Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby DarthPooky » 2016-03-26 03:47am



Ok so I found this video on YouTube and I cant get it out of my head that Bill Nye is saying Star Trek better because it doesn't have religion or so called magic. The reason this irks me is because there is no objective way of determining whether star wars or star trek or any other franchise show or movie is better it is purely subjective yet so many people cant get this through there heads that nether one is better there just different. So star wars has religion so what that doesn't make trek better its just a different of the to. Of cores he could just be saying why he likes one over the other and if some one likes one thing more than some thing else that's fine there's nothing wrong about that its when people act like one is better then the other that I don't like. I know I'm kind of ranting hear its just some thing that's bothered me for a while that this video made me feel like voicing what I think.

of cores he says some pretty dumb stuff hear to like how star wars has sound in space :lol: 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? :roll: . 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.

User avatar
U.P. Cinnabar
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1815
Joined: 2016-02-05 08:11pm
Location: Aboard the RCS Princess Cecile

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby U.P. Cinnabar » 2016-03-26 05:09am

And, Star Trek does have magic, and more than its fair share of magic men. They just psuedoscience the crap out of it to make it look legitimate.
"When you send a man out with a gun, you create a policymaker. When his ass is on the line, he will do whatever he needs to do.

And, if the implications of that bother you, the time to do something about it is before you send him out."
—David Drake


"Oh, but you did! You turn on any of my crew, you turn on me! But, since that's a concept you can't seem to wrap your head around, then, you've got no place here. You did it to me, Jayne, and that's a fact."

—Malcolm Reynolds, captain of the Firefly-class hauler Serenity,in a nutshell

User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1151
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Joun_Lord » 2016-03-26 05:37am

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.

That plus the long and tired meme of Star Trek being based on real science and the possibly accurate meme of Trek inspiring real science, people seem to have a blind spot for it in a manner not shared by Wars. Wars was I think always seen more as fantasy, pretty much like space Lord of the Rings. Trek was seen more as normal science fiction with a supposed emphasis on the science part. They aren't warriors or soldiers, they are scientists and explorers. They don't see go out and start fights over disputes, they solve conflicts with diplomacy and tech. They don't have faith, they have facts.

Either they ignore the things that tarnish or disprove those views of the franchise or just aren't invested in the show enough to see them. Someone who watched TOS 40 years ago and not much Trek since then won't know about the later technobabble heavy bullshit, probably won't remember Kirk calling himself a soldier, and will forget some of the goofier and insane bits of tech of the week or out in out magic (the TOS episode And The Children Shall Lead springs to mind, unfortunately).

They won't know that Trek most certainly has religion even if most humans don't practice it (there was a whole fucking series about religion pretty much) and even some humans seemed religious, certainly Kirk seemed to believe in God judging by Who Mourns for Adonais and Undiscovered Country. Other cultures are very religious and part of the show is about being tolerant of the other heathens. Plus while the Federation doesn't worship some deity they certainly have many traits of religious people. Slavish adherence to a strict code bordering on fanaticism, beliefs in some "cosmic plan", willing to let people and entire civilizations die for their beliefs, and probably other crap I'm forgetting.

I dunno, I respect Nye but like alot of people he does occasionally say some stupid shit. This is just one of those cases. I count ourselves lucky he was only saying something stupid about some made up fantasy bullshit and not something that effects actual lives.

bilateralrope
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3419
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby bilateralrope » 2016-03-26 02:28pm

Joun_Lord wrote: Or more precisely it uses more scientifically accurate terms. Instead of force users there are psychics.


How is "psychic" any more scientific than "the force" ?

User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1151
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Joun_Lord » 2016-03-26 03:42pm

bilateralrope wrote:How is "psychic" any more scientific than "the force" ?


Well "psychic" is a real scientifical term used by real scientists with real degrees and studied by real scientists. What scientist has studied the force?

Now sure, scientists tend to use psychic only when talking about pseudo-science but thats still got science in its name. And those studies have conclusively proven that psychic powers have no basis in science or reality but still, SCIENCE!!! !!! !!!! !

