"Fan math"

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:28 pm

Mike I don't have an issue with mathematical interpretations at all merely demanding an adherence to them as though it was the only way to debate and then demanding you do the work when faced with a clearly biased poster as though the math in question had more importance then the canon feat he was trying to calculate in the first place. It's far more correct to simply go "uh that's not what happened on panel/screen so how 'bout no" then to bust out a calculator and go through all the work..again your not debating the feat but a persons interpretation of it, and that's not vs debating thats..something else entirely I'm not sure what it is but it seems like canon feats are tossed to the side in favor of a persons work and simply put -sacrilege to any debate system that is

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:57 pm

Actually, while you may be right about the bias of the poster, you are still required to prove it with evidence, else you're not debating correctly and may even be perceived as Trolling...

If the calcs are bad, prove it by showing the poster who provided them with actual counter-evidence.
Just saying "They're biased, so they're no good!" isn't proof at all, and sends the message that you can't prove they're bad, and that you are losing the argument and are resorting to bad tactics not to lose face...

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:14 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Actually, while you may be right about the bias of the poster, you are still required to prove it with evidence, else you're not debating correctly and may even be perceived as Trolling...]
I have what I wont do is touch his calcs and iirc unless I misread the rules I am within my right not to do so I've addressed all of his arguments though


Praeothmin wrote:If the calcs are bad, prove it by showing the poster who provided them with actual counter-evidence.
Just saying "They're biased, so they're no good!" isn't proof at all, and sends the message that you can't prove they're bad, and that you are losing the argument and are resorting to bad tactics not to lose face...
I'm saying they don't matter because well they don't and they aren't an official source my entire point is that his biased aside I have no obligation to entertain any ones calculations as though they where legit and debate them rather then the feat. That if I choose to do so it's within my right but denying a non canon source is also within my right. Any debate that detracts from the actual feats by concentrating solely on refuting fan analysis stops being an actual vs debate and starts being one gigantic distraction from the actual issue and the canon source of the non canon analysis

again I was under the impression you wanted actual evidence to be debated here which is what I'm doing and I'm using a legal loophole as far as i know to do it..unless your willing to claim that calcs are just as valid as the evidence they are based on and debating them takes precedent over what actually happens in the fiction we're discussing

if that's your official canon policy here on SFJ then I have been terribly mistaken and will gladly revise my debate approach..but I was always under the impression you guys cared more about debating based on official sources..not debating stuff based on official sources which was the defining quality that separated this board from SDN and SB but if I was wrong then I was wrong and thats that I suppose, the problem is your standard disclaimer every time you or mike or spock have said it has always been "we're not like that here"

so is that wrong?

sides yer acting like I wouldn't trust your math or mikes or DS's and use 'em as a reference when debating..I'm merely asking for the basic right to refuse to debate a source that is both non canon and requires one to divert time away from debating canon to attend to..if we as posters choose to refuse such a thing

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Picard » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:28 am

"Fan Math" is still math, and has to follow general principles - it must be based on evidence, logic (which should be explained) and accurate. You can't say that 2 + 2 = 5 or that nuclear bomb actually cools area of explosion down to absolute zero just beacouse you are going to do some fan math.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:16 pm

No, but say we see an asteroid moving at a certain speed, and somehow we can measure it's size with good enough accuracy.
Now say we have a scientific source that says that most asteroids are Nickel/Iron type.
We could then calculate the Kinetic Energy stored in this asteroid because we have the required elements...
Say after calculations, we find out the asteroid has 71 KT of Kinetic Energy...
Say we see that asteroid hit something and that thing resists.
We can then logically conclude that the "thing" is capable of resisting 71 KT of Kinetic Energy...
There's nothing "wanky" about it, and it follows basic scientific rules.
Anyone wanting to disprove this would need to show my speed is wrong and why, my scaling is wrong and why, the composition is wrong and why, my math is wrong and why, etc...

