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: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:26:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.154247.29074@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> abilenko@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Arkady Bilenko) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.122547.12235@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	human.  Look, drop it and it falls.  Do you think this was some sort
>>	of great discovery?
>>
>>	I can see yourversion of Newton now.  "If youdrop it, it falls!


>I have not seen DSN (DS9) yet, and am not sure what exactly you are 
>talking about, 


	I have not seen what you are discussing, and I'm not really
	sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to comment
	anyway.



>but the statements above are way too radical and do not allow
>for a different point of view.  


	There are some things for which there IS no alternate
	point of view.  For instance, internal consistency (something
	which ST:TNG often lacks) can *never* be viewed as a "good thing".



>How about we go back to the preparatory SAT
>courses where it's tought that "Nothing is Always true or false" and anything
>is possible.  


	I must have taken a different SAT than you.  On the SAT, ACT and AP
	tests that *I* took, the answer was either right (+ one point for
	you) or wrong (-1/4th of a point).  There was no "Hey, sure,
	we *think* that 2*2 is 4, but _maybe_ it could be 5--or even 6!"



>Even though humans were aware, as Yanamari points out, of
>gravity, they concepts behind it eluded them.  


	The concepts behind gravity?  The only _concept_ I can think of
	that isn't learned automatically just by living is that gravity 
	accellerates all thingd equally, regardless of mass.  But that's
	because less mass, generally is equal to _less dense_ (i.e. 
	a pillow vs. a rock--same mass, one is much less dense (and therefore
	bigger) and will fall more slowly thanks to air resistance).  

	_Observation_-wise, they wouldn't normally come to this (correct)
	conclusion, but otherwise the concept of gravity (things fall to the
	ground) hasn't changed much.  What has changed is out theory as
	to _why_ this happens.


>And weren't a couple of people
>burned (like Giordano Bruno) when they said that geocentricity was BS even
>thoughtoday a freshman physics major can probably find references ;-) to prove 
>that?


	My point is not that I want ST to be some sort of science 
	education show.  I long ago gave up any hope that television
	entertainment could have any semblance of technical literacy, 
	but I find it _very_ irritating to have these pretentious 
	ST:TNG/DS9 types using all sorts of "hip science" buzzwords
	that they don't understand.  It's like listening to 
	pathetic lit majors discussing "deconstructionalism" and
	sociology majors talking about "stratification".  It's bunk, 
	and it's annoying.

	I can just _see_ the ST writers meetings.  Take that scene out of
	Soap Dish, but make them all geeky types instead (fandom types,
	maybe).  Then have one of them pull out a piece of crumpled 
	paper and say something like "I got these words out of scientific
	american, anybody want to try them out?"

-- 
      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.