From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: DS9 was very BAD
Keywords: bbbaaaaadddd?  Think again.
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:06:39 GMT

In article <17914@umd5.umd.edu> jblum@hamlet.umd.edu (Hi ho -- Kermit the Frog here...) writes:
>Try, maybe they know that freshmen physics majors sometimes think they know
>more than they do.  Case in point:
>
>>>The point of the show was not that the alien(s) didn't follow time -- it's
>>>that they didn't UNDERSTAND it.  They had no concept of it, just like we
>>>had no concept of gravity before old Isaac got bonked by an apple.
>
>>	Yeah, right.  Perhaps on YOUR planet.  I think we humans have been
>>	quite aware of the concept of gravity for as long as we've been 
>>	human.  Look, drop it and it falls.  Do you think this was some sort
>>	of great discovery?
>
>Not the observation.  The interpretation.
>
>>	I can see yourversion of Newton now.  "If youdrop it, it falls!
>>	if you drop itg, it falls!  Yeehaw!"  (townspeople: "what a loser")
>
>And then the scientists point out that, now that they understand WHY things
>fall down, they can figure out how those big planets up in the sky keep
>moving around the sun that way.  They can understand things now that they
>look at existing phenomena from a new perspective.


	No, we don't.  We know that gravity happens.  We do not know 
	"why" gravity happens in any way, shape or form.  Asking a question
	like "why does gravity happens" solicits a respons "well, it happens
	because one mass attracts another and here's out theory to show 
	the interaction".  The followup question is, "Why do they attract?"
	and the answer, is, well--nonexistant.  Oh, there's some cute attempt		s like "Gravity is a bend in space-time" (or similiar), but then the
	question is, "Why does mass bend spacetime?".

	We do not know the "why" of gravity anymore than we know the 
	"why is the mass of a proton..instead of..".  


>Everyone knew gravity existed -- at least in one sense.  They couldn't see
>that maybe it meant more than "if you drop things, they fall."  The theory
>was what would make other pheonmena make sense.  If it
>weren't for Newton's world view -- or Einstein's -- could you explain a
>black hole, or a neutron star?


	Do we have evidence of either?  (Actually, there's pretty convincing
	evidence of the former).  These are clever predictions based on a theory.
	Whether that theory proves to be the actual case (which would be nice--
	it certainly has held up--but not for a GUT), that's good.  But I could
	propose my theory of intergalactic galactic snot, and with enough
	patches (well, the snot sucks at things except when) it would eventually
	be as reliable (if you run through a quarter million conditions) 
	as any theory out there.  Unelegant, sure.  Which generally means wrong,
	but not always.


>Another example -- electric and magnetic behavior were observed long before
>Maxwell.  Long before Newton, even.  But once the idea appeared that both
>phenomena were related -- aspects of the same electromagnetic force -- 
>it opened up a whole new way of understanding the fundmental nature of the
>universe.


	And we still don't know "why" electromagnetism occurs--we have
	proposed a theoretical framework for HOW it occurs--but the
	"why" is pretty much unanswerable.


>universe.  They had to realize that they had a future, which had been there
>even when they only saw the present.  Kind of like the way it was possible


	This type of reasoning is the same as the galactic snot 
	theory.  You're willing to keep adding patches and caveats 
	until it grows to some ridiculous, twisted assertion, and then
	pretend that, even if it is about the *worst* logic you've ever
	seen, it's still *possible*.


>You think that's fanboy logic?  Feel free to call it that.  I think it's
>just a pretty interesting idea -- and one which has nothing to do with
>science, really, but with the way people have to change the ways they look
>at the world.


	You're right, it's fanboy logic.  you'll excuse *anything* 
	by plugging in enough BS to make it almost plausible.  


>Was there any indication that they actually knew about their own frame of
>reference?  We still know nothing about what conditions in the wormhole are
>like -- all we know is what the occupants DON'T know, or don't see.  I don't
>remember any absolute statements from the aliens of "We know everything that
>is going to happen."  (They don't even understand the idea of "going to
>happen.")  All these assumptions come from the viewer.  Remember that
>before you trash the episode.  Take into account the frame of reference that
>YOU'RE assuming.


	They *learned*.  If they learn, reproduce or have memory they have
	linear perception by default. 



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv