enough for some other medical technology to be used which would presumably undo the damage.

So tell me, if you saw a doctor giving out "radiation vaccines" in real life, you'd assume she was a quack who was on her way to a malpractice suit. Since we are treating the event as something that "really happened", don't we have to make the same assumption?

Question: how do we know the radiation vaccine is effective? How do we know it is not some placebo which is used to justify the use of manpower in dangerous environments despite safety hazards which would offend the philosophers at Starfleet?

Think about it: have we ever seen any evidence that it does anything? The radiation in "Booby Trap" was low-level radiation that they were only exposed to for a few minutes. If the population of Hiroshima were exposed to ambient radiation for only a few minutes and there was no particulate fallout, there would have been almost no casualties from radiation. Moreover, medium and long-term cancer problems may be correctable with their medical technology, and those are the only kind of damage that we would expect from that kind of radiation anyway.

[Gil Hamilton]

What I was driving at was asking if an bit of information accertained from a show that is canon but stupid and irrational beyond all belief, should it be considered canon? I suppose the "radiation vaccine" example was a bad one, but it was the best I could think of at the time of the rant and was inspired by memories of the Trekkie that claimed that it was canon that StarFleet personnel would withstand powerful laser fire, because lasers are radiation and vaccines make people immune to things.

[Darth Wong]

What I was driving at was asking if an bit of information accertained from a show that is canon but stupid and irrational beyond all belief, should it be considered canon?

Do we have any choice? It's in the show, so it's canon.

I suppose the "radiation vaccine" example was a bad one, but it was the best I could think of at the time of the rant and was inspired by memories of the Trekkie that claimed that it was canon that StarFleet personnel would withstand powerful laser fire, because lasers are radiation and vaccines make people immune to things.

Well, I agree that this is just stupid; his interpretation is the sort of thing that people think of while high on drugs.

But I do see what you're getting at: you're asking if we should consider something canon even if it's mind-bogglingly stupid or hopelessly inconsistent.

This is a good question (although I'm not sure if it belongs in this forum as opposed to "Other Sci-fi"), but unfortunately, if it's in the show, it's canon. The real question is: can a show be so stupid that it defies rational analysis, so that we shouldn't even bother?

This is an attack which is often levelled against reality and science: is reality rational? If it is not rational, then science is useless. However, the fact that scientific theories do work suggests that the universe is rational.

In sci-fi, one could make the same argument: is the show so stupid that it cannot be analyzed? I think that's a valid question, but all too often, it is used as an excuse to throw selected parts of the show out (ie- the parts which somebody doesn't like), when it's really more of an "all or nothing" proposition.