Plus most of the psychics are aliens and its a scientific fact aliens are different therefore its a scientific fact that psychics are scientific facts.

Seriously though, its not more scientific beyond the fact sometimes scientists use it much like how most of the terms in Trek are.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26827
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-03-26 03:45pm

DarthPooky wrote:Ok so I found this video on YouTube and I cant get it out of my head that Bill Nye is saying Star Trek better because it doesn't have religion or so called magic. The reason this irks me is because there is no objective way of determining whether star wars or star trek or any other franchise show or movie is better it is purely subjective yet so many people cant get this through there heads that nether one is better there just different.


Do you understand what subjective means? Bill Nye is the subject of the interview he has given his subjective impression. Saying his response is subjective doesn't invalidate that in any way.

So star wars has religion so what that doesn't make trek better its just a different of the to. Of cores he could just be saying why he likes one over the other and if some one likes one thing more than some thing else that's fine there's nothing wrong about that its when people act like one is better then the other that I don't like. I know I'm kind of ranting hear its just some thing that's bothered me for a while that this video made me feel like voicing what I think.

of cores he says some pretty dumb stuff hear to like how star wars has sound in space :lol: 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? :roll: .
Because Birds of Prey never operate in atmosphere; wait they do.
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.

Because Star Trek fundamentally has science and progress at its heart; the post TOS series have the concept of the antimatter powered starship at the heart of their stories;- that's why TNG has so many episodes where the warp core nearly explodes.

Star Wars is fundamentally about the supremacy of the neo-Buddhist mysticism and about the impotence of technology.



Note that Vader, the only one who respects the supernatural, is also the only one there who is seen to survive in the movie; he is wiser than all the others because he believes in the Force. Tarkin and the others have constructed their technological golden calf, the Death Star, which is actually shown to have no defense against the power of the Force.

The belief in science and progress is something the bad guys in Star Wars - the guys a lot of people on this site are actually the fans of - believe in. Star Wars is fundamentally a piece of Romantic art, where the power of nature and belief renders the resources arrayed against it impotent.

Luke turns off his targeting computer and trusts in the supernatural, and this gives him the mastery, defeating Tarkin and his technocrats.

By comparison, when a crew of starfleet cadets does exactly this in Star Trek DS9 Valiant, attacking a dominion battleship by turning off their computers, they are simply destroyed and the dominion has great sport shooting their escape pods.

Star Trek has its issues, naturally, with science, what wouldn't, if it ran that long? But focussing on the inverteron fields and nadion pulses to call it unscientific misses the point; in almost all Star Trek episodes all problems that arise can be solved by technological means. In most Star Wars films, the believers in the supernatural defeat the technocratic believers in technology and science.

The Jedi and their army of clones (who can think more creatively than droids which makes all the difference even though they take ten years to mature when a droid takes less than ten hours on the assembly line) defeat the CIS which is made of among others the Techno Union and other tehnocrats; they even originated the Death Star.

The Diabolist Palpatine defeats the Jedi by manipulating destiny and prophecy, and rules the galaxy; until he is defeated by the power of love.

Sure, Star Trek features gods - including say, Trelane, who's revealed to just use complex technology of a sort, and Apollo, whom the Enterprise crew defeats in battle - but they are not depicted as fundamentally correct, and the belief in technology isn't depicted as wrong.

You probably hate the ewoks defeating Stormtroopers - please don't bother trotting out arguments that they actually didn't - most people on this site cringe at it, but it's an intended part of the message of star wars; technology is impotent. The good guys use technology, yes, but they subordinate all science to their religion (Let Go Luke!) and this gives them victory.

When the Jedi put their faith in the technology of the anonymous clones, they are betrayed by it, because they have lost touch with the force; so Yoda goes and meditates in a hut for twenty years rather than joining the Rebellion. This is why Lucas never bothered to even consider the idea of addressing droid rights in the films; they're essentially soulless, and he's on record as saying that. Even though they appear to be self aware and human-like in emotion.

