From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Star Trek teaching
Date: 22 Jan 1993 10:50:09 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <C16H1H.BzJ@csulb.edu>, dpalmer@csulb.edu (David Palmer) writes:
>2) GOOD science fiction (or fantasy, or detective fiction, or...) must
=   be consistent. That is, any properties established in act I must hold
=   in act III, or next episode, or whenever. It's OK for ST to say
=   "the phasers can do such and such," as long as they can do it next
=   week as well. TNG has REALLY screwed up on this one. They've done
=   things in individual episodes that should have changed their entire
=   universe, but were never mentioned again. Specifically:
=   --Wesley Crusher creates a superior life form as a science project.
=     The ramifications of this were never mentioned again.

True, STtNG's hand-waving tribute to nanotechnology went nowhere.

=   --They once used the transporter to cure a character of a 
=     rapid-aging disease. This should have revolutionized their medicine,
=     and could have led to the reversal of death. It was never mentioned 
=     again.

But it has its drawbacks.  Assuming you lived your life on a planet.  Would you
give up the last 5 years of your life (assuming that's how long it's been since
you've been through a transporter) in order that a replicate of yourself get
another 5 years (and die the same way you're about to?).  Yes, that's an
interesting question, and one that STtNG should've dealt with, except they're
too interested in whatever this week's PC issue is.

=   --The holodeck computer creates sentience out of nothing, simply because
=     a character makes an ambiguous request. Never mentioned again.

True.  Again, the writers seem to be more interested in exploring whatever this
week's PC topic might be (e.g., drug abuse, child abuse, etc.) than in
exploring the ramifications of the stuff they've used in previous episodes.

=Good science fiction is a superb teaching tool. It stretches the imagination,
=gives people ideas and goals to work for (or against). Many of today's 
=scientists were inspired in their youth by reading science fiction. 

YES! Have your class read _Ringworld_.  Let them talk about it for a while.
Then give 'em _Ringworld_Engineers_ (and make 'em read the preface!) to see the
sort of things they missed.

=I myself have recently latched onto a couple of promising ideas by reading
=Arthur Clarke's "Ghost From the Grand Banks." Clarke is one of the best at
=giving his readers technology problems to solve. He was the one who first
=suggested using satellites to relay communications around the earth.

He also invented the Playboy Channel!  Of course, it was Heinlein who invented
the waterbed and the waldo!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.