TNG Spoiler: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase"
Tim Lynch
Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
===============================================
WARNING: The following posts contain a large number of words, which when
assembled in the proper order give away a great many spoilers for TNG's "The
Chase." Further, said words already are in the right order -- so be careful.
As drama? Very nice. The philosophy of the ending? Everything I went into
teaching to fight.
Well, after last week, when I found it difficult to get any emotions stirred
up at all about DS9's "Vortex", I'll say this for "The Chase": I definitely
had a lot of reactions to it. More (far more), after the usual synopsis...
While the Enterprise is on a routine study mission, Picard receives a
surprise visit from his old mentor and virtual second father, Professor
Galen. Galen brings him a gift -- a 12,000-year-old artifact from the Kerl
system -- and then says that he's on an expedition, and intends to take
Picard with him.
In Ten-Forward later that day, they talk, trying to make up for a thirty-year
interruption in their relationship. Galen acknowledges that the past decade
of his life has seemed very mysterious, with almost no publications or public
appearances. When asked what he's been doing all this time, he cryptically
asks Picard about "mycopaleontology", a study of fossil relics on the
microscopic level. He claims to have made a discovery so monumental that
when he announces his findings, "they'll hear it halfway across the galaxy."
However, he refuses to tell Picard what those findings actually are, saying
that the "price" of that information is agreeing to come with him. The
expedition, given limited resources, would last from three months up to a
year. Galen says that he needs Picard because he doesn't want his own age
and "inadequacies" to prevent the completion of the work. When Picard
hedges, citing responsibilities, Galen insists that his responsibilities to
_history_ are far more important. Picard promises to sleep on it.
The next morning, he tells Beverly at breakfast of the previous night's
conversation, telling her that although he couldn't leave the Enterprise to
join Galen, he very much regrets having to hurt Galen a second time by saying
no; it reminds him too much of the first time he did so, when he joined
Starfleet instead of becoming an archaeologist. "In a way, I wish he'd never
come on board the ship..."
He finds Galen in his lab a short time later, and finds that Galen is
planning the future of the expedition and assuming Picard will come. When he
declines as gently as he can, Galen becomes bitter, comparing Picard to "a
Roman centurion exploring the provinces." After this and other equally
strong statements, a crushed Galen asks Picard once more to come with him.
When Picard says that he cannot, Galen decides to leave the ship immediately
in his shuttle, not waiting for his transport.
A short time later, a preoccupied Picard prepares to take the Enterprise to a
diplomatic conference on Italia Seven, when suddenly Galen's shuttle sends a
distress call that is quickly cut off. They find a Yridian destroyer
attacking the shuttle and fire on it, accidentally causing it to explode.
While Riker and Worf ponder that, Picard goes to sickbay and orders Galen
beamed directly there. Unfortunately, Galen's wounds are too severe, and he
dies after telling Picard he was too harsh in his judgements.
What records could be salvaged from Galen's shuttle are examined, and a
number of protected files are found. Unfortunately, they contain only blocks
of numbers, the meaning of which is unclear. Further, the Yridians (and
thus, presumably, their employers) were after those files, which means those
employers may have a far better idea of the numbers' meaning. Picard,
finding that Galen had last been at Ruah Four, orders the Enterprise there.
Ruah Four seems to be a dead end, with no sign of any great past
civilization. Galen's next stop was Indri Eight, which from all records also
hosts no past or present civilization, but Picard orders the ship there
anyway. When Troi attempts to suggest that Picard is delaying the diplomatic
conference for no good reason, he angrily disagrees: "Counselor, this is not
simply a case of me taking the Enterprise and its crew on some wild goose
chase to purge myself of guilt and remorse! I will not let Galen's death be
in vain. Now, if that means inconveniencing a few squabbling delegates for a
few days, then _so be it_; I will take the full responsibility."
Alas, Indri Eight proves no more helpful, as the Enterprise arrives just in
time to see a strange plasma reaction completely destroy the planet's
biosphere. The motive for such an action is a complete mystery, but Picard
theorizes that Galen's files might have been linked to organic matter
somehow. He sets the computer searching for a pattern in those files,
limited to organic matter data only.
A pattern turns up. The blocks refer to a series of nearly two dozen
fragments of DNA, each from a different lifeform across the quadrant -- and
what's more, the fragments seem chemically _compatible_. When the
representations are linked according to where the compatibilities match up,
the pattern is undecipherable, but according to Geordi is clearly *not*
natural.
In fact, the pattern appears to be part of a molecularly coded computer
program. Further, Beverly notes that since the fragment from human DNA has
been in earth DNA since the earliest life-forms, the program must have been
created approximately four billion years ago. Since no other DNA in
Federation records contains the common element, Picard sensibly reasons that
the remaining pieces must be outside Federation space. They begin checking
the non-Federation people on board the Enterprise, and also realize that
Indri Eight's destruction means that other groups are aware of the program
and its possibly dangerous implications.
The search of the crew turns up negative, and no one can think of any way to
proceed, until Picard has a flash of insight. Remembering that Galen
mentioned being "in the neighborhood" the previous year when he picked up the
Kerlan artifact, he suggests checking out that area. The only workable
planet in that area is Loren Three, and they head there as fast as they can.
When they get there, they find some heavily armed company. Two Cardassian
warships are there, led by Gul Ocett. Ocett tells them to withdraw until
the Cardassian work is finished, but both are interrupted by the sudden
arrival of a Klingon ship as well. Picard invites Ocett and Nu'Daq, the
Klingon captain, to the Enterprise to discuss the situation.
On board, he gets them all to acknowledge their knowledge of Galen's work and
of the program. While the Enterprise has a good number of pieces, the
Cardassians have one from the planet below and will fire on anyone attempting
to get one themselves -- and the Klingons have the fragments from Indri
Eight. After some debate over what the eventual purpose is of the program
(Nu'Daq believes it to be a weapon, Ocett believes it's a power source),
Picard convinces them to share their fragments and let them all be combined
on board the Enterprise, with the results to be seen publicly and
simultaneously by all three parties. Grudgingly, they agree.
After the merging, however, the program is _still_ incomplete, prompting
great frustration from Nu'Daq. However, Picard remains optimistic,
suggesting now that the pattern might be one the original designers wanted to
be easy to discover. He tells Bev to analyze the pieces by location,
extrapolating back to account for four billion years of stellar motion --
with luck, the final piece will fall into place. She begins, but the program
will take several hours to run.
During that time, Nu'Daq attempts both to wrestle and to bribe Data, with
each having equally dismal results for him. Geordi, meanwhile, discovers
something very strange in the defensive systems and calls Picard to check...
Later, the analysis is complete, and all gather in the lab. The pattern is
very simple, and Bev says the missing piece is in the Ramazad system. Ocett
*immediately* beams out of the lab, and the Cardassian ships begin firing on
the Enterprise and on the Klingon ships, targeting the propulsion systems.
However, both are prepared, thanks to Geordi's discovery of Ocett's sabotage.
Riker orders the inertial dampers turned off to make the attack "look good",
but then everything returns to normal as soon as the Cardassians leave.
Nu'Daq's ship, unfortunately, did sustain very slight damage, and rather than
take the delay he accompanies the Enterprise to the _real_ site of the
missing piece, Vilmora Two.
The planet no longer supports much life, but once did, showing evidence of an
ancient ocean. A small pocket of vegetation is located, and Picard, Bev,
Worf and Nu'Daq beam down near it. They approach it, but are intercepted
close to it by the newly arrived Cardassians, and then all *three* groups are
stopped by a party of Romulans, who have been covertly dogging the
Enterprise's footsteps ever since Galen's death.
Ocett threatens to destroy the vegetation rather than let anyone else get the
information, and she and the Romulan captain begin negotiating. As they and
Nu'Daq argue, Picard and Bev surreptitiously scrape off a piece of fossilized
vegetation from the rock face they're standing near, hoping it's still
viable. It is, and the program begins to run, altering the tricorder to
project an image. All arguments stop, as the tricorder projects the image of
a humanoid figure. This figure looks out into empty space, then delivers a
statement:
"You're wondering who we are ... why we have done this ... how it has come
that I stand before you, the image of a being from so long ago. Life evolved
on my planet before all others in this part of the galaxy. We left our
world, explored the stars, and found none like ourselves. Our civilization
thrived for ages -- but what is the life of one race, compared to the vast
stretches of cosmic time? We knew that one day we would be gone, and nothing
of us would survive -- so we left _you_. Our scientists seeded the
primordial oceans of many worlds, where life was in its infancy. The seed
codes directed your evolution toward a physical form resembling ours: this
body you see before you, which is of course shaped as yours is shaped, for
you _are_ the end result. The seed codes also contain this message, which is
scattered in fragments on many different worlds. It was our hope that you
would have to come together in fellowship and companionship to hear this
message -- and if you can see and hear me, our hope has been fulfilled. You
are a monument, not to our greatness, but to our existence. That was our
wish: that you too would know life, and would keep alive our memory. There
is something of us in each of you, and so, something of you in each other.
Remember us."
The image fades, and Nu'Daq and Ocett are outraged, both at the lack of
"substance" in the program and at the very implication that their species
could have anything in common. The parties return to their respective ships.
A short time later, as the Enterprise conducts minor repairs to make up for
the extensive high-warp traveling they'd been doing, Picard and Beverly
discuss the recent events, noting that Picard has left Galen a wonderful
legacy. Picard only regrets that it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Bev
leaves to start her day, and Riker signals Picard that the Romulan captain is
hailing him. Picard receives him.
"Captain, my ships are leaving orbit for Romulan space. Until our next
encounter..."
"Until then."
"It would seem that we are not completely dissimilar after all -- in our
hopes, or in our fears."
"Yes..."
"Well, then -- perhaps, one day..."
"One day."
The Romulans leave, and Picard cradles a figurine from Galen's gift to his
breast, lost in thought.
Whew. Well, I'm glad that's over. :-) Now, time for some probably
equally-long commentary.
I'm going to split this up into two parts, because the two reactions I had
were completely opposite in direction and comparable in intensity. So...
I. "The Chase" as TNG Drama
Here, I've only a few minor negative points -- on the whole, "The Chase" was
a nice thing to watch. A race to untangle a mystery, with some spot-on
performances by most or all of the regulars, enough action to keep the
shoot-em-up watchers happy, and nice performances by important figures from
all three major non-Federation races -- who could ask for more?
Pacing-wise, "The Chase" fairly crackled. Jonathan Frakes, once again, is to
be commended for rarely letting a camera stay still. :-) It never seems too
surprising that no one stops to think seriously about what the program might
be, because everything's moving along so fast that _we_ certainly haven't.
We occasionally got a slight breather here and there, such as the Data/Nu'Daq
scene in Ten-Forward (which was absolutely hilarious), but that's all they
were: breathers. Even the "revelation" speech, which is a rather large
single speech (about four minutes of just _one person_ talking), didn't seem
dull; there were enough viewpoints of the humanoid and enough stunned
reaction shots to make it all very watchable indeed.
One of the best series of scenes had to be those centering on the Cardassian
attack. We all knew the computer results would be a big deal, and we
expected something big would come of it. And guess what? Something did, but
Picard had already anticipated it and beaten Ocett to the punch. This is the
sort of high-stakes strategizing Picard has been shown to be *very* good at
in the past, and everything fell just as neatly into place here.
The pacing was a bit slower in the early bits leading up to Galen's death,
but that was probably by design, given that until then there was no time
pressure inherent in the show except the constraints of doing a show that
runs 45 minutes. :-) Here, too, everything ran about as long as it had to
without overstaying its welcome. Well done.
In terms of writing, "The Chase" had several stories in one. The first was
Picard managing to disprove Galen's final accusation, that "as a scholar, [he
was] nothing but a dilettante." The second was "the chase" -- regardless of
goal, the idea that _somehow_, here was a contest the Federation couldn't
afford to lose. The final one was the mystery causing the chase, and in the
end answering the long-standing Trek question of "why is everybody humanoid?"
The first story was primarily setup -- once the chase itself begins, nothing
about Picard's underlying motives is really mentioned until the very end.
However, Picard is very clearly edgy throughout all of the show: if you
watch, his eyes are darting around much more than usual, he's cutting people
off much faster than usual (such as Troi in the ready room, but I'll get to
that), and he's always moving. A great example of this is right after
Galen's death: he has to *get up and pace* to think out the next move, which
seems very rare for the captain we know. Intriguing.
The chase sequence itself succeeds more due to the directing and acting than
to the writing, but that's the function of chase sequences: once you've set
them up, they stand or fall on execution. These did: just when you thought
the rules had been firmly established, they changed. They go to a planet
that should work, *but* it gets destroyed before their very eyes. The
Cardassians show up -- but wait, so do the Klingons just to mix things up
even more. They finally reach the planet and are caught -- not only by the
Cardassians, but then by the _Romulans_ as well. The chase, as it was meant
to, piled the suspense ever higher until the viewers start getting fidgety
(or their heads explode, but that's much rarer :-) ). Good job.
Then comes the mystery. This was a two-part question in itself. The first
was "what was Galen doing?", and was answered once they'd figured out the
number blocks. The second was "what does the program do?", and was the Big
Mystery [TM] that had everybody wondering. The first mystery is the only
case where it seemed the characters weren't quite thinking clearly -- after
all, since Picard knew Galen's work centered on microscopic _fossils_, maybe
doing pattern searches related to _life_ was a logical choice even before
Indri Eight was destroyed. Apart from that, though, everyone said and did
everything right, which is what we needed.
The second mystery was handled far better. Although I'd have preferred a
little more discussion about what everyone thought it might be, I've already
noted that there wasn't really time to do so within the context of the show.
Most of the second mystery was primarily backdrop for the chase, and as such
proved a wonderful goad.
The reactions to the revelation were done to perfection. The Cardassians and
Klingons, usually depicted as the more "primitive" of the four empires,
responded with the expected utter disgust, right down to Nu'Daq's "if she
weren't dead, I would kill her!" Great. Picard's reaction was pure Picard,
and the really intriguing one was the Romulan reaction. Looking back after
the final scene, it's interesting to notice that he seems the _most_
intrigued by the alien's statements, and that he's the only leader who
doesn't say _anything_ after it's over. The message there might well have
been taken to heart, which makes one wonder about how this will affect future
Romulan-centered stories. Interesting.
The performances, in almost all cases, were superb. After I got over my
shock of seeing Norman Lloyd (Galen) playing someone sympathetic [my
strongest memories of him are in "Dead Poets Society", where he is a
decidedly *un*sympathetic character], I very much enjoyed seeing him and
Stewart playing off each other. I found it very easy to think of them as
teacher and student, or almost father and son. The leaders of the "other
three" races were all classic: Nu'Daq was a very animalistic Klingon, with
just enough sophistication not to make a mess on the furniture :-) ; Gul
Ocett had the very common Cardassian trait of refined, almost _snobbish_
sliminess; and the Romulan leader got to be smug. None went too far beyond
that, but none had to -- this wasn't their story.
It *was* Picard's story, and Stewart continued in a line of very strong
performances that can carry a show on their own. I can't speak for anyone
else, but I found the scene where he had to turn Galen down utterly
wrenching, in part because I expected he'd decide to go and take the
Enterprise with him to shorten the time. Having recently done my utmost to
persuade someone to follow in my footsteps (i.e. leave school and go into
teaching, or more to the point accept an offer to do so :-) ) and failed, I
already had a slight understanding of Galen's point of view -- Picard's
actions have now given me a little more.
Stewart also truly shone after Galen was killed (and during, for that matter
-- those eyes almost looked panicked when he was being beamed aboard). I've
already mentioned his surprising lack of patience, but his lack of
introspection is equally interesting. Under normal circumstances, Picard
really might have stopped and thought about Troi's implicit criticism -- this
time he just bit her head off without so much as a by-your-leave. It was
*very* atypical of our friend the captain, and extremely interesting to
watch. Finally, his grief and near-loneliness after fulfilling Galen's
dreams were very visible in that final scene, and in all the right ways.
About the only performance that had a few difficulties was that of Gates
McFadden. In particular, the two scenes in Picard's quarters felt off-key,
and I think it's because McFadden didn't hold up her end. I realize that
both times, the character was basically a sounding board for Picard, but even
so we needed a little more reaction than a flat "and then what?", which was
the sort of thing we got.
Now, a few short comments on "The Chase" as a show before I get into part 2:
-- A computer program using organic life? Which one of Ron Moore and Joe
Menosky is the Douglas Adams fan? I was half convinced the number 42 had to
show up *somehow*. :-) (Actually, I'd bet my right arm that Okuda has it
sitting in the number blocks somewhere...)
-- (Thanks to Lisa for this one.) An _extremely_ nice and subtle point that
you can take from the show is in the figurines. Yes, an individual may have
"many voices" inside, leading to many-in-one; but after the revelation, the
whole skein of the TNG universe can also be looked at as one-in-many!
Interesting? I think so...
-- A writing oops: they checked all the non-Federation people on the
Enterprise and *didn't* have the Klingon cell in place? This is the second
time this season people seemed to be forgetting that Worf *is* a Klingon...
try something beyond the ponytail, Dorn. :-) :-)
That sounds like enough. (More than enough -- this may be my longest review
to date.) Now, on to my other response:
===========================================================================
II: "The Chase" as a depiction of science
My reaction here is about the revelation _itself_, and about some of the
reasoning leading up to it.
By way of prologue, and by way of pre-answer to some of the responses I know
I'm going to get: Yes, I'm well aware that TNG is fiction. A television
show. That's not the point. Also, much of this reaction comes out of my own
upbringing and my own background, and so is likely to vary very wildly for
anyone else. If you like, think of this as saying more about me than about
the show (though I believe otherwise, and hope that this section gets taken
seriously). That said...
I find the reasoning in the conclusion extremely flawed, and flawed in such a
way as to make my skin crawl. Having genetic material seeded throughout the
galaxy is fine, and having it coincidentally make everyone human is reaching,
but fine.
Having anything seeded once to reach a particular "end product" is NOT fine.
At all, and I'll explain why:
(No, this won't be a genetics rant -- I'm not a geneticist and never will be.
This is a general evolution rant that turns into a philosophy-of-science
rant. If you don't give a damn about it, too bad -- I do.)
Evolution is only "goal-oriented" up to a point. That point is *survival*.
If a trait helps a species survive, it stays in; if it doesn't, it tends not
to. One cannot start with one initial condition and expect to "engineer"
anything without controlling the natural environment as well. For example, I
could think of a few hundred species of dinosaur that would object to calling
humanity evolution's end product had they not been wiped out by a chance
meteor collision 65 million years ago. Unless you're claiming these aliens
also did *that*, you can't argue that the "humanoid" traits stayed in by
design, because were it not for that collision, we almost undoubtedly *would
not be here*.
That's the technical side of it. That's a problem, but it's not what's got
me ticked off. What has me ticked off is this:
Implying that anything is an intentional "end result" of evolution is a
classic example of something called the "grand design" fallacy. Geordi even
references it in the show, when he asserts quite confidently that the
pattern they're seeing COULD NOT have occurred randomly.
To be blunt, that's utter bullshit.
Things that are so improbable as to be "impossible to occur randomly" happen
every time you shuffle a deck of cards, or if you look at who lives through a
particular day and who doesn't. Having whatever combination of DNA each one
of us has is a one-in-something-incredibly-large shot.
This is a rotten, rotten abuse of statistics. Yes, there's a very low
probability this thing might have happened. But there's a very high
probability that *something* would happen, and if we just happened to get
such-and-such, that's the way it works.
This kind of fallacious reasoning is one I've seen used in arguments to
justify creation "science", and things like Von Daniken's horrible "ancient
astronauts" claptrap in the 1970s. It is a _fundamental misunderstanding of
the principles of probability and of science_. Period.
I know, I know. "Lynch, it's fiction -- who cares?" I care. It's _science_
fiction, or so everyone keeps saying -- and as a friend of mine put it,
"There's a difference between cheesy science and bad science." Technobabble
glitches that use technical-sounding words wrong is cheesy science that makes
you react the way you would to a bad pun. This is BAD science, and is in
fact exactly the type of rancid critical thinking that I went into teaching
to fight.
The grand design fallacy is a step below evolutionary "manifest destiny",
saying "Oh, gee, this is all so unlikely that it was *meant to be* this way."
The number of directions that argument could take is frightening -- who's to
say that the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs wasn't "divine retribution
that was meant to be"?
In fact, I consider the message coming out of the show to basically BE
creationism, except that instead of "God" in the "theory" you get "extremely
powerful aliens".
As a scientist, a humanist, and an atheist, I find that claim utterly
repugnant -- and I can't remember the last time I was this furious at Trek in
any form.
For pity's sake, this is a show that _boasts_ about trying to have good
science, and has a very reputable, very intelligent science advisor on board
in the person of Naren Shankar. Either he wasn't around when this story was
broken, he spoke up but was overruled, or he _didn't notice_. I'm going to
hope it was the first possibility -- if it was the second, then start
*listening* to the science advisor on occasion, and if it was the third, I
don't want to know unless there's something major I'm overlooking. (The fact
that he's an engineer and not a biologist is one thing -- but neither am I,
and I recognized the fallacy as poor thinking when I was an undergraduate.)
I think I've said all I feel I need to on the topic. I do apologize for
those who don't want to read my philosophizing in the middle of a review, but
I considered this entirely too important to ignore. It's been days since I
saw "The Chase", and my teeth still grind when I think of this.
So, that said, on to the numbers. Against my better judgement, I'm going to
stick with the tripartite system of Plot/Plot Handling/Characterization for
now, but be extremely wary of them.
Plot: 9 [2]: The former number is as drama, the second is with the
incredibly poor thinking included.
Plot Handling: 10. No complaints.
Characterization: 9. A little off for Gates being flat here and there;
otherwise brilliant.
TOTAL: 9.5, OR 7. Use the latter number if you agree with me about the
latter half in any way.
NEXT WEEK:
Riker's mind snaps -- or does it?
Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
BITNET: tlynch@citjulie
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"How can I accept this?"
"Graciously, Mr. Picard. You _could_ accept it graciously."
-- Picard and Galen
--
Copyright 1993, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
--
Andrew K Hwang
the philosophical implication of the episode. Read on at your
own risk.
In <1s3qai...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
tly...@Juliet.Caltech.Edu (Tim Lynch) writes:
>===========================================================================
>II: "The Chase" as a depiction of science
>[...]
>In fact, I consider the message coming out of the show to basically BE
>creationism, except that instead of "God" in the "theory" you get "extremely
>powerful aliens".
>As a scientist, a humanist, and an atheist, I find that claim utterly
>repugnant -- and I can't remember the last time I was this furious at Trek in
>any form.
Interesting. The implication I received was the 'ultimate humanism' --
or more accurately, 'humanoidism.'
The point I received was that the life in universe is just a chain of
one life form guiding the evolution of another. Mr. Lynch was indignant
that _humans_ were depicted as having been designed. But when taken
from the viewpoint of the aliens in question, it was the ultimate
triumph of their intelligence and capability. One life form able to
design the evolution of other life forms -- how much more 'humanoidistic'
can you get?
And this is the sort of thing that is hailed as the triumph of modern
biology/genetics, isn't it? Gene splicing and directed mutation is
seen as the pinnacle of 'human spirit.' Evolution theory put doubts
into humans' view of the Creator; the ability to _guide_ evolution --
not just in labs over a short time, but in other planets over four
billion years -- would mean humans or humanoids can assume the role
of the Creator themselves.
The episode was silent on one question: where did those alien 'designers'
come from? In line with the usual 'trek philosophy,' they probably
evolved spontaneously. Then again, based on the episode, what would
stop us from claiming that their evolution was guided as well? To me,
the episode was NOT a tribute to the creationism, but to human -- or
humanoid -- intelligence and technology.
Andrew K. Hwang
Ricardo R. Rodriquiz
: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase" [Tim Lynch's Spoiler Warning Buffer Retained - Summary Deleted]
:
: ===========================================================================
: II: "The Chase" as a depiction of science
: Evolution is only "goal-oriented" up to a point. That point is *survival*.
: If a trait helps a species survive, it stays in; if it doesn't, it tends not
: to. One cannot start with one initial condition and expect to "engineer"
: anything without controlling the natural environment as well. For example, I
: could think of a few hundred species of dinosaur that would object to calling
: humanity evolution's end product had they not been wiped out by a chance
: meteor collision 65 million years ago. Unless you're claiming these aliens
: also did *that*, you can't argue that the "humanoid" traits stayed in by
: design, because were it not for that collision, we almost undoubtedly *would
: not be here*.
I didn't see the evolution/genetic design problems as quite that serious.
Perhaps I was doing some editing/rewriting of the story in my head as I
watched. What I keyed on were three incidents:
1) The Klingons destroy all of Indris Three after securing their sample.
2) While on Vilmora Two, Beverly appears to scan for just any old fossilized
life form to sample.
3) It is speculated by Beverly (and confirmed by the "proto-humanoid") that
the various genetic sequences were "planted" during the initial
development of life on each of the planets in question.
I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, from these bits that the fragments in
question were likely as not to be found in the genetic code of *any* lifeform
from the planets in question. Any Terran life form would have had the
appropriate bits, its just that the most convinent form of Terran DNA
is in the humans on the crew. Now, this does ignore some parts of the plot/
dialogue (why didn't they also check the plants in the ship's arboretum?).
This does deal with the issue of trying to "correctly predict" which
lifeform will emerge as sentient/technically advanced on any given planet,
since any lifeform will have the relevant bits (and note that not all of
the worlds involved had intelligent life, let alone technically advanced
life). Now all of this "editing" I did does fly in the face of the claim
by the proto-humanoid that their tinkering resulted in the bulk of intellignet
life in the quadrant being humanoid (perhaps mammalian). As Tim correctly
points out, many of the factors which determine what species is going to
emerge as dominant are environmental and quite beyond the control of any
would be long-term genetic engineer. Now, it is not so outlandish to postulate
that some sort of genetic "calling card" could be embedded in either a
particular life form or in the proto-life form of an entire planet. From
what I know of genetics (like Tim, I do not claim any sort of expertise
in this area) a fair chunk of the genetic code in any sort of life form
is either redundant of some other bit or simply "blank" or "static" (i.e.
not serving any useful purpose but not harmful either). The evolutionary
argument also runs in the opposite direction. Any genetic sequence which
does not place the particular critter at a disadvantage is not going to
be selected against and thus not likely to be changed or excised from the
critter's genetic code. Now, given the relatively small ammount of genetic
material that most proto-life-forms are presumed to have, the ammount of
"blank" space into which such a marker could be inserted is relatively small
(unless it was spliced in as some part of a protien generation sequence that
most cellular processes would either need or would find advantageous so that
the protien generation sequence, containing the "puzzle piece" would be
selected for and retained under most forseeable circumstances). Although
I did not watch the particular scenes showing the genetic sequences in
excruciating detail, from what I could see, the pieces of genetic code
involved seemed rather small, no more than a few dozen base-pairs long.