Star Trek has magic and gods, but they're not a dominant force in the majority of Star Trek series, and they do not control destiny as they do in Star Wars. Star Trek is rationalist in tone, Star Wars is Romantic.

Tl;dr



You will never see the Force brought to heel and reduced to impotence by a star destroyer. That will not happen without a serious shift of tone in the franchise.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2613
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Ziggy Stardust » 2016-03-27 06:39pm

Joun_Lord wrote:Now sure, scientists tend to use psychic only when talking about pseudo-science but thats still got science in its name.


This is one of the most gloriously ridiculous sentences I have ever read.

My conscience has got science in its name, too, so I'm going to start appealing to that as scientific evidence.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14961
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Batman » 2016-03-27 07:02pm

I think he's taking about perceptions. 'Psychic' is often treated 'might have a basis in reality (at least by laymen) while everybody pretty much agrees the Force is essentially magic (midichlorians notwithstanding).
Thus, while Trek is no more scientific than Wars (less so I'd argue, because Wars at least doesn't go the extra step of trying to use science to explain stuff only to abysmally fail at it),it sounds more scientific. To those who don't know much science at any rate, so roughly 97% of the audience.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1151
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Joun_Lord » 2016-03-27 07:58pm

Ziggy Stardust wrote:My conscience has got science in its name, too, so I'm going to start appealing to that as scientific evidence.


Hey with an attitude like that you're well on your way to be a Trek writer. Just need to add a quantum or reverse to it.

Batman wrote:I think he's taking about perceptions. 'Psychic' is often treated 'might have a basis in reality (at least by laymen) while everybody pretty much agrees the Force is essentially magic (midichlorians notwithstanding).
Thus, while Trek is no more scientific than Wars (less so I'd argue, because Wars at least doesn't go the extra step of trying to use science to explain stuff only to abysmally fail at it),it sounds more scientific. To those who don't know much science at any rate, so roughly 97% of the audience.


More or less. Trek uses scientific buzzwords that really don't have any meaning but sound "smart" to the average Joe. I mean the tech jargon on Trek has so little meaning the writers of the scripts would just write (TECH) in the scripts and have somebody later on fill in the blanks with something appropriately "science" sounding probably from a stack of well worn, dog eared Popular Science magazines.

The "babble" part of the technobabble is apt, its just meaningless babble. Its just a bunch of words thrown together because they sound scientific with no idea of the meaning behind, how they function, or anything like that. Thats how we get shit like "wedge open the crack of the event horizon" and the "inverse tachyon pulse" through the main deflector doing wildly different thing or the magic meeting room where metaphors become reality.

Psychic is just part of it. Its sounds more plausibly scientific solely for the fact scientists have used it. Like quantum, like tachyon, like event horizon the actual meaning or scientific validity of the term is udderly meaningless. All that matters is its sounds more scientific then "The Force". Its magic but magic with badly applied coating of science on it or more likely a Walmart brand science substitute.

Which is what is so mind boggling about someone as smart as Nye buying the bullshit Trek is peddling. He should one of the 3% that know the technobabble is bullshit.

Whats more is he should be more opposed to Trek's science bullshit attitude over Wars "its magic so I ain't gotta explain shit" attitude. Trek does the same shit fucking creationists do, use science terms in a meaningless fashion to try to confuse and impress people. Give people an unrealistic and/or straight up flawed outlook on science, be utterly bereft of any sort of facts or logic.

Now of course Trek using "reverse quantum conscience" is done for a different reason then a creationism museum using actual science or shit like the "fact" the human hand is perfectly designed to grip a banana (which clearly shows the coconut was invented by the devil) but still its the same bullshit.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26827
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-03-27 09:39pm

Joun_Lord wrote:Which is what is so mind boggling about someone as smart as Nye buying the bullshit Trek is peddling. He should one of the 3% that know the technobabble is bullshit.

Or perhaps he's not watched it since it was last on TV (When was that) and doesn't have perfect recall of it?

