Hmm, let's see. Yup, grasping at straws, like i expected.JediMasterSpock wrote:Actually, there are multiple meanings of the word "amphibian." One is to a specific class of animals; the other is a more general meaning, meaning something that can be taken into or used inside the water. We usually say amphibious, but it's there:A briefcase that looks like a fish may well be designed to be carried easily underwater, and thus be literally amphibian.am·phib·i·an
/æmˈfɪbiən/ Show Spelled[am-fib-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.any cold-blooded vertebrate of the class Amphibia, comprising frogs and toads, newts and salamanders, and caecilians, the larvae being typically aquatic, breathing by gills, and the adults being typically semiterrestrial, breathing by lungs and through the moist, glandular skin.
2. an amphibious plant.
3. an airplane designed for taking off from and landing on both land and water.
4. Also called amtrac. a flat-bottomed, armed, military vehicle, equipped with both tracks and a rudder, that can travel either on land or in water, used chiefly for landing assault troops.
–adjective
5. belonging or pertaining to the Amphibia.
6. amphibious ( def. 2 ) .
SDN is very creative in coming up with explanations for how the ICS can be interpreted as correct, but not especially creative in explaining why Data says what he says.
First, you will note that the definitions for inanimate objects apply to VEHICLES. The correct word for describing someting that is not a vehicle and yet can be used on both land and water is....watertight.
Furthermore, you ignore that they are specifically referring to the appearance of that briefcase, NOT it's utility in different environments.
Your explanations is pretty much an ad-hoc argument - poorly constructed and at best remotely possible.
@ AVOCADO:
You have to show that your own theory has superior explanatory value than mine. That's basics 101 for academic discussions, don't you know anything about that?You claim my posted information were irrelevant. But if you had read and understood them you would know that your theory is not possible.
As evidenced by you saying so, and ignoring what i wrote.You claim that you learned all the posted information in school, but it seems that you do not know anything about the structure of Earth.
I am specificaly referring to plumes of hot magma, that normally occur at hotspots. Put simply, hot magma rises up, sometimes even penetrating the surface.You are claiming that it is completely viable to inject the plasma trough the plastic mantle because it is not solid. You are referring to "magma shafts" that are essentially liquid throughout the mantle. But that is wrong.
Only the asthenosphere is not solid. And the asthenosphere is only 200 km thick. And "magma shafts" are not going deeper than the asthenosphere. That means that there are still round about 2.800 km of solid mantle rock between he asthenosphere and the core.
That magma is liquid, tough it can admittedly become solid later on. But obviously, they would chose a plume that is still liquid - given that they had only a few suitable locations, this is consistent with the episode.
Simple, dumbass, if you are reading what i am writing:How is the plasma supposed to go through that 2.800 km of solid mantle rock that underlies a pressure strong enough to prevent melting?
It's not. The plume is liquid and freed a path.
It obviosuly must have low buoyancy, otherwise it would rise from the core even if injected directly. This is a requirement for both theories.»This plasma must obviously be capable of quickly moving through molten, high pressure metal (otherwise it would not affect the core), hence it can probably sink quickly through less-pressurized molten stone.« is no explanation at all – regardless that the mantle is almost exclusively solid and plasma usually has a lesser density than even molten mantle rocks and would therefore afloat above the latter (Buoyancy) and escape through the porous crust (something that cannot happen if plasma is injected into the core because the solid mantle prevents its escape to the surface of the planet).
Yes, yes i do. Everyone can see that you did so. Again, by the way.Furthermore you accuse me of constructing a strawman out of your argument. That is not true either.
Your theory was:
My theory is basically that you can not rely on their terminology. This has been explained several times.According to that, your theory was, that they meant the mantle and not the core when they have said core.
That means that they wanted to reliquefy the mantle.
You are trying to imply that i am more specific than i claimed to be - essentially, you are going for semantic nitpicks (and lies, see above - or and right afterwards, too).
The plasma had a free path due to a plume of liquid magma. Read what i am writing - liar.My explanation dealt with that theory by showing that it is not possible by showing that most of the mantle is supposed to be solid and that the solidifying of the asthenosphere wouldn't be a problem at all while the solidifying of the core would constitute a big problem.
Example of one of your stramans, copy&pasted from the same post where i accused you of such:
'You attacked a version of my argument that was based on the claim that Starfleet scientists are incompetent.You constructed ANOTHER strawman in this attack, quite visible here:I never assumed that they knew no science at all.If you assume that Starfleet personal are stupid and know next to nothing of the physics of their own universe, you have to explain how it is possible that they are able to build and operate a ship that can fly faster than light and can deceive complex plans and execute them successfully again and again. Both is not compatible. While it may be the easiest assumption in some instances, it is an implausible assumption because its consequences are not possible.
I only assumed that they either universally switched the meaning of a word (everyone does it) - that's not incompetence.
Or that they simply misspoke in the heat of a moment - that is an error, but it not mean that they are incompetent. Everyone can misspeak, it happens.
You claimed that i made the assumption that they are incompetent, and then tried to disprove that. That's a classic strawman - attacking something your opponent never said.
However, my actual argument does not rest on such an assumption, while it is an unlikely possibility, it mostly assumes that they changed the meaning of several words.
Another LIE. I Specifically said so here:How is that a strawman of your theory?
Or did you mean something else? Then you should have said what you meant.
Nowhere in your theory is it indicated that you think they wanted to eject the plasma into the mantle and affect the core that way.
That’s your new theory after I have shown that the solidifying of the asthenosphere wouldn’t be a problem at all and that it makes only sense to assume that they wanted to reliquefy the core.
Anyone who knows what a hotspot is would understand that. Apparently, you are incapable of using lexika.Here it is:
They drill to a old magma chamber located above a hot spot. Since a hot spot with molten magma is close, this fits the criteria "molten core" if we assume that they misspoke or use the word "core" differently.
Then, they inject the plasma into that hot spot - the plasma must obviously be capable of moving fast trough dense liquids, or it would be useless when injected into the core as well. It will travel to the core due to gravity.
You provide no proof for the capabilities that would be required to do so.The next accusation is that I offered no actual alternate explanation. That is not true either. You know my theory: They drilled through the crust and through the mantle until they reached the pockets in the magma layer from where they injected sufficient plasma directly into the core. There were problems but they have solved these problems.
I admit that I do not know how they solved these problems. But I do not claim that it is impossible for them to solve them.
This theory is compatible with all available data. And contrary to your theory, the problems of my theory can be solved with technology while your theory does not work on a physical level.
The problem is only that you do not like it because it makes it necessary that the UfP has technology far superior to the current technology of mankind. But that is only to be expected of a society that is 400 years advanced.
Given that my theory makes only one unproven assumption (where the lack of proof is far less severe), and yours makes about five where the lack of proof IS severe (we never see such powerful capabilities elsewhere), your theory fails.
It is NOT compatible with all available data, unless you ignore scientific data. This is not permissible under suspension of disbelief.
Not you, but Kor.All the while you are like a broken record. You are repeating again and again that it is possible that someone can use a wrong term. I do not challenge that.
Besides, a broken record tactic relies on using the very same argument over and over again. However, my argument has been changed and apapted, that a part of it stays the same does not constitute a broken record.
You tried to do so with ignorance of my words and lying about them.But you are not showing that Data a n d Geordi a n d Julianna a n d Pran a n d Picard have done this mistake in this instance. I have shown why it is not plausible. You have ignored each single argument.
If they haven not changed the meaning of these words, then they misspoke several times. Not surprising, given that none of them are trained geologist and they were quite busy at the moment.Now you are coming with the new theory that they have changed the meaning of the terms crust, mantle and core (as they seem to have changed the meaning of the word energy).
But you are ignoring with that again the already provided argument that in the same episode they are using all three terms just fine.