Just saying "It's fan math so it's not valid" is bad debating, and can easily be seen as a "cheap cop-out"...

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Admiral Breetai » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:18 pm

well that's a great scene...the asteroid scene I'm assuming your basing that on it's one of the more controversial calcs at least for us on the comic boards I'll take a shot at it

how do we know the asteroids composition? well unless wong got a direct answer from lucas he is making an assumption either based on the most common real world composition of asteroids or what it most "logically is" the problem is your trying to apply logic to a universe with aspects in it so unrealistic they allow germs to create a force sensitive messiah analog so what basis do you have for assuming that asteroid is composed of what it is composed of? how can you accurately gauge the kinetic energy stored in the sucker..or the fire power needed to pulverize it?

for all you know it could be made of some hyper durable adamantium JR meaning your calculations are way under par..or some flimsy weak low end..materials that make your calcs highly over estimated?

I can see the logic in your calcs and in your speculation that's based off canon to give me this number hell I might even find it likely enough to agree with it but it's a good reference guide certainly..good evidence? I think I'll stick with blindly going by whats shown "Who smashes the bigger rock" as a friend said once

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Picard » Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:27 am

Well, it goes "it is just like real life unless proven otherwise". That is, you use what is "standard" in our universe so long as it does not definetly contradict some aspect of whatever imaginary universe it is about. So, if you see asteroid, then you can try to determine his composition by comparing it to real-life asteroids. That is, unless it is specifically stated to be made of kjasdkadbontium, in which case you try to find anything you can about material it is made of.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:06 pm

Admiral Breetaï, there are many aspects of SW and ST that behave like they do in our world:
Most humanoids breathe oxygen, when they get to the adge of a cliff, they fall down, they bleed, they die, they reproduce, the grow, they need to eat, weapons do damage to structures, but also to people.
Sand is sand as we know it, they use terms we can understand in the same way we use them, implying they mean the same thing as we would using the same words.
Stars are needed for light, and for planetary life.
The cold can kill them, and for them, cold is the same thing as it is for us...

There are so many similarities between SW and ST to our world that we must assume they use the same physical laws, and that any deviation of these laws are simply coming from discoveires they made that we haven't...

Your "who breaks the bigger rock" assumption is also flawed, because even in that case, you assume that both rocks were identical in composition, when we know even in RL that it is not so, and so even if one breaks a bigger rock, if the rock is the brittle kind, it may have been easier then breaking the smaller one...
So your preferred method of analysis is just as flawed, because you also start from an unproven assumption...

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: "Fan math"

Post by 2046 » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:53 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:But if we do know how it works; for example, a kinetic kill weapon, can we use fan math? Or calculating shield strength based on solar radiation from a knwon star, such as the one in our system?

If, for example, I use video footage of a stated nickel iron asteroid of X strength hitting a ship and not doing any damage, can I calculate that?

Sure, it might be biased, but if I make calculations and post them, the burden of proof shifts to the other side to post a rebuttal.
Your problem would be what you do with the "fan math". For instance, you can reliably state that the solar radiation incident on the shields is X. But you cannot then claim that this means the reactor power must also be X or greater without a lot more information about how shields and reactors work. The most you can say is that the shields provide an effective protection related to X.
You guys just can't admit that a warsie can be right, can you?
I've told numerous Warsies that they're right, in regards to specific items. I've probably even told you you were right about something or else otherwise agreed. But whatever you're going for in this thread eludes me. Calculations are not dismissed out of hand for being calculations . . . they're dismissed and dismissable when they are based on false assumptions.

In your little debate thread against me, for instance, you assume a value for the Death Star reactor, then whip out a size comparison with ISD reactors (the size of which we don't actually know, by the way), and claim that you can scale it down to find the ISD's reactor power. But that's silly on its very face, and thus I dismiss your "fan math" calculation. I'm not saying you did the math wrong or dismissing it because it's math. I'm saying you have a GIGO problem.