I'm pretty sure he's familiar with Stargate, as he cameoed in it, but I have no idea why you think he should have geeky Trek knowledge.

Whats more is he should be more opposed to Trek's science bullshit attitude over Wars "its magic so I ain't gotta explain shit" attitude. Trek does the same shit fucking creationists do, use science terms in a meaningless fashion to try to confuse and impress people. Give people an unrealistic and/or straight up flawed outlook on science, be utterly bereft of any sort of facts or logic.

Who're you to say what he should think?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1151
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Joun_Lord » 2016-03-27 10:08pm

NecronLord wrote:Or perhaps he's not watched it since it was last on TV (When was that) and doesn't have perfect recall of it?

I'm pretty sure he's familiar with Stargate, as he cameoed in it, but I have no idea why you think he should have geeky Trek knowledge.


I already alluded to the possibility saying Trek is more scientific might not have watched the show since it aired. Which is fair, I certainly wouldn't know much aboot Trek if not for having discussions like this and watching reviews like Chuck's and I can't really see Nye doing the same.

However he apparently is familiar enough with Trek to make the assertion that it more scientific. And I don't think its right to excuse that assertion he made just because he might be ignorant.

Also I had totally forgot he cameoed on Fargate until you mentioned it.

Who're you to say what he should think?


Why I'm the person most qualified to say what he should think, I'm some asshole with an opinion on the internet!

Really though, I'm not saying he should think a certain way. However he is scientifically wrong about Trek being more scientific. He also has demonstrated an active dislike and opposition to the low brow, intellectually dishonest tactics and twisted facts used by creationist morons and psedoscience peddlers and as such should logically be opposed to a tv show doing the exact same dang thing rather then defending it.

It would be like someone active against racism praising Fox News for being racially inclusive. It, probably like my metaphor, doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28806
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Simon_Jester » 2016-03-29 03:19pm

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.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 698
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Khaat » 2016-03-29 04:02pm

Okay my two cents:
Nye is commenting on the thematic flavor, and is essentially correct:
Bill Nye wrote:"Star Wars... it's really about family conflicts; it's Shakespearean."
"In Star Trek, it's an optimistic view of the future with science."

Bill Nye is going to all about "the science!": he isn't a drama critic.

Plus most everything Simon said.
"Just because you're the captain doesn't mean you can order me to... oh, right. Fuck, it does." - Krep, Spacetrawler

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28806
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Simon_Jester » 2016-03-29 08:06pm

Yeah.

There's a reason why many if not most of Star Trek's most memorable characters are calm, contemplative, cerebral types who thrive on scientific or historical knowledge and use it constantly. Spock, Data, and Picard come to mind.

There are certainly "man of action" characters in the story, of course- Kirk, Riker, and Sisko, for instance. And that's on top of a variety of other personality types. But the Star Trek characters who become pop culture icons tend to be the thinky ones... because everyone who watches Star Trek and pays the least bit of attention knows it's a show about solving problems by thinking.

Kirk or Riker are cool characters and most viewers tend to approve of them, but they're just plain not that different from the miscellaneous action-man protagonists of every other show out there. Whereas Star Trek has historically done a quite good job establishing its 'brain' characters, such that they stand out of the (smaller) crowd of other similar ones in other fiction.

Basically, Star Trek tends to really click with people who think doing their homework is a good idea and that understanding things is inherently cool. That's Bill Nye right there.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6237
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Soontir C'boath » 2016-03-29 08:25pm

I'd agree with Bill Nye. After all, Luke turned off the damn targeting computer and use some psychic force to telekinetically guide the proton torpedoes into the damn exhaust port.
Image

If I was to worship God, it would be my lord, Baal.
P-38 Fanboy

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14961
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Batman » 2016-03-29 08:32pm

Who says he did? All we know is a)he turned off the targeting computer and b) the Force somehow let him make the shot-a shot NOT deemed physically impossible by the Rebellion, just really really hard. For all we know all the Force did was let Luke fire at the exact right moment.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 13939
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Gandalf » 2016-03-29 09:12pm

Indeed. It's quite the message of having faith in a higher power.
"How you wanna raise a flag with a rifle
To make us want to celebrate anything but survival?
Nah, you watching tele for The Bachelor
But wouldn’t read a book about a fuckload of massacres?"

