Trek Space Combat Ranges

[Captain Seafort]

Again if you trust visuals that are in no means ment to be accurate.

No it is not perfect. More so when we know the FX are not meant to be accurate, but to look good.

The general idea of what they depict, which would be part of there intent, is what matters. Such as ship A destroys ship B. Reading anymore into that when we know the visuals are meant to look cool, not be accurate, leads to faulty conclusions.

Proof that the visuals should all be suspect at best comes from the numerous errors and the fact that they are not made to be accurate.

You see using SoD does not make ones analysis of Trek more valid then anyone else's. It is the content of the analysis the makes some better then others. Analysis that follows the intent of the shows creators should be preferred.

Again, author's intent is utterly irrelevant if that intent does not match what we see on screen. Star Trek Canon is defined as the live-action TV series and films - there is no mention whatsoever of author's intent and it has been explicitly stated that the TMs, probably the best source of author's intent, are non-canon.

Really? How many weapons does the Scimitar have again? Why do ships not shoot the torpedos with their phasers since they are moving slow enough to do so? Why does the Defiant and DS9 keep changing sizes?

1) About half a dozen, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

2) Unknown - given that they frequently miss ships hundreds of metres long at ranges of a few km, it's likely that their weapons or sensors simply aren't accurate enough to hit a target only two metres across.

3) This is one of the cases where visual flaws can be demonstrated - because the sizes relative to known or consistently depicted objects vary wildly.

Yes, the Seafort debate style - SoD, razor, razor, SoD, insult, prove it, razor, SoD, insult, insult, Razor, SoD, prove it. Get off your high horse. Quoting SoD to someone who knows it is a crap way of looking at things is like quoting the bible to an Atheist.

If you don't like logical analysis that's your problem.

Not at all - once you decide to accept or ignore IU information based on your own preference, you might as well throw out any pretence at rational analysis.

The "all or nothing" logical fallacy again.

The all or nothing fallacy is only a fallacy when applied to the subject of an analysis, not the method of analysis itself. Unless you are consistent in your treatment of evidence then your analysis is worthless.

Ships can't control the output of their weapons? The Galor in the battle had shields at 100% and was the exact same as the other one? There are a lot more variables that if we can't account for the determination we get is an educated guess at best.

Do you have evidence that their shields and weapons were set at something other than 100%, despite being in the middle of a battle. Plus reduced shields due to battle damage would indicate that weapons effectiveness was reduced as the range came down - the opposite of what you're arguing.

I'd ask if you were stupid, but everyone already knows the answer to that.

The dominion battleship had a constant size?

Yes - just as the two classes of BoP have fairly constant sizes

One reason that large ship sizes tend to seem more constant is because we use them as references to measure smaller ships. One can't know which ship is really the correct size, or if ether are.

We can compare the GCS to other objects who's sizes do not change (mainly people and shuttles), and from that we determine their size. This allows us to pin down its size far more accurately than ships and vessels that we can only determine based on comparisons to other ships (which introduces a greater degree of uncertainty).

I'm saying they are suspect. Of course the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. So if you are going to claim that what the visuals show us is factually correct, please provide evidence to support that.

You are claiming that there are flaws in the visuals, introducing an additional entity - if you want to claim that this flaw is present, then you must provide proof.

[m52nickerson]

@ m52 - I get it. You believe - as is your absolute right - to not view the show amidst an environment of SoD. Perfectly fine. It certainly does help when a question of this nature comes up. It can be satisfying to say, "In reality, there is no contradiction. Q.E.D."

My question is this, however: if you choose this point of view - and let me reiterate, I have absolutely no issue with you choosing that way - how can you involve yourself in a debate of this nature; specifically, one which is essentially and innately involved with analysis of an IU nature, and therefore one which presumes SoD?

I came to this conclution because I believe that the intent of the story if far more important then what we see. Using something like SoD it makes it hard to look at TOS episodes and come up with reasons why the tech looks old even by current standards. Ex Astris Scientia has a good article discusing some of this. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/incon ... ealism.htm

I don't subscribe to that notion that in universe analysis has to follow strict SoD. We can look at the episods and know certain facts, like a the E-D was more then a match for a Galor, or that a phaser bust can destroy an asteroid. That is as far as I see we can take it and retain any thing valuable. Certain thing in Trek or any Scf-Fi need to be looked at with some imagination. SoD does not do that. Take for example Data and contractions. It was stated, and used in certain episodes, the Data did not use contractions when speaking. We hear him do so. Is it worth saying that the crew of the E-D must be idiots for not noticing this, or is it better to just ignore them? In the same vein Data and Spock both get calculation wrong. Again is it worth questioning the characters, or just not take that much stock in the specific number they are throwing out?

I enjoy coming up with in universe explaination for some things. But to pretent that we are somehow not outside that universe looking in, and that we don't know certain things I see as flawed. If we were IU looking at what starships could do we would have other data avalible to us. Much like we have other sources when we see films about true life events. Of course when it come to Trek we don't and can't.

[Mikey]

Like I said, I can appreciate your viewpoint, and I support your right to it. I just don't understand why, if that is your stance, you also choose to enter into a debate about things that happen within SoD.

[m52nickerson]

Again, author's intent is utterly irrelevant if that intent does not match what we see on screen. Star Trek Canon is defined as the live-action TV series and films - there is no mention whatsoever of author's intent and it has been explicitly stated that the TMs, probably the best source of author's intent, are non-canon.

Yes canon is what we see and hear. Who make what we see and hear? That would be the writers and the FX people.

1) About half a dozen, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

2) Unknown - given that they frequently miss ships hundreds of metres long at ranges of a few km, it's likely that their weapons or sensors simply aren't accurate enough to hit a target only two metres across.

3) This is one of the cases where visual flaws can be demonstrated - because the sizes relative to known or consistently depicted objects vary wildly.

...and all those answers come with problems. We are told the Scimitar has over 52 weapons, we see the E-D take out a missle, we can only assume that certain objects on screen are the correct size when using as a point of reference. That is the whole problem with the visuals.

If you don't like logical analysis that's your problem.

Some one who uses evidance that is suspect to begin with is logical?

The all or nothing fallacy is only a fallacy when applied to the subject of an analysis, not the method of analysis itself. Unless you are consistent in your treatment of evidence then your analysis is worthless.

I am consistant, consistanly sceptical of visual evidance. Of course you use the visuals which you can't prove are correct as proof of your arguments.

Do you have evidence that their shields and weapons were set at something other than 100%, despite being in the middle of a battle. Plus reduced shields due to battle damage would indicate that weapons effectiveness was reduced as the range came down - the opposite of what you're arguing.

I'd ask if you were stupid, but everyone already knows the answer to that.

I was pointing them out as variables that we can't know. So we can't draw the absolut conclution that weapons don't lose power over range, when there is evidence that support this and it nicly expains why ships engage each other much closer then maximum range. You my not subscribe to that, but you can't summaly dismiss it.

Code: Select all

Yes - just as the two classes of BoP have fairly constant sizes

Really? Are two different classes of BOP talked about in universe other then in alternate realities? Even thou I'm one of the people who do believe in two classes of BoP I don't dismiss the fact that there could only be one, or more then two.

We can compare the GCS to other objects who's sizes do not change (mainly people and shuttles), and from that we determine their size. This allows us to pin down its size far more accurately than ships and vessels that we can only determine based on comparisons to other ships (which introduces a greater degree of uncertainty).

Yes but unless you can compare the size of a GCS to a known, like a person, and then an other ship in the same shot, you can't be sure that the apparent size of the GCS did not change, as we see with other ships.

You are claiming that there are flaws in the visuals, introducing an additional entity - if you want to claim that this flaw is present, then you must provide proof.

We know there are flaws in visuals, they have been documented. We also know that the visuals are not made to be accuate. I'm not the one using visuals to support calims, you are. So far the best you have done is "you can't prove that a certain visual is not correct" that may be ture. In the same turn you can't prove that any certain visual is correct. I at least have numersous documented cased were visuals are wrong, and the fact that they are not meant to be accurate to back me up. You have nothing.

[m52nickerson]

Like I said, I can appreciate your viewpoint, and I support your right to it. I just don't understand why, if that is your stance, you also choose to enter into a debate about things that happen within SoD.

In SoD. There is in universe. SoD is a way of looking at in universe. It is not a be all end all.

[Captain Seafort]

In SoD. There is in universe. SoD is a way of looking at in universe. It is not a be all end all.

Bullshit. This is the fundamental problem with your entire argument. If you want to talk about author's intent as part of a discussion of Star Trek as a TV series, fair enough. If you're discussing the ships capabilities as if they were real, however, the episodes must be treated as if they are documentary footage. If you try and mix the two your analysis is no longer consistent and therefore looses all credibility.