Why not? Provide evidence that it can not happen, other than "i say so".Or an alternative theory of yours is that they simply misspoke in the heat of a moment. Yes, that can happen. But not in one discussion with several persons several times. They had a lengthy talk and have used the term core several times to explain what they want to do. The whole discussion wouldn't made any sense if the crucial term was wrong again and again.
It seems you have never spoken with scientists about a scientifical problem. It does not happen that they wouldn't ask again if one used a wrong term to clarify what was meant. And a fortiori they wouldn't continue to use the wrong term after it was used the wrong way the first time. That is not how a scientifical problem can be discussed at all.
Actual scientist normally have a narrow field of expertise. Within that expertise, they have decades of experience.
Neither of those people in ST has. They obviously have access to superior databases and calculation capability, hence requiring less personal knowledge and capability to figure out the solution.
However, NONE of the participating persons is a geologist (with the possible exception of Juliana). It is simply inconceivable to claim that they have that much experience - being a jack of all trade doesn't work in modern science, there is simply too much to know.
Ah, so you admit that that was a strawman?I admit that you have not outright claimed that they are stupid.
I have anticipated such an argument because it is used very often at SDN.
And I think the anticipation was justified. If you insist on your theory that they have made a mistake when using the terms crust, mantle and core, it amounts to them being stupid because neither is it plausible that the meanings of the terms have changed nor is it plausible that all have misspoken in a lengthy but calm discussion.
I SAID that it was about classifying things according to certain criteria.A further proof of your impertinence and ignorance is your next post concerning taxonomy.
It seems that you are ignoring what I have written only to spit your vitriol.
A taxonomy is nothing more than an attempt to categorize species accordingly to certain characteristics. It is arbitrarily after which characteristics the species are sorted. If you would know a minimum about the history of taxonomy, you would know how often the different systems have changed in time.
However, such a process should NOT be arbitrary. If it IS arbitrary, it is of low scientific value.
But go ahead, provide an taxonomic system where it could be (or already was) feasible to assign arbitrary characteristics that can encompass such different biological niches as fish and amphibians.
If you are trying to make a taxonomy for every different planet, you have no idea which one Data was referring to.Furthermore, even with a characteristic chosen, the created categories are depending on the species there are. On Earth there are many species with the characteristic fish. That’s why there is a category fish.
If there are no fish like species on another planet, their taxonomy wouldn’t include a category fish.
So much for the alleged universality of current taxonomies.
It would be vastly preferable to have one taxonomic classification, most likely based on the biological niche the species lives in.
Hence, an organism that spends all of it's live i water, can not breath air, does not have photosynthesis, is capable of moving under it's own power and has sexual reproduction would be called a fish. That could include, say, sea snakes - but not amphibians.
Amphibians are organisms that have an early aquatic stage in their livecycle, require a humid environment and can breath air. That directly contradicts some of the logical criteria for a categorization as a fish, even if we rely solely on their occupied biological niche.
But go ahead - provide a useful taxonomic system where one can classify fish and amphibians in the same category, without that category being insanely broad and hence useless.
A Category has to be specific, else it is useless.Furthermore, a category is only created if there are enough species with the same characteristic.
They never were modern fish. We do not define our taxonomy according to biological niche, we use evolutionary biology.But there are always species that can’t be sorted into one category non-ambiguously because their characteristic does not really fit to the category.
Do you know for example what a Coelacanth, a Panderichthys, an Ichthyostega, a Tiktaalik or an Eusthenopteron is? Are they still fishes or are they already amphibians?
However, in a system that uses either
-characteristics such as scales, breathing air etc.
-or biological niches as described above (they are admittedly similar)
an organism would be classified as an amphibian as soon as it fulfills the criteria.
This would not be the case for Coelacanth (which was remarkable for being early fish). By the way, that's a whole order already!
Also, Panderichthys was IIRC remarkable for showing adaptation for using it's limbs for direct propulsion by pushing them against the ground (walking). However, it was NOT capable of breathing air, it most likely occupied very shallow waters. Not an amphibian according to a niche-classification.
Ichthyostega had lungs and could occupy the biological niche of amphibians. According to my definition above, they would be classified as such.
Tiktaalik was remarkable for it's skeleton. AFAIK, it is unknown whether it could breath air. It is therefore impossible to classify by my definition above - that would not be the case if we knew whether it could fill the amphibian niche or not.
Eusthenopteron was IIRC a very early ancestor of tetrapods, way before all the other species here. Hence, no amphibian.
The cut-off line by my definition would simply be the capability to survive outside of water. Not that hard, is it?
Such species are sometimes sorted into a category although they do not really fit into it but the creation of a new category would not be appropriate because it would make the taxonomy unnecessarily difficult.
You do not understand modern taxonomy. It is not nearly as arbitrary as my model above, due to having way more knowledge.
We generally create suborders, not new orders, in case something diverges enough to justify this.
For example:
We have Chordates, which includes everything with several characteristics, including a basic nervous system and a tail.
One of the suborders of that are the vertebrates - those that have an internal skeleton. The other are the invertebrates, with an exterior skeleton.
After that, we have many diversions and suborders. First, there is an infraphylum for vertebrates with bony jaws (the others are IIRC extinct).
That has again two subgroups - bony fish and tetrapods.
The evolutionary ancestors of tetrapods would be part of the infraphylum, but not part of the superclass of bony fishes.
You can not jump between categories.
As an easier example:
In non-evolutionary taxonomy, birds (aves) are a class on their own.
In evolutionary taxonomy, they are a subgroup of dinosauria.
So - where am i going with this:
Simple: If you critizise my attempt at classifications, it's simply because you do not understand how modern taxonomy works.
It's possible that Trek reverted to an earlier form of taxonomy - but that's the explanation YOU require in order to claim that Data was not mistaken (that their classification is that broad). So don't blame me for any problems with that.
Of course, you are free to make your own classifications.
Another fine example of ignorance.It is similar with the Archaeopteryx (with which you are certainly more familiar). In some taxonomies that species is still regarded as a saurian and in other taxonomies it is already a bird – although it is neither - and other taxonomies have created a category called archosaurs that encompass modern birds and crocodilians, pterosaurs and all extinct dinosaurs, as well as several other extinct groups.
By modern taxonomy, ALL birds are saurian.
They would attempt to create a type of taxonomy that can be used on species without knowing their evolutionary history.If now a interstellar society decides to create a new and universal taxonomy that considers the species of all known planets, it can happen that species on a planet, who had their own category in the old, only the species of that planet considering taxonomy, are losing their category and are sorted into another category into which they do not really fit as happened with the examples above.
We already have that, it's called linnean taxonomy.
However, if they throw everything else out of the window, they are quite stupid indeed - linnean taxonomy was discarded for a reason.
"Kinds of animals". Sorry, i have to imagine using a blunt object on you - please, don't use creationist words. Thanks.If now on the majority of all planets no fish like species are found (with that I do not want to imply that on such planets are no animals which are living only in their oceans - but even on Earth we have many different kinds of animals living in our oceans that are no fishes) but species like Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik or Eusthenopteron and even on Earth fishes are near extinction (due to overfishing and marine pollution in the 20th and 21st century), it is only plausible to not create a category fish but to sort all fish like species into a category to which they are most similar.
There. Better.
We already HAVE categories for those. Any of those would be classified as chordatic animals with vertebrate characteristics with sarcopterygii limbs and early tetrapodomorpha development.
Your knowledge is outdated by - well, about fifty years.In that case, it is possible that fishes can be regarded as primitive or underdeveloped amphibians as we are regarding the Archaeopteryx as a primitive and underdeveloped bird.
If they apply it like you do, they have obviously reverted quite a lot.That does not mean that the understanding of species or biology has changed – as you have insinuated in your fit.
I admit that i get quite upset when supposedly educated people do not know what i learned in 10th grade (when i was 16). All the above is taken from one of my old biology textbooks from school.But you will probably not understand that seeing that you are treating taxonomy as a holy grail.