For which issues in a versus debate an engineer isn't needed

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

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

For which issues in a versus debate an engineer isn't needed

Post by Who is like God arbour » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:39 am

Darth Wrong wrote:I honestly can't be bothered to debate fucktards like this myself. I already have plenty of specimens for my Hate Mail page so there's nothing I need or want from these people, and the fact is that they're just worthless Internet kiddies.

So here's a challenge for the Trektards: if you can find someone among you who has a degree in science or engineering and who can confirm it by providing a scan of his degree which would naturally include his real name, alma mater, and year of graduation for verification purposes, and he actually agrees with you, then send him my way and I'd love to debate him. Until then, you kiddies are not worth my time.

If I wanted to debate people who have no idea how to think logically or argue honestly, I'd hunt down the nearest creationist. At least they're important, even if it is for no other reason than sheer popularity.
When I have read that, I have wondered why he thinks that in a versus debate only someone with an degree in science or engineering is worth his time. As I see it, the most issues in such a debate are not really related to science but depends on the interpretation and analyses of the underlying story.

My question now is, in which issues in the Star Wars - Star Trek versus debate an engineer is not needed.

Roondar
Jedi Knight
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:03 pm

Post by Roondar » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:50 am

There is no need to take him seriously, what he does here is post an argument from authority.

In other words, he's saying that he is right because he's backed by a/someone with a degree.

It's not even worthy of a response really. If he really could counter our arguments he'd have no need for such nonsense.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:00 am

Offhand, I think of the following issues:
  • Which size has the Death Star
  • How fast was the second Death Star builded
  • How big is the Star Wars Galaxy
  • How big is the Empire or the Federation
  • How far is the weapons range of Star Wars ships or Star Trek ships
  • How fast are Star Wars ships or Star Trek ships
  • How much ships has the Empire or the Federation
  • How big are certain ships
  • Which military is better trained
  • Are there planetary shields
  • Which abilities gives the force
  • How pivotal is the force
  • What technlogy the Federation has had but has lost
  • Which quotes quantify Base Delta Zero
  • What is Base Delta Zero
  • Is only or mainly fusion used as energy source in the Star Wars galaxy
  • Is the Federation communist
  • Is the Empire realy bad
  • What is canon and how is it to treat
  • Is »Suspension of Disbelief« really the best approach to analyze Star Wars and Star Trek
  • Would be a treatment of both like historical traditions and their film adaptation be a better approach
  • Are the shown special effects of the film adaptation more important than the underlying story
Maybe someone can explain to me, why an engineer would be better qualified to answer these issues than e.g. a littérateur, a jurist, a psychologist, a sociologist, a philosopher or every other person, who has seen the movies.

Maybe you can list other issues, in which an engineer is useless.

And maybe we can also list all the issues, in which physical understanding is realy needed and - above it - in which even the best scientifical understanding is useless because even the best scientist could not really explain what was shown e.g. the operation mode of hyperdrive, warp, weapons, transporter, shields etc.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:45 pm

Roondar wrote:There is no need to take him seriously, what he does here is post an argument from authority.

In other words, he's saying that he is right because he's backed by a/someone with a degree.

It's not even worthy of a response really. If he really could counter our arguments he'd have no need for such nonsense.
Don't be silly! There is no such thing as a lunatic with a degree! Anyone without an engineering degree is an idiot, plain and simple, and their arguments are to be ignored.

And knowledge of plastic injection molding techniques for the creation of little plastic doohickeys (his specialty) is incredibly important for the Star Trek vs. Star Wars thing, useful in every engagement, because . . . uh . . . well, you see . . . er . . . aha! Nevermind! Why am I even talking to you? You don't have my degree and training, therefore you are not qualified to disagree with me. Pitiful fool!

After all, it isn't as if anyone's ever beat him at anything. Take for instance that old debate he had with that Darkstar moron regarding canon and the superlaser. It isn't as if Lucas et al. confirmed Darkstar's position or that even EU authors say the superlaser was some mysterious hyperspace-related chain reaction, right?

What? They did?!?! Aw crap! :P

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3900
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:10 pm

Doesn't Sarli, the most vilified SW vs ST villain out there (after Darkstar, of course) have a degree?
Yet he seems to disagree with the absurd ICS claims.
And notice how not having a degree is irrelevant when you agree with his POV... :)

Roondar
Jedi Knight
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:03 pm

Post by Roondar » Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:15 pm

2046 wrote:
Roondar wrote:There is no need to take him seriously, what he does here is post an argument from authority.

In other words, he's saying that he is right because he's backed by a/someone with a degree.

