I'd like to expand on Necron_Lord's point...
Joun_Lord wrote:Well Star Trek is more scientifically accurate. Or more precisely it uses more scientifically accurate terms. Instead of force users there are psychics. Instead of random made up mumbo jumbo they have mumbo jumbo with real science words like quantum and polarity or even horizon even if they don't use them in any way resembling reality.
Here's my take on it.
Star Trek isn't more 'scientific' as such.
However, Star Trek is more faithful to the
idea of science. Compare and contrast the following:
1) In Star Wars, the odds are pretty good that you will overcome the threat of the week/year/decade by closing your eyes, meditating, tapping into inner spiritual reserves, and tying yourself into a mystical energy field.
2) The greatest power a Star Wars character can possess is "Force" power: a mysterious inner source of energy that operates through inherently ineffable mechanisms, and which seems to be tied into our notions of 'fate' and 'destiny.' The Force defies technological analysis.
3) Star Wars characters tend to solve their problems using these mystical methods: they overcome a "technological terror" by "trusting the Force."
4) The dominant driving engine of history over the sixty or so years spanned by the current movies is ongoing conflict between two sets of empowered
individuals, whose powers are intrinsic and magical and can never be duplicated by or transferred to mundane beings. As a corollary, beings with supernatural powers dominate the plot
A) In Star Trek, challenges are usually overcome by hitting the books, running computer simulations, solving logic puzzles, and collaboration in the laboratory.
B) The greatest power a truly memorable Star Trek character can possess seems to be a refined knowledge of science or technology. While some characters possess mystical abilities, these abilities are generally less likely to be the solution to a given problem than their technical skills (Spock solves a lot more problems with science than he does with mind melds, and Data solves a lot more external problems
period than Troi does with empathic readings)
C) Star Trek characters tend to overcome
both natural
and supernatural threats by using scientific principles to deduce the weaknesses of an opponent and adjusting and refining their technology. Or by patiently investigating the background that gave rise to a difficult situation, and then behaving in a way chosen to resolve the underlying problem their investigation uncovered.
D) The dominant driving engine of history over the ~200 or so years spanned by the current TV shows is ongoing conflict between
civilizations, who employ tools any sufficiently educated being can employ. Beings with supernatural powers play relatively minor roles in the plot, even when those powers are nothing short of godlike (e.g. the Q continuum).
...
Now, comparing those points, do you see why someone might feel Star Trek is 'more scientific?'
They don't mean 'scientific' in the sense that Star Trek is somehow objectively scientifically 'correct.' It uses Hollywood science, and no one with an ounce of sense denies that.
What they mean is that Star Wars solves problems the way a monk or a wizard would solve them. And that Star Trek solves problems the way a scientist or engineer would solve them.
Sure, the
details of how Star Trek protagonists "use science" to solve a problem are often cartoonish or improbable. But the basic approach to problem-solving is something a scientist or engineer is likely to find very comfortable, based on principles like:
-Make sure you clearly understand the problem and all the forces that are in play.
-Research background information.
-Bring a variety of equipment to monitor and analyze the situation, maintain it well, and check to make sure it is functioning correctly.
-Be prepared to design and fabricate new devices to cope with new situations
-Repurpose existing devices, likewise.
And the thing is, Star Trek
shows people doing all this stuff, on a regular basis. You
see people studying up on new phenomena, consulting computer databases, struggling to find engineering solutions to allow their equipment to keep functioning under difficult conditions. It may all involve a lot of technobabble and blindly waving tricorders at things instead of opening them up and using a wrench. But it at least involves
actors pretending to solve problems through a science and engineering-heavy approach.
And that's where you get people who favor Star Trek as 'more scientific.' Even when Star Trek crews face supernatural threats, the scientific approach doesn't just get erased. Even when dealing with technobabble, they're still doing the kind of things you expect
actors playing scientists to do, not the thing you expect actors playing wizards or ascetic monks to do.
I mean hay watch any star trek episode or movie and you'll hear sound in space and the space ships have wings thing can I get a Klingon bird of pray any one? 
. This brings up a question why do you think many people at least people in my experience think that trek is more scientifically accurate when most of its science is just nonsensical made up word salad? Anyway id like to hear your thoughts on the video.