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Tue May 17, 2011 9:04 pm

2046 wrote: Calculations are not dismissed out of hand for being calculations . . . they're dismissed and dismissable when they are based on false assumptions.
And guess what? Breentai has been doing exactly that: dismissing calculations because they are "fan speculation".

He does not explain HOW they are wrong, he merely says "all I see is fan speculation" and leaves it at that, in response to a long post involving math/science.

It is nice that some debaters here have stated that this is not what you are supposed to be doing, but most are still skimming over to Breentai's side, and those who are not are highly sympathetic to him.

Apparently, somebody saying "all I see is fan speculation" to a long, hard thought out calculation is completely acceptable here...as long, of course, as it is a pro Trek debater.

If I were to do that, I would get a warning right away, no doubt.

User1356
Padawan
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by User1356 » Tue May 17, 2011 10:08 pm

This stuff is hilarious!

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Admiral Breetai » Wed May 18, 2011 2:53 am

man this guy just constantly misrepresents everything I say it's kinda funny

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Praeothmin » Wed May 18, 2011 12:06 pm

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
2046 wrote: Calculations are not dismissed out of hand for being calculations . . . they're dismissed and dismissable when they are based on false assumptions.
And guess what? Breentai has been doing exactly that: dismissing calculations because they are "fan speculation".

He does not explain HOW they are wrong, he merely says "all I see is fan speculation" and leaves it at that, in response to a long post involving math/science.

It is nice that some debaters here have stated that this is not what you are supposed to be doing, but most are still skimming over to Breentai's side, and those who are not are highly sympathetic to him.

Apparently, somebody saying "all I see is fan speculation" to a long, hard thought out calculation is completely acceptable here...as long, of course, as it is a pro Trek debater.

If I were to do that, I would get a warning right away, no doubt.
No, what Breetai is doing is ignoring your requests for evidence since you ignore so much evidence yourself.
And what you ignore is all the evidence brought against your case by Kor, Mike D and even Breetai himself as to why the calcs made by Wong are wrong, especially in the shields thread.
And you've completely ignored my rebuttals of the bullshit that are the 450 GT shields for an ISD...

So when you actually address rebuttals and counter-evidence to MW's false representations, then you will be in a position to whine about calcs being ignored or refused simply because they are Wong's...

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Wed May 18, 2011 7:22 pm

Praeothmin wrote:
No, what Breetai is doing is ignoring your requests for evidence since you ignore so much evidence yourself.
And what you ignore is all the evidence brought against your case by Kor, Mike D and even Breetai himself as to why the calcs made by Wong are wrong, especially in the shields thread.
And you've completely ignored my rebuttals of the bullshit that are the 450 GT shields for an ISD...

So when you actually address rebuttals and counter-evidence to MW's false representations, then you will be in a position to whine about calcs being ignored or refused simply because they are Wong's...
Every argument in which I respond to, I counter logically. If somebody makes X claim, I counter it. The ones in which I "ignore" are the posts which I did not respond to, because my ability to respond to every single post that is directed at me is limited.

In contrast, Breentai has a far smaller audience to respond to; just me, and actively quotes my argument. He literally just says:

"lol no"

He does not even attempt to evade or sidestep it, he literally ignores it.



When have I quoted an argument and responded with such a dismissal? Never; I always respond to every argument that I can, but I cannot respond to all of them.


You supporting the use of "lol no" as a proper response because "I do it too" is completely nonfactual. I respond to all of your points that I can. I never dismiss your arguments with a one liner, and neither do you.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Wed May 18, 2011 7:28 pm

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: Every argument in which I respond to, I counter logically. If somebody makes X claim, I counter it. The ones in which I "ignore" are the posts which I did not respond to, because my ability to respond to every single post that is directed at me is limited.
Rubbish you post all the time and you bail on threads you have had your ass handed to you, if not head back to the shielding thread as you have the tatters of your absurd argument to sweep up pal.

Post Reply