It's not even worthy of a response really. If he really could counter our arguments he'd have no need for such nonsense.
Don't be silly! There is no such thing as a lunatic with a degree! Anyone without an engineering degree is an idiot, plain and simple, and their arguments are to be ignored.

And knowledge of plastic injection molding techniques for the creation of little plastic doohickeys (his specialty) is incredibly important for the Star Trek vs. Star Wars thing, useful in every engagement, because . . . uh . . . well, you see . . . er . . . aha! Nevermind! Why am I even talking to you? You don't have my degree and training, therefore you are not qualified to disagree with me. Pitiful fool!

After all, it isn't as if anyone's ever beat him at anything. Take for instance that old debate he had with that Darkstar moron regarding canon and the superlaser. It isn't as if Lucas et al. confirmed Darkstar's position or that even EU authors say the superlaser was some mysterious hyperspace-related chain reaction, right?

What? They did?!?! Aw crap! :P
Wait wait wait, does that mean that any claim I make about computers, computer science and related subjects is now fact because I in fact have a degree in that subject?

Cool! :P

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:32 pm

And I can make claims to biology, evolution, cultural practices, weather patterns, genetics, chemistry, lingual relationships and to a certain extent particle physics. And isn't it funny that I've said astrophysics is one of my weaker subjects? ;-)

This also means that I can say some people don't know shit about what they're talking about in those fields, if their degree doesn't have anything to do with those subjects. What a joy that'll be. [[roll eyes]]

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:48 pm

I pity him. Being so big headed and full of hot air is just sad.
You missed the part about why he doesn't need to update his site because no one has put a single good rebuttal to his articles.
I think I'll add delusion to the list as well.
Fact is, you don't need any degree at all to be able to understand the meaning of most of the textual data used for both sides of the fence, or observe and come with explanations from what's on screen.
Most of the time, a mere understanding of english will also suffice to cover enough matter before needing to enter physics related topics.

Now, this topic is better suited for "Rules of Evidence".

watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:05 pm

His degree is meaningless when he steps into the field of tactics. When he shows me his degree in tactical warfare 101 then he may have a more solid foundation but until then all his nifty science talk is bull when his tactics are all poorly thought out (I cant remember if it was MW or one of his followers who made an off-hand remark that the Empire would not need supply lines in a war with the Federation).

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:56 pm

If we bring in field tactics, there's what works for interviewing/interrogation of enemy combatants (cardassians are sent to mental discipline school when they're young, klingons can handle physical pain better than a lot of other people), misinformation/forgery/disguise/decoy work. We can go further and bring in code breaking and probability/statistics.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:16 pm

Interesting that Robert brings up the Wright Brothers since those two great pioneers did what they did without the benefit of aeronautical degrees or any formal science degrees whatsoever. Just good old fashioned painstaking trial, error, careful observation, and records of what they had learned.
-Mike

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:52 am

I believe I have stated before everything I ought to say about this topic, especially here and here. There are only so many worthwhile ways to politely express a specific negative opinion of a person.

It may be worthwhile to note briefly what I detailed in PM to someone who suggested I should engage Wong in a "public" debate via e-mail, namely, that there is no indication such would be worth my while.

I have moved this thread to "Rules of Evidence" per the above suggestion, mainly in the hopes that further discussion will focus on the role of education and credentials in debate rather than upon the person of Michael Wong or the propaganda of SDN.

Incidentally: Who is like god arbour, it is ill mannered to change someone's name into something derogatory like "Darth Wrong," even if he does not post here.

watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:52 am

I dont imagine my word would mean much on this but, I remember when I was first starting on this debate around ten years ago there was a fellow I used to see at my local comic book shop back in California. I showed him some prints of Wayne Poes arguments and latter Mike Wongs, He tried to make me understand why they were wrong from his point of view all of which flew over my head at the time. I came to learn that fellow worked at a place called Rocketdyne;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne
I cant know what he actually did there but the things he covered led me to believe that it was more than just playing with copy machines. I wonder would Mr. Wong take the word of an actual rocket scientist if he disagreed with him?

At any rate I personly think that Mr. Wong cherry-picks all the 'evidence' that he uses because I see too much that is simply ignored, but as I pointed out, in the area of tactics he has a lot to learn. Most of the tactics he posted in his various essays start at the assumption that the tech in wars is superior in every way and doesnt even leave room for the possibility that his foe may have an ace up his sleeve. From his point of view, the argument I just made is the 'usual' trekkie, " they'll figure something out I just know it" meme. But the fact is his tactics as he has them written up on his board are rigged in the extreame, it's like reading tactical plans from World War One! He doesnt allow for any flexability or for unknown factors that might hamper his strategy, he simply assumes that all will go as planned, he's failed already and he doesnt even know it. I was surprised when I read this from his naval tactics page;
In the 19th century, naval warfare entered the age of the iron-hulled steam-driven battleship. Large battles of this era involved even fewer ships than battles involving ships of the line: a handful of battleships with a destroyer screen was now regarded as a fleet. These ships had the range of sailing ships without their dependence on the wind, and they mounted both superior armour and firepower. Two important new technologies appeared: fire control and torpedoes. Fire control meant that they could aim without a line of sight by using ballistic trajectory calculations, and it greatly increased their effective weapon range. This range virtually eliminated the importance of fleet formations, since the distances between ship in an enemy fleet were now so small (relative to weapon range) that you could direct and concentrate your firepower toward any arbitrary point in the enemy fleet. It was for this reason that fleets in the battleship era cruised in formation but immediately broke up into columns when an enemy was sighted. Torpedoes struck the heavily armoured battleships below the waterline and could sink them, so protective destroyer screens appeared. Visibility and adequate scouting gained even more importance, and both were eventually aided by the invention of radar. The so-called "N-square law" meant that the fleet with an initial advantage would enjoy an increasing advantage as the battle wore on, due to the effect of attrition. Tactics of maneuver shrank in importance; despite the theoretical effectiveness of "crossing the T", it almost never happened and proved to be largely irrelevant. Tactics of this era were dominated by the big gun, and since the tactics of maneuver were no longer important, battles of this era were characterized by ruthlessly simple mathematics regardless of whether they took place at long range or short range: the fleet with superior numbers and firepower would generally be assured of victory, particularly if they could strike first.
Obviously he’s never heard of the battle of Jutland which easily disproves nearly everything he has written above. All battleships and battle cruisers doing everything he says ships of that era didn’t do. Or how about the battle of Tsushima, when the Japanese imperial fleet sunk the Russian navy in exactly the same way he insist they no longer operated.
He supposedly contacted someone in order to get this information, either they lied to him or he wasn’t paying any attention to what he was being told.
I will spot him the part about columns but I dont think he knows why the columns are used or even recognize the fact that it's still a form of maneuver tactics which he seems to think is obsolete;
Battle lines are not used. Fleets travel in formation which break up when combat is joined, as seen in ROTJ. The Rebel and Imperial fleets began exchanging long-range fire without any regard for formation, although Emperor Palpatine's decisions ultimately led to an Imperial defeat despite what was probably superior firepower. Piett's ships engaged long-range fire with the Rebel fleet as described in the ROTJ novelization, but they apparently targeted smaller ships before larger ships for the purpose of prolonging Palpatine's dramatic demonstration. Even Jerjerrod chose his targets in the same manner, aiming the first superlaser blast at the Liberty rather than the far more massive and heavily armed Rebel flagship Home One. On the other hand, Ackbar wisely concentrated his fleet's firepower on the Imperial flagship Executor first..
Tactics of maneuver are non-existent. Capital ships simply exchange fire with enemy capital ships, without regard for formations or "flanking", "encirclement", or "breakthrough" maneuvers.
Did he ever stop to think that maybe the reason why they dont maneuver is because their ships cant? Battle lines are not used because the ships lack the maneuverability to make them effective, tactics of maneuver are not used because the ships lack real maneuverability, a horrible design flaw forcing them to sit there and trade shots and try to upkeep their vessel until one of them is destroyed.
Imperial naval tactics are largely based on the battleship era, with some hint of tactics from the early aircraft carrier era.
Actually imperial naval tactics have very little in common with any era of naval warfare. The closest analogy I can think of would be the early ironclad era, but even those ships used maneuver tactics so it's an imperfect fit.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:54 am

There's the funny fact that the Invisible Hand had those mass driver notches on only one side of the ship, and the cannons were pretty much fixed, with no possibility to swivel in the slightest.
And that was for the most noticeable weapons one could spot on the ship. If there were other weapons, they were "obviously" well concealed.

watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:13 pm

Exactly, it can't be stressed enough the difference in naval tactics in star trek and star wars. He makes the claim that trek ships fight similar to the age of sail ships with some Roman boarding tactics thrown in he uses the Klingon assault on DS-9 as an example, hello that was a space station, a port if you will think of it more along the lines of an amphibious assault. Besides, what exactly do we see stormtroopers doing the first time they appear. Star Trek uses line tactics because they can, their ships are maneuverable enough to make them work. Just sitting there trading shots without trying to get out of the way is a poor tactic, and sad to say all we've ever seen star wars ships doing was moving in a slow straight line while blasting at one another.
At this point someone will probably pull out the E-D's slow clumsy evasive move from ST-Generations, so easy to compleatly ignore 40 years of trek maneuvering in order to prop up one single scene from one single movie.

Post Reply