Say that you have two sources of canon.
A and B.
The big one, A, is the one that is always right no matter what happens, and the inferior one, B, remains right as long as it fits with the superior one.
Now, we have a contradiction between A and B on a given point.
In the light of A, the information coming from B is wrong.
But one person, say Randy, pretends to be able to rationalize B's claim with a theory and make both sources right.
In the end, said theory has grown to an important size, may rely on other elements from B canon, and is rather complex. It forms a complex network of inter connected and mutually supporting extrapolations, suggestions, facts and theories, and adresses minor rebuttals by claiming that if there's a glitch in the presented theory, we're simply dealing with bad luck (disfunctional component, coincidence, etc).
In the end, the theory apparently appears to explain the so called inconsistency.
On the other hand, another person, Malek, says that it's prefered to have no fanmade theory and stick with higher canon rather than abide by a steam factory, and that no theory should be unnecessarily complex.
Randy says that it's better to have a theory than none, since it manages to tie all informations together, and apparently washes the inconsistency away, as a coherent universe is better than one that is filled with holes.
Who's lazy? Who's biased? Randy? Malek?
Wendy?
No theory Vs. Supercomplex theory
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
Hahaha. It took 2 replies to get the thread to delve into a canon debate. I think the record is one reply (ignoring the ones started out, as canon debates).
I have no problem with fan made theories, if they were to remain consistent to the current higher canon. If they hold up over time depends on the continuation of the higher canon. If they don't hold up over time, the theory has to be revised. If it does hold up, the theory can be said to possibly be true.
When I saw the name of the thread, I thought it'd be a discussion on the views of needing to explain all about the superlaser effect, as an exotic reaction, as opposed to barely explaining it.
But, when it comes to debates, in this case the ICSs and Wars, it's a nice read and that's all. It's too bad the later ICSs got "corrupted" by the debate. I wonder how Reynolds would have written them. Hopefully, the newer version will cleanse the ICSs and make them more Wars-pure.
I have no problem with fan made theories, if they were to remain consistent to the current higher canon. If they hold up over time depends on the continuation of the higher canon. If they don't hold up over time, the theory has to be revised. If it does hold up, the theory can be said to possibly be true.
When I saw the name of the thread, I thought it'd be a discussion on the views of needing to explain all about the superlaser effect, as an exotic reaction, as opposed to barely explaining it.
But, when it comes to debates, in this case the ICSs and Wars, it's a nice read and that's all. It's too bad the later ICSs got "corrupted" by the debate. I wonder how Reynolds would have written them. Hopefully, the newer version will cleanse the ICSs and make them more Wars-pure.
- SailorSaturn13
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am
Re: No theory Vs. Supercomplex theory
I'd say that if A and B are on different canon layers, A simply beats B, as lower canon cant change the conclusions based on higher canon. This includes the fall when different conclusion is theoretically possible, but not likely based on higher canon alone.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Say that you have two sources of canon.
A and B.
The big one, A, is the one that is always right no matter what happens, and the inferior one, B, remains right as long as it fits with the superior one.
Now, we have a contradiction between A and B on a given point.
In the light of A, the information coming from B is wrong.
But one person, say Randy, pretends to be able to rationalize B's claim with a theory and make both sources right.
In the end, said theory has grown to an important size, may rely on other elements from B canon, and is rather complex. It forms a complex network of inter connected and mutually supporting extrapolations, suggestions, facts and theories, and adresses minor rebuttals by claiming that if there's a glitch in the presented theory, we're simply dealing with bad luck (disfunctional component, coincidence, etc).
In the end, the theory apparently appears to explain the so called inconsistency.
On the other hand, another person, Malek, says that it's prefered to have no fanmade theory and stick with higher canon rather than abide by a steam factory, and that no theory should be unnecessarily complex.
Randy says that it's better to have a theory than none, since it manages to tie all informations together, and apparently washes the inconsistency away, as a coherent universe is better than one that is filled with holes.
Who's lazy? Who's biased? Randy? Malek?
Wendy?
In contrast, if they are on the SAME canon layer, we are to try and reconcile them, only after this fails (safe for complete absurd assumptions) can we go and say that one of two facts must go.
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
At SDN it is official an accepted theory. Although often it seems arbitrary, who is charged with allegedly violation of this principle.
Theory 1 "is rather complex. It forms a complex network of inter connected and mutually supporting extrapolations, suggestions, facts and theories, and adresses minor rebuttals by claiming that if there's a glitch in the presented theory, we're simply dealing with bad luck (disfunctional component, coincidence, etc). In the end, the theory apparently appears to explain the so called inconsistency."
Theory 2 is, that the lower ranking source is contradicted by the higher ranking source.
Occam's razor: Theory 2 is preferable.
At SDN it is official an accepted theory. Although often it seems arbitrary, who is charged with allegedly violation of this principle.
Theory 1 "is rather complex. It forms a complex network of inter connected and mutually supporting extrapolations, suggestions, facts and theories, and adresses minor rebuttals by claiming that if there's a glitch in the presented theory, we're simply dealing with bad luck (disfunctional component, coincidence, etc). In the end, the theory apparently appears to explain the so called inconsistency."
Theory 2 is, that the lower ranking source is contradicted by the higher ranking source.
Occam's razor: Theory 2 is preferable.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
Or you just pick and choose what you want to form your own personal canon. For example for ST: the movies, TV series, novelisations of movies, the Vanguard series and the novel: To Reign In Hell: The Exile of Khan Noonien Singh. Not much use in debates but it's more satisfing than the Paramount canon.