[Mikey]

*shrugs* I guess that, like the choice to be skeptical of SoD itself, is a judgement call. I feel compelled, however, to say that I believe that #1) even evidence of which you are doubtful is a better basis of analysis than the alternative, which is no evidence at all; and #2) the assumption that the evidence we have is flawed can't lead to any analysis at all - rather, such an assumption can only lead to the idea that there is no possible analysis.

[Captain Seafort]

Yes canon is what we see and hear. Who make what we see and hear? That would be the writers and the FX people.

And? Yet again you're mixing IU and OOU analysis.

Some one who uses evidance that is suspect to begin with is logical?

The sole reason you keep whittering on about the visuals being "suspect" is because you mix IU and OOU analysis. Stick to IU analysis and the supposed problem dissapears.

I am consistant, consistanly sceptical of visual evidance. Of course you use the visuals which you can't prove are correct as proof of your arguments.

The mix and match IU analysis with OOU authors intent. This is not consistent.

I was pointing them out as variables that we can't know. So we can't draw the absolut conclution that weapons don't lose power over range, when there is evidence that support this and it nicly expains why ships engage each other much closer then maximum range. You my not subscribe to that, but you can't summaly dismiss it.

I have not summarily dismissed it - I have pointed out why your argument is flawed. Go back and read it.

Really? Are two different classes of BOP talked about in universe other then in alternate realities? Even thou I'm one of the people who do believe in two classes of BoP I don't dismiss the fact that there could only be one, or more then two.

There may well be more than two. There can't just be one because we can see the differences in size on screen. Two is the number I go for because these are the only sizes there are multiple separate examples of. As for classes, at least two are mentioned - the D12 and the B'Rel. The YE AU also mentions the K'Vort, but it's externally indistinguishable from the B'Rel. The K'Vort may be a different name for the same class, or there might be internal differences between classes sharing identical hulls.

Yes but unless you can compare the size of a GCS to a known, like a person, and then an other ship in the same shot, you can't be sure that the apparent size of the GCS did not change, as we see with other ships.

Again, you're adding additional entities where non exist - there is no reason to assume footage is flawed unless there is direct evidence (as with the Defiant and DS9), in which case we examine the footage to see which apparent size is most frequent and assume that that is the true size, and the others are flawed for some unknown reason.

We know there are flaws in visuals, they have been documented.

Correct. This is not the same as stating that all visuals are flawed, or that visuals should be assumed to be flawed in the absence of evidence showing them to be so. Assuming the existence of flaws without evidence constitutes an unnecessary multiplication of entities.

[m52nickerson]

Bullshit. This is the fundamental problem with your entire argument. If you want to talk about author's intent as part of a discussion of Star Trek as a TV series, fair enough. If you're discussing the ships capabilities as if they were real, however, the episodes must be treated as if they are documentary footage. If you try and mix the two your analysis is no longer consistent and therefore looses all credibility.

.....and even documentary footage may not be accurate. Understanding that visuals are not to be viewed as accurate does not mean other information in universe can't be used to analise Trek. Nor does it mean that some concepts like a GCS can best a Galor can be seen. So no, to do a IU analsis the footage does not have to be treated as documentary.

[m52nickerson]

*shrugs* I guess that, like the choice to be skeptical of SoD itself, is a judgement call. I feel compelled, however, to say that I believe that #1) even evidence of which you are doubtful is a better basis of analysis than the alternative, which is no evidence at all; and #2) the assumption that the evidence we have is flawed can't lead to any analysis at all - rather, such an assumption can only lead to the idea that there is no possible analysis.

1. For some things we do have other evidance, statements, ect.

2. Some things in Trek we just can't have a reliable analysis.

[Mikey]

.....and even documentary footage may not be accurate. Understanding that visuals are not to be viewed as accurate does not mean other information in universe can't be used to analise Trek.

You're opening a family-sized can of worms here. This statement basically opens the door for "I reject everything I disagree with." That idea, of course, leads to the result that nobody can discuss anything... at all.

You "understand" that visuals are inaccurate, because the VFX contradicts your belief. The "other information in universe" to which you refer may counterindicate an opposing viewpoint, so someone who has a position at variance with yours may just as easily reject that "other information," and be as justified in doing so as you are. The final result: there is no evidence at all to ever indicate anything one way or another.

1. For some things we do have other evidance, statements, ect.

Statements are only evidence of a character's stated viewpoint. Other evidence, as I mentioned above, could as easily be dismissed as you dismiss VFX.

2. Some things in Trek we just can't have a reliable analysis.

This is dangerously close to saying, "I don't care for the available evidence, so we can't talk about it."

[Captain Seafort]

Well put Mikey.

[m52nickerson]

And? Yet again you're mixing IU and OOU analysis.

You asked about canon, which is an out of universe idea.

The sole reason you keep whittering on about the visuals being "suspect" is because you mix IU and OOU analysis. Stick to IU analysis and the supposed problem dissapears.

So any piece of video you get you assume is real and correct? I hope not. We can't do that IU. You have said your self that some visuals can be ignored because they are oviously wrong, so are they wrong IU? If so the visuals still should be looked with the knowledge that they may not be accurate in universe or out.

The mix and match IU analysis with OOU authors intent. This is not consistent.

No mix and match. Since we know visuals have been wrong in the past in many cases, whether looking at them in universe or not, there is still no evidance that any visual is it self correct.

I have not summarily dismissed it - I have pointed out why your argument is flawed. Go back and read it.

No you attacked my examples, you have not pointed how we are to assume that the other variables in the two cases were the same, because they were not.

There may well be more than two. There can't just be one because we can see the differences in size on screen. Two is the number I go for because these are the only sizes there are multiple separate examples of. As for classes, at least two are mentioned - the D12 and the B'Rel. The YE AU also mentions the K'Vort, but it's externally indistinguishable from the B'Rel. The K'Vort may be a different name for the same class, or there might be internal differences between classes sharing identical hulls.

I tend to agree, except I go with the B'Rel being the smaller version and the K'Vort being the larger. To each their own. The problem is we don't know for sure. Even this site has more then two. One could be explain if we instead of using larger ships as a point of referance and the BoP it self as one. Then the large ship sizes would be seen as messed up. You see at some point a decision was made that the larger ships would be the point of reference. That fine. It does not mean that the data we get is absolutly accurate.

Again, you're adding additional entities where non exist - there is no reason to assume footage is flawed unless there is direct evidence (as with the Defiant and DS9), in which case we examine the footage to see which apparent size is most frequent and assume that that is the true size, and the others are flawed for some unknown reason.

There is every reason because we see a lot od other visuals being flawed. There is nothing that indicates any piece of FX is correct.

Correct. This is not the same as stating that all visuals are flawed, or that visuals should be assumed to be flawed in the absence of evidence showing them to be so. Assuming the existence of flaws without evidence constitutes an unnecessary multiplication of entities.

No it constitues good judgment. If a study had in it multiple occurances of data being flawed, the other data would be looked at as scepital. As would the findings.

[Mikey]

Well put Mikey.

Thanks. I'm not trying to put anybody down, nor am I trying to say that anyone's particular paradigm for watching a TV show is right or wrong. I'm just saying that if someone chooses to watch the show without an SoD, IU frame of reference, it doesn't do to apply that to an analysis of events in the show - which analysis is almost by definition based around an IU perspective.

No mix and match. Since we know visuals have been wrong in the past in many cases, whether looking at them in universe or not, there is still no evidance that any visual is it self correct.

et. al.

So what does a GCS look like? Or a phaser pistol? Or planets? By this logic, I could correctly argue that the E-D was 482 miles long and pink with purple polka-dots; that Captain Picard had a full, luxurious head of wavy brown hair; or that the Borg resembled, in fact, 4-foot long furry rodents. The only evidence to contrary was visual evidence, and since we're rejecting that out of hand, what do we know?

[Captain Seafort]

You asked about canon, which is an out of universe idea.

I do not, however, use it as part of my analysis - merely to define the source material.

So any piece of video you get you assume is real and correct?

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, yes.

We can't do that IU. You have said your self that some visuals can be ignored because they are oviously wrong, so are they wrong IU? If so the visuals still should be looked with the knowledge that they may not be accurate in universe or out.

We treat visuals as accurate unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. If such evidence exists then we must explain why - fuckups on the part of our imaginary cameraman for example. Note that we only resort to this when there is evidence of a flaw.

No you attacked my examples, you have not pointed how we are to assume that the other variables in the two cases were the same, because they were not.

I pointed out that any differences between the two due to circumstances would make the Galor weaker, not stronger as your theory would require.

I tend to agree, except I go with the B'Rel being the smaller version and the K'Vort being the larger.

Canonically false - the larger type is named as the B'Rel in "Rascals".

There is every reason because we see a lot od other visuals being flawed. There is nothing that indicates any piece of FX is correct.

Is I've pointed out many times, this approach violates the burden of proof. If you believe their are flaws in any particular piece of footage you must prove it.