- A.B. Original, January 26

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6237
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Soontir C'boath » 2016-03-29 09:18pm

Batman wrote:Who says he did? All we know is a)he turned off the targeting computer and b) the Force somehow let him make the shot-a shot NOT deemed physically impossible by the Rebellion, just really really hard. For all we know all the Force did was let Luke fire at the exact right moment.

I'm still not really seeing a contradiction here. At the end of the day, he did not use the targeting computer which by the concern of the operators back on Yavin IV was something rather serious. As well as presumably, it would be really hard with the targeting computer ON and I'd hazard a guess that it's even harder OFF. Especially given there's no active guidance system the proton torpedoes would be using...

Saying the force let Luke fired at the right moment still makes it magic.
Last edited by Soontir C'boath on 2016-03-29 09:18pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

If I was to worship God, it would be my lord, Baal.
P-38 Fanboy

User avatar
biostem
Jedi Master
Posts: 1416
Joined: 2012-11-15 01:48pm

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby biostem » 2016-03-29 09:18pm

Gandalf wrote:Indeed. It's quite the message of having faith in a higher power.



Albeit a higher power that is empirically demonstrable...

User avatar
Zor
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5661
Joined: 2004-06-08 03:37am

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Zor » 2016-03-29 10:29pm

I feel that the thread has a loaded title: he did not say that he does not like Star Wars, only that he prefers Star Trek.

Zor
HAIL ZOR! WE'LL BLOW UP THE OCEAN!
Heros of Cybertron-HAB-Keeper of the Vicious pit of Allosauruses-King Leighton-I, United Kingdom of Zoria: SD.net World/Tsar Mikhail-I of the Red Tsardom: SD.net Kingdoms
WHEN ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE ON EARTH, ALL EARTH BREAKS LOOSE ON HELL
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/ind
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/tra
Terran Sphere
The Art of Zor

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 13939
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Gandalf » 2016-03-30 08:24pm

biostem wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Indeed. It's quite the message of having faith in a higher power.


Albeit a higher power that is empirically demonstrable...


It's existence is demonstrable. But its intentions aren't as clear.

Luke had to take it on faith that the Force would take his side and guide his torpedo to the right spot. Qui-Gon and the rest of the Jedi took it on faith that Anakin was the Chosen One that the Force sent to balance itself, not knowing the middle part where he helps slaughter them and bring about "The Dark Times."
"How you wanna raise a flag with a rifle
To make us want to celebrate anything but survival?
Nah, you watching tele for The Bachelor
But wouldn’t read a book about a fuckload of massacres?"

- A.B. Original, January 26

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
biostem
Jedi Master
Posts: 1416
Joined: 2012-11-15 01:48pm

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby biostem » 2016-03-30 08:37pm

Gandalf wrote:
biostem wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Indeed. It's quite the message of having faith in a higher power.


Albeit a higher power that is empirically demonstrable...


It's existence is demonstrable. But its intentions aren't as clear.

Luke had to take it on faith that the Force would take his side and guide his torpedo to the right spot. Qui-Gon and the rest of the Jedi took it on faith that Anakin was the Chosen One that the Force sent to balance itself, not knowing the middle part where he helps slaughter them and bring about "The Dark Times."



I was referring to the *existence* of the force, not its intentions.

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6237
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Soontir C'boath » 2016-03-30 08:45pm

Well your point is pointless then. Might as well point out that the One Ring can demonstratively make people invisible.
Image

If I was to worship God, it would be my lord, Baal.
P-38 Fanboy

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26827
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-03-31 03:29pm

"X is empirical in the universe" is a Watsonian defence against a Doylian critique.

By that same standard Nadion particles *are* science in Star Trek, as is psionics, so it can't be called unscientific either.

Conversely, the difference in tone, between a setting where science has the answer, and one where faith in technological terrors will be your undoing, is profound. Nothing in the universe can refute an out of universe comment on the work's artistic merits; You can't use the internal logic of Triumph of the Will to refute the idea that Nazism is wrong, you can't use the internal logic of Fall of Berlin to prove that Stalinism is benevolent.

You can't use the internal logic of Star Wars to refute the idea that faith in world-spirits is unscientific and just as those extreme examples promote their world-views, Star Wars promotes unscientific values in a way that Star Trek writers generally try to avoid.

Nitpicking holes in their internal presentation of matters of scientific fact or logic ignore the much more important (to most reviewers at least) themes and messages of the works.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28806
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

Postby Simon_Jester » 2016-03-31 04:13pm

Hm.

A good scientist in Star Wars would probably conclude that subordinating your will to that of the galactic spirit is, in fact, a good way to blow up Death Stars. Because facing the facts is a scientific virtue. If I see a thing really happening in front of me, and I reject it as 'unscientific,' I am being a bad parody of a scientist.

However, you are entirely 100% correct to note that a setting in which the way you destroy "this technological terror" is with "devotion to that ancient religion" is not a setting with a scientific outlook on the world. At most, you have a world where people who have a scientific outlook are forced to conclude that a mystical outlook works and in some situations is superior to a scientific one.

And that's a pretty good summary of Star Wars; at times when a mystical outlook competes with a scientific one, the mystical outlook usually wins.

In Star Trek, the competition is more even, scientific approaches to problem-solving often succeed where a mystical approach would fail.

...

It occurs to me that there's a very good example of this in Star Trek V, where we have McCoy crying out "Jim! You don't ask the Almighty for his ID!" But then he turns out to be wrong, and is convinced of his wrongness when he sees evidence that he is not dealing with a benevolent deity. Because Kirk and Spock, who questioned this entity, are punished for doing so. And McCoy sees this evidence... and rather than concluding that this must be part of the entity's plans, realizes he made a mistake.

As a compassionate medical man, he realizes there is a logical inconsistency in this view, and says "I doubt any god who inflicts pain for his own pleasure." So McCoy is in the wrong when he looks at the problem as purely a mystical one, and becomes right when he uses his reason to analyze the situation. And it turns out the entity they're dealing with is not in any meaningful sense 'God,' and is essentially just another sealed horror, but one capable of impersonating a benevolent god... unless you cross it.

Meanwhile, Sybok, a very spiritual person who does trust supernatural and mystic impulses implicitly, is the primary antagonist of the whole movie. And he's not the first, or the second, or as I recall it even the third or fourth, "magical" person to try and hijack the Enterprise.

...

[COMPLETELY UNRELATED RAMBLE FOLLOWS]

It occurs to me that you can analyze a typical TOS plot down into a set of elements, one or more of which are used to build up any given episode. Among the stock plot elements:

-Someone tries to hijack the Enterprise.
-A strange disease or other influence saps the strength or willpower (or both) of the crew, rendering them helpless; the command team may or may not be affected.
-The Enterprise and her crew get caught up in a vendetta between two powerful factions, and the command team has to try and make peace.
-A group shows fanatical loyalty to a powerful leader-figure who is secretly a fraud.
-An individual (typically a master scientist) has 'perfected' a dangerous creation with hidden costs.
-The command team is captured and imprisoned in a strange place that is not what it seems, and have to unlock the true nature of that place in order to escape.

That is by no means a complete list, but I can think of quite a few episodes whose plots can be summarized by combining a few of those elements.

And a lot of the movies are also explorations of these same elements.

Now, obviously if you make a big enough list, most of fiction can be reduced to such a laundry list of plot elements (witness the website TVTropes for examples). But it seems... unusually apparent that this is happening in TOS, although that may just be a feature of episodic TV as a whole, where there are good reasons for the creative team to say "we're over budget, let's do another 'bottle episode' where the crew never leaves the Enterprise and the ship is being hijacked by a monster we can do with some cheap costumes."
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests