Taking up the ST/SW issue with a philosophical approach

RTN · Post by **RTN** » 2003-04-30 09:51pm

Keevan_Colton wrote: Excuse me but I must cry bullshit....if it's violating all the known laws of physics and pissing all over them, then....how exactly is it more scientific?
They use scientific sounding words.....in totally bullshit ways......so dont claim its using "actual scientific ideas".

Ideas don't have to work completely or be unequivacly proved in order to be a true scientific concept.

RTN · Post by **RTN** » 2003-04-30 09:53pm

And on that note, Chemisty as a whole is bullshit. Unlike real math, theoretical values are never the values found in the labs -- ever. There's to much estimation. Why? Because not everything is known. So you can't really ever know if you're breaking scientific laws because not all have been written and not all scientific things have been seen from wider perseptives. We can only analyze so much at a time.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-04-30 09:54pm

RTN wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote: Excuse me but I must cry bullshit....if it's violating all the known laws of physics and pissing all over them, then....how exactly is it more scientific?
They use scientific sounding words.....in totally bullshit ways......so dont claim its using "actual scientific ideas".
Ideas don't have to work completely or be unequivacly proved in order to be a true scientific concept.

What they have is a steaming pile of horse shit....so dont call them "actual scientific ideas" any more than YEC is an actual scientific idea.

RTN · Post by **RTN** » 2003-04-30 09:57pm

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-30 09:58pm

RTN wrote:And on that note, Chemisty as a whole is bullshit. Unlike real math, theoretical values are never the values found in the labs -- ever. There's to much estimation. Why? Because not everything is known. So you can't really ever know if you're breaking scientific laws because not all have been written and not all scientific things have been seen from wider perseptives. We can only analyze so much at a time.

You, sir, are bullshitting. You are bullshitting so bad my cat has left my lap in defiance. The ideas in Trek have been conclusively disproven. Please refrain from pretending you are right when you obviously aren't.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-04-30 09:59pm

RTN wrote:YEC?

Young Earth Creationism....which is about as close to "actual scientific ideas" as Star Trek is....

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-04-30 10:00pm

I don't what to laugh at more...the cat's correct judgement or the wild assumption that Chemistry is bullshit because you say so.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-30 10:00pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:Figures are indeed more "real" in a tangible sense (although one wonders at their use when both ST folks and SW folks are forced to place huge margins of error in their guesstimations), but my point is that they don't reflect a "real situation."

Black/white fallacy; the fact that a margin of error is employed does not mean it is impossible to come to a conclusion. If you can determine that A is 1 million times greater than B, even a rather hefty margin of error would not deny the conclusion that A is greater than B.

Moreover, I would point out that in issues like "How many Feds can Jedi X take on?" one does account for that persons motivations and habits. How is it that Jedis are people with the power to be actors in a scenario and starship captains (on either side) are not?

Strawman fallacy. The difference in firepower is such that it doesn't matter who the captain is. Would the greatest captain in the universe allow a 17th century ship of the line to take on an Iowa-class battleship?

Running the numbers only works if all vessals on both sides are operated by computers of identicle capabilties.

Crew skill is only important if the ships' intrinsic capabilities are somewhat comparable, unless you go to ridiculous extremes and assume they can't even operate their own vessel at all.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-30 10:03pm

RTN wrote:Technologically speaking they are different as well. Star Trek, though it has a great deal more technobabble, uses actual scientific ideas. Star Wars doesn't need to, it's there to put the audience in awe.

If you change that sentence to "Star Trek ... abuses actual scientific ideas", it will become accurate. We're talking about a sci-fi series with sonic weapons in space, devices which alter mathematical laws, etc.

That is my small opinion, amongst many thoughts of others. In terms of this website, however, it is clealy about... battle

How observant of you ...

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-04-30 10:03pm

I think the point is that there's bullshit and then there's bullshit.

On the one hand he's right, you could argue that chemistry is bullshit if you wanted to, and be right. But I think he'd agree that more in Trek is bullshit than in chemisty.

No one is contesting that Wars is bullshit.

Conclusions?

Bullshit is omnipresent and relative, and Trek is pretentious.

On the side, of course Trek is pretentious! Remember that whole Utopia thing?

RTN · Post by **RTN** » 2003-04-30 10:04pm

Ghost Rider wrote:I don't what to laugh at more...the cat's correct judgement or the wild assumption that Chemistry is bullshit because you say so.

Chemistry is bullshit because it is not an exact science. My guess is that because the perodic table was never meant to be 2D and that's why nothing fits perfectly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-30 10:05pm

RTN wrote:And on that note, Chemisty as a whole is bullshit. Unlike real math, theoretical values are never the values found in the labs -- ever. There's to much estimation. Why? Because not everything is known. So you can't really ever know if you're breaking scientific laws because not all have been written and not all scientific things have been seen from wider perseptives. We can only analyze so much at a time.

Black/white fallacy. In short, "we are not omniscient therefore we really know nothing, and we do not have perfect accuracy therefore we have no accuracy". Pure bullshit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-30 10:06pm

RTN wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:I don't what to laugh at more...the cat's correct judgement or the wild assumption that Chemistry is bullshit because you say so.
Chemistry is bullshit because it is not an exact science. My guess is that because the perodic table was never meant to be 2D and that's why nothing fits perfectly.

No, YOU are full of bullshit because there is no such thing as a perfectly exact science. Science is an iterative process in which theories are judged by their relative accuracy, not by some kind of moronic perfect/imperfect determination.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-04-30 10:08pm

Darth Wong wrote: Black/white fallacy.

Now that I think about it, you're right that my whining about estimations is a fallacy, but my point about reality stands.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-04-30 10:11pm

RTN wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:I don't what to laugh at more...the cat's correct judgement or the wild assumption that Chemistry is bullshit because you say so.
Chemistry is bullshit because it is not an exact science. My guess is that because the perodic table was never meant to be 2D and that's why nothing fits perfectly.

And why the fuck would the perodic table need to be 3D?

And nothing is perfect.(see my title for example)

RTN · Post by **RTN** » 2003-04-30 10:13pm

Darth Wong wrote: If you change that sentence to "Star Trek ... abuses actual scientific ideas", it will become accurate. We're talking about a sci-fi series with sonic weapons in space, devices which alter mathematical laws, etc.

Obviously my thoughts are being taken out of context. I've already conceded there's bullshit in Star Trek. Photon Torpedoes are one. Soninc anything in space is another (thanks for a second example). If I really wanted to jump on the bandwagon I'd write a letter telling the scientist that wants to use focused radio waves to assemble things in space an idiot.

Darth Wong wrote: Black/white fallacy. In short, "we are not omniscient therefore we really know nothing, and we do not have perfect accuracy therefore we have no accuracy". Pure bullshit.

If you believe that your "Black/White fallacy" is bullshit then you should also believe my small opinion that "Chemisty is bullshit because it's not as accurate as it should or coule be" is based on some degree of truth. Because despite not having perfect accuracy, I still have SOME.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-04-30 10:14pm

anarchistbunny wrote:(see my title for example)

D'oh!

I meant sig, not title.

RTN · Post by **RTN** » 2003-04-30 10:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:
RTN wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:I don't what to laugh at more...the cat's correct judgement or the wild assumption that Chemistry is bullshit because you say so.
Chemistry is bullshit because it is not an exact science. My guess is that because the perodic table was never meant to be 2D and that's why nothing fits perfectly.
No, YOU are full of bullshit because there is no such thing as a perfectly exact science. Science is an iterative process in which theories are judged by their relative accuracy, not by some kind of moronic perfect/imperfect determination.

In physics, you can calculate exact values of forces. You test them, and get what you projected. In Chemistry is calculate the exact values of material and ect. But you get only approximations because we lack equipment precision enough to get what we should get (and due to human failure).

As for the periodic table, I've been told it was originally designed to be a freaking pyramid. It's not anymore. And what in nature is only 2D??

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-04-30 10:20pm

RTN wrote:As for the periodic table, I've been told it was originally designed to be a freaking pyramid. It's not anymore. And what in nature is only 2D??

Whoa...what would that look like?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-04-30 10:23pm

RTN wrote: In physics, you can calculate exact values of forces. You test them, and get what you projected. In Chemistry is calculate the exact values of material and ect. But you get only approximations because we lack equipment precision enough to get what we should get (and due to human failure).

You can calculate the exact values of forces....but I will bet you good money you will not get 100% exactly that result there will always be at least a miniscule margin of error since there are always outside variable impacting the processes....which is also true for chemistry....
Want to know why you dont always get exact results in chemistry?
You cannot garuntee something reacting with 100% efficency....

As for the periodic table, I've been told it was originally designed to be a freaking pyramid. It's not anymore. And what in nature is only 2D??

Its a matter of format of the groupings of similar chemical properties.....that was the reason for the different shapes considered....the bloody periodic table is only a chart listing information, how the information is presented doesnt change the actual contnent......

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-30 10:25pm

Peddle your stupid elsewhere, we have plenty!

Seriously. If you really, honestly think Star Trek uses actual science, please go read the Main Site. The link is the Stardestroyer.net picture on the top of your browser window here. Read the whole thing. Make notes if you like.

RTN · Post by **RTN** » 2003-04-30 10:33pm

SirNitram wrote:Peddle your stupid elsewhere, we have plenty!

I'm aware of this.

SirNitram wrote:Seriously. If you really, honestly think Star Trek uses actual science, please go read the Main Site. The link is the Stardestroyer.net picture on the top of your browser window here. Read the whole thing. Make notes if you like.
I've already read everything in there. They are all fine points. Well thought out, they really are. But as said before, I don't care which techs are plausible and which aren't. I'm debating against society's resistance to things that are unlikely.

Want to know why you dont always get exact results in chemistry?
You cannot garuntee something reacting with 100% efficency....
Good. I want to know why? And when I understand the reasoning, my opinion of Chemistry as a relatively exact science will change. I'm not attacking anyone's ideas on SD.net, and I'm not claiming that Star Trek isn't filled with bullshit because I already know it to be true.

RTN · Post by **RTN** » 2003-04-30 10:35pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
how the information is presented doesnt change the actual contnent......

How the information is presented alters what experiements we decide to do with it and to a lesser degree why we get the reults we do.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-30 10:37pm

RTN wrote:In physics, you can calculate exact values of forces. You test them, and get what you projected. In Chemistry is calculate the exact values of material and ect. But you get only approximations because we lack equipment precision enough to get what we should get (and due to human failure).

Are you seriously suggesting that measurement of physics variables takes place with zero inaccuracy? Obviously, you and Heisenberg would not have gotten along too well.

As for the periodic table, I've been told it was originally designed to be a freaking pyramid. It's not anymore. And what in nature is only 2D??

It doesn't matter what shape it is. The number of protons in each element is a known quantity, the atomic mass numbers are known quantities, etc. The table is accurate.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-04-30 10:39pm

RTN wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:
how the information is presented doesnt change the actual contnent......
How the information is presented alters what experiements we decide to do with it and to a lesser degree why we get the reults we do.

Only if you're a retard....the information about each element would be the same if they were all listed in a text book on seperate pages, the table is just the most commonly used way of presenting the information....it does not influence the information itself....its just a quick reference tool.