Back to what seems to be Tim's principal objection, that the "proto-humanoid's"
tinkering would lead to the bulk of the quadrant's intelligent life being
humanoid as well. I have tinkered with this a bit and I can't think of
any sort of genetic sequence or combination of sequences that would put
humanoids at such a competetive advantage over all other life forms on
a particular planet that it would lead to the intelligent, technically-
advanced life form which would arise on that planet being humanoid. Tim
correctly points out that environment plays a very large role in how
the evolutionary course of development is going to play out. Such
environmental changes are essentially un-predictable (and we can infer
from what we have seen on Trek to date that they remain un-predictable
by 24th century standards). However, I didn't even consider seriously
the notion that the "proto-humanoids" stuck around to try to guide
the course of evolution on the various planets. If they could
stick around long enough to do that, why bother leaving the message
in the first place? Why not simply guide the evolutionary development
to the desired point and then either reveal themselves or "adopt" the
end product, a-la-2001? (With all due respect Tim, your whole line
of argument regarding the assumed guidance of the "proto-humanoids"
seems to be a bit of a straw-man set up to give you a chance to rag on
deists and creationists. Maybe its because we read different things
between the lines of the story. Or perhaps because I edited the
implausible bits whereas you spun the premises advanced to what, in
some respects, is the logical conclusion - i.e. the only way to ensure
that the intelligent life which arises is humanoid is to not only seed
the primodial soup but to stir it at the appropriate moments.)
I saw the "proto-humanoid's" claim as attempting to address two Trek premises
or problems, as the case may be. First, why there are so many humanoids
scattered about the galaxy. Recall that old Star Trek tried to account
for at least some of them in "The Paradise Syndrome" (i.e. the transplanted
Native Americans moved by "the Preservers") and Sargon's folks in "Return
to Tomorrow" (I may be mistaken on this episode title). The second
premise is what I "affectionately" call "Sagan's Petunia." In one of
Carl Sagan's books (either "Broca's Brain" or "The Cosmic Connection")
Dr. Sagan ridicules the notion of a human being able to sucessfully
interbreed with an alien life form, commenting that one would have
better chances of "crossing a man with a petunia" (rough approximation
of his quote). If most or even some of the humanoids chasing about
the galaxy/quadrant are derived from some common stock, whether it be
the same colonizing species or having sufficient genetic material in
common from some shared seeding effort, it would go some way towards
dealing with this. Since one has to suspend disbelief to such a large
extent to cope with some of the basics of the Trek "secondary world"
(to borrow an expression from Tolkein), I don't see where these bits
are so far beyond the pale. Perhaps I turn off more of my brain
when watching Trek than Tim or some others do. Just some rambling
thoughts.
: Things that are so improbable as to be "impossible to occur randomly" happen
: every time you shuffle a deck of cards, or if you look at who lives through a
: particular day and who doesn't. Having whatever combination of DNA each one
: of us has is a one-in-something-incredibly-large shot.
: This is a rotten, rotten abuse of statistics. Yes, there's a very low
: probability this thing might have happened. But there's a very high
: probability that *something* would happen, and if we just happened to get
: such-and-such, that's the way it works.
I don't know about this. Your last statement seems to be making claims
at least as strong as the rational design claim you denounce. I don't
see any way in which the basics of probablility and statistics allow one
to argue one way or another. Certainly it is improper to claim that
the sheer rareness of an event "proves" that the event came about due
to the intervention of some intelligent agency/actor. However, it is
equally improper to argue that, since it is not absolutely impossible for
a given event to have occured by chance, that it therefore "proves" that
it did, in fact, occur by chance. One needs other evidence to make any
sort of statement one way or another or, absent such evidence, explicitly
make a statment of belief. While it is axiomatic that any event with a
finite, non-zero probablity of occurance will occur, given enough time, if
a given event which has a small enough probablilty of occuring in fact occurs,
one at least needs to do some more poking about to try to explain what
is going on before dismissing it as the product of sheer random variation.
The critical question for any event, regardless of how improbable the
event itself is, is what is the most *likely* explanation for the event
in question. Absent any supporting evidence, the choice is a matter of
taste or belief.
: This kind of fallacious reasoning is one I've seen used in arguments to
: justify creation "science", and things like Von Daniken's horrible "ancient
: astronauts" claptrap in the 1970s. It is a _fundamental misunderstanding of
: the principles of probability and of science_. Period.
I, again, had a rather different take on all of the "hot rods of the gods"
stuff (though I come to the same conclusions you do about it). The fundamental
question which comes to my mind is not the notion of coincidence/improbability
being evidence/proof of intelligent design/intervention. It is, rather,
assuming that earth was, in fact, visited by an advanced species, why didn't
they leave a more unambigious calling card? (I refer to this as the
"technicitum plaque" problem. I know, I'm being cute again! ;) ) The problem
with this, as well as with creationism is not so much that they argue that
the relative improbablity of the current state of affairs is evidence of
their thesis, but that they ignore other, more likely, explanations of these
events in favor of their favorite/chosen explanation.
: I know, I know. "Lynch, it's fiction -- who cares?" I care. It's _science_
: fiction, or so everyone keeps saying -- and as a friend of mine put it,
: "There's a difference between cheesy science and bad science." Technobabble
: glitches that use technical-sounding words wrong is cheesy science that makes
: you react the way you would to a bad pun. This is BAD science, and is in
: fact exactly the type of rancid critical thinking that I went into teaching
: to fight.
Again, I personally saw this as more a question of cheesy science rather
than bad science. Again, perhaps I unconsciously changed some of the
bad bits to cheesy bits. But then, I do like cheese a whole lot! ;)
: As a scientist, a humanist, and an atheist, I find that claim utterly
: repugnant -- and I can't remember the last time I was this furious at Trek in
: any form.
This whole notion of the "proto-humanoid" does seem to have touched a nerve
and it would be dishonest of me not to admit that Tim's response to this
touched a nerve in me as well. I don't see "good" science as being any more
synonomous with "athiest" science as I see it being synonomous with "deist"
science. I must confess that Tim's characterization (whether he intended
it to read this way or not - and I do apologize if I am reading too much into
this) struck me as being a little too close to such characterizations as
"Jewish physics" or "Bourgeois science" or Lysenkoism for my comfort. We must
all be on our guard always against allowing our personal preferences or biases
to influence our reasoning on issues scientific. Of course, that is not
to say that scientific issues, findings, paradigms or research agendas will
not have normative dimensions to them. However, we must always be alert
to those dimensions and now allow our own hopes, fears or prejudices to
compromise our fundamental integrity as thinking, hopefully critical
beings. (I know whereof I speak. I first went into Political Science
in the rather absurd and naive hope of "scientifically proving"
communism/Marxism-Leninism/Socalism "wrong." Not to say that I am
any more enamoured of those ideologies than I was when I first started
poking about with these issues. It just means that I have to be
particularly careful when dealing with issues where my beliefs and
prejudices can come into play.)
I'm sorry if all of the above came off as sermonizing and it is not my
intention to get involved in a flame war with anyone (anyway, my asbestos
shorts are now too big for me since I have lost weight ;) ). However,
the impression I seemed to get from Tim's comments disturbed me a bit.
Ricardo Rodriguiz
Data Archive
Population Studies Center
The University of Michigan
INCLUDE FILE='standard-disclaimer.txt'.
Timothy W. Lynch
>Tim Lynch (tly...@Juliet.Caltech.Edu) wrote:
>: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase"
>: Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
>: ===============================================
> [Tim Lynch's Spoiler Warning Buffer Retained - Summary Deleted]
>: II: "The Chase" as a depiction of science
Well, if nothing else, I'm definitely getting lots of response to this. My
students will kill me -- I ought to be grading their papers. :-)
>I didn't see the evolution/genetic design problems as quite that serious.
>Perhaps I was doing some editing/rewriting of the story in my head as I
>watched.
Perhaps. I'm married to a biologist, though, so I get touchy easily about
these things.
>What I keyed on were three incidents:
>1) The Klingons destroy all of Indris Three after securing their sample.
>2) While on Vilmora Two, Beverly appears to scan for just any old fossilized
> life form to sample.
>3) It is speculated by Beverly (and confirmed by the "proto-humanoid") that
> the various genetic sequences were "planted" during the initial
> development of life on each of the planets in question.
>I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, from these bits that the fragments in
>question were likely as not to be found in the genetic code of *any* lifeform
>from the planets in question.
Agreed -- that's not a problem. What is the problem is the heavy, heavy
implication in the projection's words that humans were what they were always
_aiming_ for, and the further implication that only humans would evolve into
intelligent life.
>This does deal with the issue of trying to "correctly predict" which
>lifeform will emerge as sentient/technically advanced on any given planet,
>since any lifeform will have the relevant bits (and note that not all of
>the worlds involved had intelligent life, let alone technically advanced
>life).
Agreed. I actually don't have *that* much of a problem that all the intelli-
gent species _ended up_ human; it's bogus, but it's an SF conceit. I disliked
the way the thing was presented.
>Now all of this "editing" I did does fly in the face of the claim
>by the proto-humanoid that their tinkering resulted in the bulk of intellignet
>life in the quadrant being humanoid (perhaps mammalian).
Exactly. It's those claims I'm looking at the most.
[environmental and genetics discussion deleted]
>advanced life form which would arise on that planet being humanoid. Tim
>correctly points out that environment plays a very large role in how
>the evolutionary course of development is going to play out. Such
>environmental changes are essentially un-predictable (and we can infer
>from what we have seen on Trek to date that they remain un-predictable
>by 24th century standards). However, I didn't even consider seriously
>the notion that the "proto-humanoids" stuck around to try to guide
>the course of evolution on the various planets. If they could
>stick around long enough to do that, why bother leaving the message
>in the first place? Why not simply guide the evolutionary development
>to the desired point and then either reveal themselves or "adopt" the
>end product, a-la-2001?
Very good points, and well taken. No matter how one slices the thing, there's
definitely *something* screwy here. Your interpretation might be more in
line with the writers' intent: my guess is that they forgot about the
environmental necessities entirely and didn't think beyond what was actually
said. That doesn't change my objections to the statistical arguments in the
*first* place, but it changes some of the ending from Daniken-like to simply
silly, which I can live with. :-)
>(With all due respect Tim, your whole line
>of argument regarding the assumed guidance of the "proto-humanoids"
>seems to be a bit of a straw-man set up to give you a chance to rag on
>deists and creationists.
I didn't entirely assume that this guidance was intended -- I merely pointed
out that this kind of statistical argument is *exactly* the sort of thing
underpinning many arguments in pseudoscience, creationism included. Believe
me, I know whence I speak there -- I've had arguments with some creationism
proponents that used almost exactly some of the same sentences we saw in
"The Chase".
>Maybe its because we read different things
>between the lines of the story. Or perhaps because I edited the
>implausible bits whereas you spun the premises advanced to what, in
>some respects, is the logical conclusion - i.e. the only way to ensure
>that the intelligent life which arises is humanoid is to not only seed
>the primodial soup but to stir it at the appropriate moments.)
Both are likely -- and I suspect it's a bit of each. I tend to wonder how
my reactions would have differed were I not sleeping next to a biologist at
night. :-) Believe me, if you thought *I* was mad...
>I saw the "proto-humanoid's" claim as attempting to address two Trek premises
>or problems, as the case may be. First, why there are so many humanoids
>scattered about the galaxy.
[...]
As a tying up of Trek "loose ends", I had little problem with it. My dislike
was aimed at the way "science" was used to justify the whole thing, because
it hits entirely too close to a great many _bogus_ science arguments I've
heard used.
>:Things that are so improbable as to be "impossible to occur randomly" happen
>:every time you shuffle a deck of cards, or if you look at who lives through a
>:particular day and who doesn't. Having whatever combination of DNA each one
>:of us has is a one-in-something-incredibly-large shot.
>:This is a rotten, rotten abuse of statistics. Yes, there's a very low
>:probability this thing might have happened. But there's a very high
>:probability that *something* would happen, and if we just happened to get
>:such-and-such, that's the way it works.
>I don't know about this. Your last statement seems to be making claims
>at least as strong as the rational design claim you denounce. I don't
>see any way in which the basics of probablility and statistics allow one
>to argue one way or another. Certainly it is improper to claim that
>the sheer rareness of an event "proves" that the event came about due
>to the intervention of some intelligent agency/actor. However, it is
>equally improper to argue that, since it is not absolutely impossible for
>a given event to have occured by chance, that it therefore "proves" that
>it did, in fact, occur by chance. One needs other evidence to make any
>sort of statement one way or another or, absent such evidence, explicitly
>make a statment of belief.
Agreed, and if I gave the impression that it *must* be by chance I apolo-
gize. I'll admit up front (if a little after the fact) that I usually tend
to assume things like this *are* the result of random chance unless given
evidence otherwise. The problem I had here was that the show took it as a
given that "it's very improbable, and therefore non-random", without saying
_anything_ about any evidence or even stating that "well, we'll assume this
is artificial for the time being." There appeared to be absolutely *no*
thought given to it being anything but the "obvious" implication.
>: This kind of fallacious reasoning is one I've seen used in arguments to
>: justify creation "science", and things like Von Daniken's horrible "ancient
>: astronauts" claptrap in the 1970s. It is a _fundamental misunderstanding of
>: the principles of probability and of science_. Period.
>I, again, had a rather different take on all of the "hot rods of the gods"
>stuff (though I come to the same conclusions you do about it). The fundamental
>question which comes to my mind is not the notion of coincidence/improbability
>being evidence/proof of intelligent design/intervention. It is, rather,
>assuming that earth was, in fact, visited by an advanced species, why didn't
>they leave a more unambigious calling card? (I refer to this as the
>"technicitum plaque" problem. I know, I'm being cute again! ;) )
Not half as cute as David Brin gets on the topic when you give him half a
chance. :-) That's another significant argument against the _CotG_
hypothesis.
>The problem
>with this, as well as with creationism is not so much that they argue that
>the relative improbablity of the current state of affairs is evidence of
>their thesis, but that they ignore other, more likely, explanations of these
>events in favor of their favorite/chosen explanation.
I see the two as very linked. They're so hung up on the "improbability =
design" idea, in my view, that they can't see any other explanations *as*
more likely. But we're digressing a bit.
>:As a scientist, a humanist, and an atheist, I find that claim utterly
>:repugnant -- and I can't remember the last time I was this furious at Trek in
>:any form.
>This whole notion of the "proto-humanoid" does seem to have touched a nerve
To put it mildly. Believe me, I went through a few drafts of this entire
section of the review before I found one that said what I wanted to say rela-
tively calmly.
>and it would be dishonest of me not to admit that Tim's response to this
>touched a nerve in me as well. I don't see "good" science as being any more
>synonomous with "athiest" science as I see it being synonomous with "deist"
>science.
I can't really say whether I agree or not before I see what the definitions of
the two types actually *are*. I know a great many scientists who are quite
religious, and I've never had any problem with that -- but I see a very
great difficulty in introducing any assumption into scientific thought that
allows "proof by authority". Saying "it's this way because God made it as
such" is, at least to me, entirely contrary to a rational way of thinking.
If that means I demand science be "atheist", then I plead guilty. If your
definitions are different, I'd like to hear them so I can clarify.
>I must confess that Tim's characterization (whether he intended
>it to read this way or not - and I do apologize if I am reading too much into
>this) struck me as being a little too close to such characterizations as
>"Jewish physics" or "Bourgeois science" or Lysenkoism for my comfort. We must
>all be on our guard always against allowing our personal preferences or biases
>to influence our reasoning on issues scientific.
Indeed we must. I very much apologize if you interpreted my comments as in
any way being prejudiced against those adherents of one religion or another
actually *doing* science. That would not be at all reasonable. I do see
a great deal of religious claims as incompatible with scientific reasoning,
but if others feel they can confidently deal with both, more power to them.
>I'm sorry if all of the above came off as sermonizing and it is not my
>intention to get involved in a flame war with anyone (anyway, my asbestos
>shorts are now too big for me since I have lost weight ;) ). However,
>the impression I seemed to get from Tim's comments disturbed me a bit.
And based on what you said those impressions are, you have every right to be
disturbed. You've been quite reasonable -- no offense taken at all.
Tim Lynch
Johnny Piscitello
>Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase"
>Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
>===============================================
>
>WARNING: The following posts contain a large number of words, which when
>assembled in the proper order give away a great many spoilers for TNG's "The
>Chase." Further, said words already are in the right order -- so be careful.
>
I am responding to Tim's complaint about the apparent creationism
in "The Chase". I am quoting alot of what he said before I respond to it:
>"You're wondering who we are ... why we have done this ... how it has come
>of us would survive -- so we left _you_. Our scientists seeded the
>primordial oceans of many worlds, where life was in its infancy. The seed
>codes directed your evolution toward a physical form resembling ours: this
>body you see before you, which is of course shaped as yours is shaped, for
>you _are_ the end result. The seed codes also contain this message, which is
>scattered in fragments on many different worlds. It was our hope that you
>would have to come together in fellowship and companionship to hear this
>message -- and if you can see and hear me, our hope has been fulfilled. You
>are a monument, not to our greatness, but to our existence. That was our
>wish: that you too would know life, and would keep alive our memory. There
>is something of us in each of you, and so, something of you in each other.
>Remember us."
>I find the reasoning in the conclusion extremely flawed, and flawed in such a
>way as to make my skin crawl. Having genetic material seeded throughout the
>galaxy is fine, and having it coincidentally make everyone human is reaching,
>but fine.
>
>Having anything seeded once to reach a particular "end product" is NOT fine.
>At all, and I'll explain why:
>
>This is a rotten, rotten abuse of statistics. Yes, there's a very low
>probability this thing might have happened. But there's a very high
>probability that *something* would happen, and if we just happened to get
>such-and-such, that's the way it works.
>
>This kind of fallacious reasoning is one I've seen used in arguments to
>justify creation "science", and things like Von Daniken's horrible "ancient
>astronauts" claptrap in the 1970s. It is a _fundamental misunderstanding of
>the principles of probability and of science_. Period.
>
>The grand design fallacy is a step below evolutionary "manifest destiny",
>saying "Oh, gee, this is all so unlikely that it was *meant to be* this way."
>The number of directions that argument could take is frightening -- who's to
>say that the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs wasn't "divine retribution
>that was meant to be"?
>
>In fact, I consider the message coming out of the show to basically BE
>creationism, except that instead of "God" in the "theory" you get "extremely
>powerful aliens".
>
>As a scientist, a humanist, and an atheist, I find that claim utterly
>repugnant -- and I can't remember the last time I was this furious at Trek in
>any form.
