To quote Mike Wong: "it's a bit like righteousness: everybody claims it's on his side."Esquire wrote:Look, you two. There's an idea in science and philosophy called the principle of parsimony, usually called 'Occam's Razor' which you'll probably have heard of but clearly didn't fully comprehend. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is usually the best. Let's see how this principle plays out in the two questions at hand.
To assume that both species are related requires that somehow the homo sapiens sapiens that evolved round about 200.000 years ago on Earth and has not developed yet the means for intergalactic travel has reached a long time ago a galaxy far far away.Esquire wrote:Are Star Wars and Star Trek humans the same? I hypothesize that they are. As we can't actually run a full genetic analysis on representative samples from each, we look at the visual evidence provided. Barring differing local flavors of mysticism and accounting for standard species variation, the two populations look the same, act the same, and are capable of the same sorts of things.
To assume a convergent evolution - something that is known to science - does not require such implausible feat. A convergent evolution explains similar appearance and even similar behaviour.
Who has ever claimed that the weapons that are called turbolasers are the same as "light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation"?Esquire wrote:Are turbolasers lasers? I hypothesize they are not. Here we actually can do proper scientific tests: we know what lasers are, and we know that glowing slower-than-light energy bolts isn't it. They are not lasers. This isn't an opinion or a theory, they are by definition not lasers (because a real laser emits a lightspeed invisible beam, literally the opposite of what turbolasers do), regardless of the name.
I haven't claimed such thing.
I also haven't claimed that, when Picard said that "Lasers can't even penetrate [their] navigation shields" he talked about weapons based on "light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation".
There is every reason as no plausible way is known how homo sapiens sapiens that evolved round about 200.000 years ago on Earth and has not developed the means for intergalactic travel yet has reached a long time ago a galaxy far far away.Esquire wrote:For question 1, it makes sense to go with the parsimonious explanation, i.e. both humans are the same. We can't do the tests required to know for certain, but there's no reason to suspect that there's any difference.
According to all we know, what you think is the easiest explanation is an impossibility.
Agreed. That is exactly what I argued.Esquire wrote:For question 2, the parsimonious explanation (both universes mean the same thing by 'laser') is clearly not true.
When Picard said that "Lasers can't even penetrate [their] navigation shields" he did not talked about weapons based on "light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation" but whatever they are calling lasers.
Only because something looks or behaves similar, does not mean it's the same.Esquire wrote:I submit twenty movies and decades of TV episodes in which Star Wars and Star Trek humans look, move, and act the same. What have you got? I'm not doing your work for you, if there's a reason not to accept the straightforward explanation, find it.WATCH-MAN wrote:Nope, sorry, that's not how things work. Your claim is that Star Wars humans and Star Trek humans are equal. This is a positive claim. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any evidence that it's true. If you disagree, prove it.
Please provide an explanation how homo sapiens sapiens that evolved round about 200.000 years ago on Earth and has not developed the means for intergalactic travel yet could have reached a long time ago a galaxy far far away.
Please provide an explanation why there are so many humanoid species that look like humans - although they are not related to the homo sapiens sapiens (Aldeans, Angosians, Ardanans, Argelians, Ba'ku, Bandi, Beta III natives, Betazoids, Brekkians, Capellans, Deltans, Dinaali, Dosi, Edo, Ekosians, El-Aurian, Elasians, Gideons, Halanans, Iotians, Ligonians, Mari, Nyrians, Scalosians, Sikarians, Serosians, Takarians, Tarellians, Teplans, Varro, Vori, Wadi, Yaderans and Zeons)
Only because you can't see differences does not mean that there are no differences.
Only because something looks similar or even alike does not mean it is alike.
If it has be done to death here, you won't have problems with providing evidence.Esquire wrote:I submit TNG "The Vengeance Factor" and any number of firefights in DS9. This has been done to death here and on the main site; if you disagree with those arguments, say why. We can't test the durability of the crates or of stormtrooper armor because we haven't seen both get hit by something we can quantify. That's my whole point; phasers have effects dependent on the target material. It's not a question of raw firepower because phasers don't work by direct energy transfer.WATCH-MAN wrote:Please provide evidence that phasers routinely fail to penetrate packing crates.
And then please provide evidence that these packing crates are less durable than stormtrooper armor.
To simply call the name of a episode - without even describing what exactly happened - or to refer to "any number of firefights in DS9" is no argument with which I could disagree.
But I can refer to the DS9 episode "Who Mourns for Morn?" in which Quark hides in a packing crate and weapons fire goes through it like a hot knife through butter.
Please take a little more care when reading what I'm writing - and do not contradict me only because you want to contradict me.Esquire wrote:Then make your argument more clearly. What are you getting at here?WATCH-MAN wrote:Strawman.Esquire wrote: Nobody's saying turbolasers aren't called lasers.
See, that's exactly what I meant: You admit to not even know what my argument is and what I' getting at.Esquire wrote:Are you... serious? A proper laser has nothing to do with a turbolaser. They are not remotely comparable. The usefulness of one has no bearing on the usefulness of the other, even if 'all lasers are completely useless against Star Trek ships' wasn't a logical fallacy. Which it is.WATCH-MAN wrote:Why?Esquire wrote:and that therefore you can't just go 'well, in Star Trek lasers are obsolete' as an argument.
But you have to have an opinion to things you do not understand.
And now you are repeating only what I have already argued: What is called laser in Star Wars is not a weapon based on light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.
To drawing inaccurate conclusions from outdated data does not make two arguments "literally the same".Esquire wrote:Because the problem with both is that they draw inaccurate conclusions from outdated data. It's a loose literalism at best, I'll grant,WATCH-MAN wrote:Why is it "literally the same argument"?Esquire wrote:it's literally the same argument as saying 'well, on Earth black-powder cannon were in use centuries ago, therefore the US Navy can't hit anything farther away than a mile or two.'
Which point?Esquire wrote:... but the point remains valid.
Maybe because I'm a special homo sapiens sapiens.Esquire wrote:Why is it that nobody but you has this much trouble with not making semantics arguments in foreign languages?