>
Tim, there is a hole in your reasoning. That is, what if
4-billion-year-old race came into being by a pure accident of evolution?
Then there is no grand design after all. It simply means that these people
were very good at preserving themselves...the evolutionary survival instinct.
This seems to contradict your argument that this is creationism.
Rather, all this "end product" shows is that these people knew damn well
how to survive. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't. But if the
DNA was useful to survival, then, as you said yourself, "it would stay".
Maybe their scientists were damn good. Maybe they could compute
2^billion possiblities in linear time. Maybe they really understood chaos
theory. We're not impressed by someone who plants an acorn and...oh! out
pops a tree! Maybe their scientists were so good that seeding DNA was
like seeding a plant to us.
"God" has not been replaced by "powerful aliens". All that's
happened is that the evolutionary clock has been pushed back about
4 billion years. Now if the show was trying to answer the question,
"Where did THEY (the seeding race) come from?" that would be considered
creationism.
Your argument seems to rest on the use of the term "particular
end product". However, the seeding race did not use the word "particular".
This implies they may have understood some unpredictable conditions would
exist. (Your main argument against it, the dinosaurs, they still had
2 eyes, a nose, a mouth, 2 arms and 2 legs just like us.)
Also, their existence and their "seeding" does not preclude the
development of other evolutionary paths...the nanites, the Q continuum,
the Horta, just to name a few. All it means is a few scientists sprinkled
some DNA around, just like someone plants an acorn. It is not creationism
to plant a tree. In fact, for the seeders, it was the very height of survival
instinct.
Now the BIGGER problem I have with it is this: after 4 billion years,
how did those people know everyone would still understand English? :-)
|\/\/\/| joh...@athena.mit.edu
| |
| (o)(o)
C _)
| ,___|
| /
/____\
/ \
Gerald W Katz
>
>In fact, I consider the message coming out of the show to basically BE
>creationism, except that instead of "God" in the "theory" you get "extremely
>powerful aliens".
>
>As a scientist, a humanist, and an atheist, I find that claim utterly
>repugnant -- and I can't remember the last time I was this furious at Trek in
>any form.
Not a flame or anything, but...
(well, maybe a match-sized flame to be honest)
"As a scientist, a humanist, and an athiest", what was your opinion
of "Who Watches the Watchers", philosophically wise? The ending
certainly implied that religion is backward thinking, leaving
a civilization in dark ages. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion,
but remember, you only give the show a 7 because of your admittedly
biased philosophy. You got the impression that the episode supported
an idead you disapprove of, thus, you reacted negatively.
The same is true with me. "Lessons" was an episode that did not
have a story that I approve of, thus I acted negatively toward it.
However, we had a flamewar over it. We both certainly do not 'hate'
the show because of 'philosophically disappointing' episodes,
but can you now understand why I loathed "Lessons", granted, more
so than you were a bit disappointed with "The Chase"?
"The Chase", gee, what a boring title. :-)
gkatz
Member, WS/JTK/JF/WTR Fan Club CSO-FCRLFC
Rebecca Drayer
>shock of seeing Norman Lloyd (Galen) playing someone sympathetic [my
>strongest memories of him are in "Dead Poets Society", where he is a
>decidedly *un*sympathetic character], I very much enjoyed seeing him and
>Stewart playing off each other. I found it very easy to think of them as
>teacher and student, or almost father and son. The leaders of the "other
>three" races were all classic: Nu'Daq was a very animalistic Klingon, with
>just enough sophistication not to make a mess on the furniture :-) ; Gul
>Ocett had the very common Cardassian trait of refined, almost _snobbish_
>sliminess; and the Romulan leader got to be smug. None went too far beyond
>that, but none had to -- this wasn't their story.
You know, it took me half of the episode to figure out where I had seen
the actor who played Professor Galen. I knew I recognized the face, and
knew that he hadn't played a likable character, but it wasn't till later
that I associated it with a bunch of guys standing on desks. :-)
Very good acting. I like seeing "bad guys" play "good guys". Reminds me
not to typecast.
****************************************************************************
Rebecca A. Drayer, EMT-A | dra...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
(a.k.a. Organic Lass of the LNH) | Computing Assistant
SEFEB Member | Silliman College, Yale University
"Ever hear of the Golden Rule? The one who has the gold makes the rules."
- Aladdin
****************************************************************************
james r yingst
> Now the BIGGER problem I have with it is this: after 4 billion years,
>how did those people know everyone would still understand English? :-)
Perhaps the writers could have inserted a line into the "progenitor's" speech-
"Oh, and while we were mucking about with your genes, we also made you all
genetically incapable of speaking anything other than English. Now you know."
That would've answered a few of my questions. :)
Incidentally, another line I'd have paid to hear from the hologram - "Help
me, Obi-Wan, you're my only hope!"
Jim Yingst
yin...@argon.uug.arizona.edu
dc...@rob.raleigh.ibm.com
>-- A writing oops: they checked all the non-Federation people on the
>Enterprise and *didn't* have the Klingon cell in place? This is the second
>time this season people seemed to be forgetting that Worf *is* a Klingon...
>try something beyond the ponytail, Dorn. :-) :-)
I may have to watch this again, but it seemed to me that the "4" various
cells, blocks, pieces, or whatever you want to call them were not completely
disjoint. They seemed to overlap in places. The Federation "piece" was
composed of fragments from a bunch of different worlds. The same was likely
true of the "piece" from the Klingon Empire. It seems reasonable to assume
that one of the overlapping fragments between the Klingon and Federation
pieces would be from the Klingons themselves.
What seemed *unlikely* to me was that since the Federation "piece" was
composed of several fragments from different places in the quadrant (and
likely the Cardassian and Klingon pieces were as well), that the final planet
would provide ALL the remaining fragments, not just 1 or 2.
Dave Barnhart email: 70672...@Compuserve.com
Please do not email to the address in the header; it's just a news server.
Jerry Franke
: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase"
: Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
: ===============================================
:
: WARNING: The following posts contain a large number of words, which when
: assembled in the proper order give away a great many spoilers for TNG's "The
: Chase." Further, said words already are in the right order -- so be careful.
Additional warning: this is fairly long, even after editing out 90+% of
Tims's comments. Ye ha' ben wurned!
: I'm going to split this up into two parts, because the two reactions I had
: were completely opposite in direction and comparable in intensity. So...
:
: I. "The Chase" as TNG Drama
:
: The first story was primarily setup -- once the chase itself begins, nothing
: about Picard's underlying motives is really mentioned until the very end.
: However, Picard is very clearly edgy throughout all of the show: if you
: watch, his eyes are darting around much more than usual, he's cutting people
: off much faster than usual (such as Troi in the ready room, but I'll get to
: that), and he's always moving. A great example of this is right after
: Galen's death: he has to *get up and pace* to think out the next move, which
: seems very rare for the captain we know. Intriguing.
Indeed. This was definitely a side of Picard that we don't get to see very
often, if ever. I would imagine that some people will end up uncomfortable
with the portrayal, but I think it's refreshing to see the normally
unflappable Picard "weird out" over something. This is a growth to the
character that has been highlighted in several different episodes this
season -- that he is not perfect.
:
: -- A writing oops: they checked all the non-Federation people on the
: Enterprise and *didn't* have the Klingon cell in place? This is the second
: time this season people seemed to be forgetting that Worf *is* a Klingon...
: try something beyond the ponytail, Dorn. :-) :-)
Well, he's never there when someone takes over the ship, he's easy to
misplace! 8^)
:
: That sounds like enough. (More than enough -- this may be my longest review
: to date.)
Whew! you can say that again, Tim!
: II: "The Chase" as a depiction of science
:
: My reaction here is about the revelation _itself_, and about some of the
: reasoning leading up to it.
:
: Having anything seeded once to reach a particular "end product" is NOT fine.
: At all, and I'll explain why:
: What has me ticked off is this:
:
: Implying that anything is an intentional "end result" of evolution is a
: classic example of something called the "grand design" fallacy. Geordi even
: references it in the show, when he asserts quite confidently that the
: pattern they're seeing COULD NOT have occurred randomly.
:
: To be blunt, that's utter bullshit.
:
: Things that are so improbable as to be "impossible to occur randomly" happen
: every time you shuffle a deck of cards, or if you look at who lives through a
: particular day and who doesn't. Having whatever combination of DNA each one
: of us has is a one-in-something-incredibly-large shot.
Now, I will admit to being even less of a genetics expert than you, Tim, but
I was reminded of a passage of the Sagan/Druyan book, _Shadows of Forgotten
Ancestors_, which I read a few months ago because I was curious as to what
the authors had to say about the nature of intelligence. While different
people have different opinions of this duo as scientists, they do tend to do
their homework. On page 83, they state:
"Startling similarities among the _functional_ sequences of As, Cs, Gs, and
Ts are seen throughout the biological world, similarities that could not
have come about unless -- beneath the apparent diversity of life on Earth --
there was an underlying and fundamental unity. That unity exists, it seems
clear, because every living thing on Earth is descended from the same
ancestor 4 billion years ago; because we are all kin."
The geneticists out there can correct me if this is wrong (and they will,
knowing this newsgroup 8^), but the nature of this statement seems to
reflect the idea of the episode: while the specifics of a DNA strand on a
given world are different for each individual, the underlying character of
the strand is the same, due to a common ancestor. The episode simply
entends this to cover all (or most) humanoids in the quadrant. It's an
interesting twist on the old race cliche "We're all the same on the inside."
So you might consider this GOOD science, just in a twisted sort of way.
:
: Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
: BITNET: tlynch@citjulie
: INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
: UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
: "How can I accept this?"
: "Graciously, Mr. Picard. You _could_ accept it graciously."
: -- Picard and Galen
: --
: Copyright 1993, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
: --
---Jerry
Janis Maria Cortese
>Tim Lynch (tly...@Juliet.Caltech.Edu) wrote:
>: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase"
>: Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
>: ===============================================
>:
>: WARNING: The following posts contain a large number of words, which when
>: assembled in the proper order give away a great many spoilers for TNG's "The
>: Chase." Further, said words already are in the right order -- so be careful.
>
>Additional warning: this is fairly long, even after editing out 90+% of
>Tims's comments. Ye ha' ben wurned!
>
>
>:
>: My reaction here is about the revelation _itself_, and about some of the
>: reasoning leading up to it.
>:
>: Having anything seeded once to reach a particular "end product" is NOT fine.
>: At all, and I'll explain why:
>: What has me ticked off is this:
>:
>: Implying that anything is an intentional "end result" of evolution is a
>: classic example of something called the "grand design" fallacy. Geordi even
>: references it in the show, when he asserts quite confidently that the
>: pattern they're seeing COULD NOT have occurred randomly.
>:
>: To be blunt, that's utter bullshit.
Why? It's certainly unusual that all objects fall at the same rate of
acceleration. This certainly could not have occurred randomly. Does it
require that there be anything conscious out there? Nope. Just a
nicely organized universe that may have come from anything that humans
don't understand. Maybe conscious design, maybe not. But, just because
soemthing "can't happen randomly" doesn't require that it be by
conscious design. And, just because someone asserts that it can't
happen "randomly" doesn't mean they are appeals to a "grand design"
fallacy, Tim. ;-) If I throw a set of dice a bunch of times, I can
predict to within a gnat's whisker what the final distribution is.
Doesn't mean I PLANNED it, just means that sometimes stuff works out
WITHOUT anyone's interference.
>: Things that are so improbable as to be "impossible to occur randomly" happen
>: every time you shuffle a deck of cards, or if you look at who lives through a
>: particular day and who doesn't.
No they don't. Not if you apply statistics properly and not like an
idiot -- unfortunately, that's how most people apply statistics. The
odds of winning the lottery may be teeny to everyone but the person who
wins. But, you can't take the example of the winning number as a
disproof of the random nature of the thing.
>: Having whatever combination of DNA each one
>: of us has is a one-in-something-incredibly-large shot.
>
>Now, I will admit to being even less of a genetics expert than you, Tim, but
>I was reminded of a passage of the Sagan/Druyan book, _Shadows of Forgotten
>Ancestors_, which I read a few months ago because I was curious as to what
>the authors had to say about the nature of intelligence. While different
>people have different opinions of this duo as scientists, they do tend to do
>their homework. On page 83, they state:
>
>"Startling similarities among the _functional_ sequences of As, Cs, Gs, and
>Ts are seen throughout the biological world, similarities that could not
>have come about unless -- beneath the apparent diversity of life on Earth --
>there was an underlying and fundamental unity. That unity exists, it seems
>clear, because every living thing on Earth is descended from the same
>ancestor 4 billion years ago; because we are all kin."
Oh, Goddess, I'm waiting for some dope to take this out of context.
There is an underlying and fundamental unity to the general shape of the
Lorentz attractor, too. Again, this DOES NOT IMPLY DESIGN, only some
nonrandom OVERALL organization. To wit, planet Earth doesn't have to
THINK about pulling objects down any more than water has to THINK about
freezing at 0 C. It just DOES.
Regards,
Janis the net.proud.hussy
Janis Cortese || President and Founder: SEFEB, and The ||
cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu || Society of People Who Would Love to ||
UCIrvine Linguistics, || Shove a Stick Up Rush Limbaugh's Ass; ||
for a while more anyway || and Member of The Star Trek Ladies' ||
Irvine, California || Auxiliary and Embroidery/Baking Society ||
====================================================================||
Christopher Blaise,Davidian BBQ in Waco!
> Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase"
> Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
> ===============================================
>
> WARNING: The following posts contain a large number of words, which when
> assembled in the proper order give away a great many spoilers for TNG's "The
> Chase." Further, said words already are in the right order -- so be careful.
>
> Enterprise and *didn't* have the Klingon cell in place? This is the second
> time this season people seemed to be forgetting that Worf *is* a Klingon...
> try something beyond the ponytail, Dorn. :-) :-)
This may be minor, but they didn't neccessarily WANT a Klingon DNA
sample - they wanted that sample that the Klingons took before they wasted
the planet. I would assume that (Picard's mentor) already had a Klingon
DNA sample with his original stuff. When they were looking for the other
DNA aboard the ship, it was for those DNA samples they didn't have.
TTYL
Chris
Jerry Franke
: In article <C6J7...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> fra...@cs.fsu.edu (Jerry Franke) writes:
: >
: >Now, I will admit to being even less of a genetics expert than you, Tim, but
: >I was reminded of a passage of the Sagan/Druyan book, _Shadows of Forgotten
: >Ancestors_, which I read a few months ago because I was curious as to what
: >the authors had to say about the nature of intelligence. While different
: >people have different opinions of this duo as scientists, they do tend to do
: >their homework. On page 83, they state:
: >
: >"Startling similarities among the _functional_ sequences of As, Cs, Gs, and
: >Ts are seen throughout the biological world, similarities that could not
: >have come about unless -- beneath the apparent diversity of life on Earth --
: >there was an underlying and fundamental unity. That unity exists, it seems
: >clear, because every living thing on Earth is descended from the same
: >ancestor 4 billion years ago; because we are all kin."
:
: Oh, Goddess, I'm waiting for some dope to take this out of context.
: There is an underlying and fundamental unity to the general shape of the
: Lorentz attractor, too. Again, this DOES NOT IMPLY DESIGN, only some
: nonrandom OVERALL organization.
Well, in an attempt to prevent this from happening, I will try to clarify
my statements. What the above passage suggests is that at some point in
time, all life as we know it on Earth derived from some initial genetic
material. No matter how many mutations have occured to create different
permutations of amino acid sequences in the DNA of various organisms on
Earth, there is a certain similarity among them. This is probably, among
other reasons, that some of the sequences cannot change much without it
being detrimental to an organism's survival in Earth's environment. This
similarity is the underlying and fundamental unity that the passage talks
about. Other mutations _did_ exist, but the resulting organisms could
not survive, and so their progeny are not seen today.
What I was trying to say by mentioning all this was that the writers of
"The Chase" could quite easily use this fact to suppose that the initial
material was supplied by these aliens instead of, say, by some chemicals
mutated into life by solar radiation (that's probably not a completely
correct description of the theory, but please don't bother flaming me,
'cus those specifics aren't important to this discussion). The aliens
could have noticed this "unity" in their world's own genetic makeup, so
they might have gambled that their genetic "seeds" might survive, after
some fine tuning, as the underlying theme of another series of evolution-
ary steps on other worlds. The "codes" would result from that part of
the DNA that had very little chance to mutate successfully. Thus, even
in this fantasy world, we would result not from a "grand design", but
from a calculated gamble.
Of course, this leaves a lot of holes, like how a propensity to evolve
bipeds could possibly be programmed into the promordial DNA, or how
Dr. Bev could extract this "code" from only a single DNA sample. However,
I think that the writers might have put more thought into their premise
than was believed by previous posters.
:
: Regards,
: Janis the net.proud.hussy
:
Same to you,
Jerry the nobody.in.particular
Felix Ting-Wey Ling
>rrro...@psc.lsa.umich.edu (Ricardo R. Rodriquiz) writes:
>>Tim Lynch (tly...@Juliet.Caltech.Edu) wrote:
>
>>: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase"
>>: Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
>>: ===============================================
>> [Tim Lynch's Spoiler Warning Buffer Retained - Summary Deleted]
>
>implication in the projection's words that humans were what they were always
>_aiming_ for, and the further implication that only humans would evolve into
>intelligent life.
I did think it was implied that humans were what they'd been aiming for, but
more since they put genes of humanity practically everywhere. That way,
they'd have a pretty good chance of getting at least some humans. I think
the implication that *only* humans would evolve to intelligence came about
more because Trek's budget made them use so many humans with bumply
foreheads and wrinkly noses, and this episode actually lessened that a bit
(otherwise, Trek would seem to imply that humanoid form is the form that
most frequently evolves to intelligence naturally).
>Agreed, and if I gave the impression that it *must* be by chance I apolo-
>gize. I'll admit up front (if a little after the fact) that I usually tend
>to assume things like this *are* the result of random chance unless given
>evidence otherwise. The problem I had here was that the show took it as a
>given that "it's very improbable, and therefore non-random", without saying
>_anything_ about any evidence or even stating that "well, we'll assume this
>is artificial for the time being." There appeared to be absolutely *no*
>thought given to it being anything but the "obvious" implication.
I'm not a scientist, but is it really wrong to assume the most obvious
implication until you get any evidence to indicate otherwise? I don't know,
but that's the way I often work.
And hasn't Trek done this before? In "The Loss", I think those two-
dimensional beings were described as moving in patterns too ordered to be
simply random.
>Not half as cute as David Brin gets on the topic when you give him half a
>chance. :-) That's another significant argument against the _CotG_
>hypothesis.
I thought it was really weird that I happened to buy a copy of Brin's
_Startide Rising_ a few hours before I saw "The Chase" (and no, I didn't see
any previews or anything). Hmmm. The odds against this happening randomly
are so astronomical, it *must* be the work of some superior intelligence!
>Tim Lynch
Felix Ling
--
RUSH Fly By Night Caress of Steel 2112 *All the World's a Stage* A Farewell
to Kings Hemispheres Permanent Waves Moving Pictures *Exit...Stage Left*
Signals Grace Under Pressure Power Windows Hold Your Fire *A Show of Hands*
Presto Roll the Bones Critical Mass | Archives RUSH Through Time Chronicles
Joshua A. Laff
:)WARNING: The following posts contain a large number of words, which when
:)assembled in the proper order give away a great many spoilers for TNG's "The
:)Chase." Further, said words already are in the right order -- so be careful.
:)-- A writing oops: they checked all the non-Federation people on the
:)Enterprise and *didn't* have the Klingon cell in place? This is the second
It's not that they didn't have Klingon DNA, they didn't have the DNA discovered
by the Klingons. Don't forget, and entire planet was destroyed and only the
Klingons got there...
As for part 2 of your review, I didn't stop to think about it at first, but
after having read your comentary, I agree with it completely. I'm one of the
people who complains *least* about techno-babble; if it's basicly reasonable or
even made up, I'll take it. But being a biology undergrad and thinking of
going into genetics myself, the theory proposed in this episode truely does
stick out like a sore thumb. And something that sticks out *that much* should
not be in there. My feeling is that the science advisor was overruled in that
the story probably got written, but there wasn't an easy way to write around
the end result that was in the mind of the writers (I can't think of any off
hand; they couldn't have manipulated nature if they were extinct). And they
probably didn't want to nuke the story since, except for the science, it was
wonderful. No need to apologize for going on about this, Tim. You're quite
right in doing so in this case...
--
Joshua A. Laff, CRL operator, UofI (217) 384-6249
email to: la...@cs.uiuc.edu (NeXT Mail accepted)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: If I were speaking for the UofI, I wouldn't be paying tuition.
dc...@rob.raleigh.ibm.com
>>Actually, if you want to stick to strict definitions, then any study of
>>origins through what evidence we have is not truly science. As you know,
>>true science must observe, not speculate after the fact.
>I disagree. The criterion I would use for whether a claim is "scientific"
>is whether it is a claim that can somehow be *tested*. In other words, in
>a case such as this, it would need to not only explain the data we *do*
>have, but predict the outcomes of various other observations. (This, just to
>tread back over one of the points that started this thread, is one of the
>things that makes creation "science" anything but in my book -- when the
>only predictions I see are "you will never see this no matter what you do",
>for varying values of "this", I get skeptical.)
I guess I was unclear here as well. Something that can be *tested* is
what I mean by observable (not just the first time it occurs). Unfortunately,
it would be nearly impossible for us to test the hypothesis that say, chimps
are the ancestors of man, for example. Even if the assumed time scale for
this to happen were not a problem, we have no idea of the various conditions
we would need for this to happen (something that was pointed out by you and
others in previous messages from this thread). Given that that is the case,
the prediction that "man must have descended from chimps" is just as invalid
as "you will never see a man descend from a chimp." Further, even if we could
cause chimps to evolve to humans, that still doesn't prove that that *is*
exactly what happened. Science just does not do much to tell us what happened;
it can really only tell us what *does* happen. For this reason alone, the
various types of natural selection that we *have* been able to observe do not
provide enough evidence to make some of the claims of ancestorship that
origin "scientists" make today. This is not to say that those claims are
wrong (though I will admit that I personally do not believe them), simply that
they must be proven using the scientific method to be fact. Otherwise, you
have only speculation, which by itself cannot be truly called science.
(And before you even say it, I will say that the creation point of view
is also just a theory, just as unobservable, and therefore not science.)
>Given your definitions, most of astronomy would be non-scientific as well,
>since it can only speculate rather than experiment. ("Design the universe
>and give three examples." :-) ) I think most astronomers, even cosmologists
>(who IMO have it worst off as far as testability go) would disagree with that.
Obviously, that's not quite what I intended to say :) The fact is that we
do not *know* how the universe was designed from scientific observation so
to state that we "really do know what happened" and call it scientific truth
is dishonest. I do consider astronomers to be true scientists, but again, if
they make claims that go beyond what is observable, then they have completed
only the "form a hypothesis" phase of the scientific method. Since they have
not been able to test their hypothesis (yet), any conclusions made will at
this point be just as unprovable as any ridiculous claims made out of the blue.
(Although I will agree that the hypothesis would at least sound more
reasonable, and may even have a better chance of being true. :)
>>Your "proof by authority" example cuts both ways. It would also be bad
>>science to say that "There was no supernatural agent involved, because I've
>>seen no evidence of such an agent."
>Correct. As I said in the post you're responding to, my _assumption_ is always
>that there is no "superatural agent' involved unless given evidence to the
>contrary. And as I also said, the show didn't say anything about assumptions;
>they took the bogus statistical "rarity" of their findings and said flat-out
>that that *was* all the evidence they needed. And that, quite simply, just
>ain't so.
I guess I will have to watch it again now. That wasn't quite the slant I got
on it at all. The statistical rarity of their findings was just used to find
and speculate about the final program, but once they got the program running,
the *result* was the evidence they needed. I suppose the result *could* have
been random chance, but I wouldn't have bet on it. :)
>>I've blathered on to say this: For us to say that we understand ALL scientific
>>processes in action today or even that we supposedly understand enough to
>>completely rule out beings like those at the end of the episode is the
>>height of human arrogance --
>I don't recall saying such beings are impossible, or that we understand
>everything. I *do* recall objecting to the reasoning underlying the
>"science" that verified the beings' existence, both for its bogus design and
>for its similarity to all too many _current_ pseudoscientific arguments today
>that I feel should be rebutted in Trek and not glorified, especially _when
>they keep claiming to have such wonderful scientific staff_.
The rationale and theories the crew were operating on were irrelevant, at
least in my view. The end result (the program) is what was important, and
by itself was the verification of the beings existence. I think we would
need more information than what we were given to say what "science" would
be used to "prove" their existence.
-Dragon-
:
: tly...@Juliet.Caltech.Edu (Tim Lynch):
: > Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Chase"
: > Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
: > ===============================================
: >
: > WARNING: The following posts contain a large number of words, which when
: > assembled in the proper order give away a great many spoilers for TNG's "The
: > Chase." Further, said words already are in the right order -- so be careful
: > time this season people seemed to be forgetting that Worf *is* a Klingon...
: > try something beyond the ponytail, Dorn. :-) :-)
:
: This may be minor, but they didn't neccessarily WANT a Klingon DNA
: sample - they wanted that sample that the Klingons took before they wasted
: the planet. I would assume that (Picard's mentor) already had a Klingon
: DNA sample with his original stuff. When they were looking for the other
: DNA aboard the ship, it was for those DNA samples they didn't have.
I just looked at the pisode again. Picard said to get samples of DNA
from being onboard from OUTSIDE the Federation. Don't the Klingons now
belong INSIDE the Federation? Thus they already had Worf's DNA sample
due to having it on file already.
Also, when the computer added the samples from the Klingons and the
Cardassiens (sp?) you'll notice that there was overlapping. Thus,
Klingon DNA was ALREADY in Picards and the Klingon sample.
Just MHO. :-)
* - * - *
Paul-Joseph "Dragon" de Werk \ Carpe diem.
Dept. of Computer Science \ "First things first, but not
California State Univ., Fresno \ necessarily in that order."
paul-jose...@CSUFresno.EDU \ -- The Doctor, "Dr. Who"
Scott Cattanach
just in case
Did anyone else notice the Klingon captian refer to Worf as "brother"
while on the planet?
Did I miss something?
--
"Spending programs are now 'investments,' taxes are 'contributions,' and
these are the same people who say _I_ need a dictionary?" - Dan Quayle 2/19/93
My employer is not responsible for ANYTHING that may appear above.
Randy Sopicki
>fra...@cs.fsu.edu (Jerry Franke) writes:
>
>
>just in case
>
>
>
>Did anyone else notice the Klingon captian refer to Worf as "brother"
>while on the planet?
>
>Did I miss something?
>
Nope, you didn't miss anything. He did say brother as in brother Klingon.
A waste of bandwidth originating
(Whew! A lot to delete! :-) )
:
: -- A writing oops: they checked all the non-Federation people on the
: Enterprise and *didn't* have the Klingon cell in place? This is the second
: time this season people seemed to be forgetting that Worf *is* a Klingon...
: try something beyond the ponytail, Dorn. :-) :-)
I may be wrong, but I thought the data added by the Klingon captain was the
data that the Klingons had succeeded in _collecting_, not the data from the
Klingon DNA itself.
Marlon