Talk:Naturalistic science fiction/Archive 1

NPOV Request

Ok, folks, I see some major problems with this article:

• A lot of it reads like it's the purpose of this site to bash Star Trek
• Some of it is quite simply false:

In StarTrek, energy is not provided by "inexhaustible dylithium". Rather, the dilithium crystals serve as a matrix for a controlled matter/antimatter reaction, similar to moderators in a nuclear fission power plant (cf. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/technology/article/2743.html ) As such, not being the fuel, they don't need to be exchanged beyond wear and tear. And matter/antimatter reaction is a very feasible energy source for huge amounts of energy. In fact, I doubt it is possible to get a higher efficiency. Compared to that, it is Tylium that is sheer fantasy.

Photon torpedos, while glowing in animation, aren't "energy weapons" other than in having a matter/antimatter warhead. They are very solid vehicles.

etc.

• Guns'n'bullets are very good weapons on a planet. In space, they have their uses, too, but they also have their limitations. Due to the immense speed theoretically possible in space and the relatively small speed of bullets compared to these, the useful range of regular projectile weapons is quite limited. At greater distance, psychic qualities would be necessary to predict where the target will be once the bullet is there. While energy weapons have issues of focussing, those aren't insurpassable. On the other hand, they have, in the case of a laser, speed of light, and in the case of a particle accelerator, close to that, meaning they can bridge even large distances in relatively short time. None of that is "fantasy", as the article suggests, but rather technology that exists today which requires miniaturization. So guns and bullets are quite ok as point defense weapons in space, but for anything further away, either guided weapons or weapons achieving a speed that is a significant fraction of the speed of light are necessary. One tends to think of huge vessels such as Galactica or a Cylon basestar as slow. But give them enough time to accelerate, and they can be whizzing by at several miles per second.

• While a lot of the stuff mentioned in the text might be RDM's intention, the question is how much it fulfills the claims raised. While obviously, there should be a place on this site to cite RDM, I believe that the individual articles of a Wiki should be a source of information were the creator's views are but one source of information. RDM's take is already provided with the link to Galactica2003.net and while it should be summarized here, I don't think it should be taken as holy writ.

The jetliner in space and other things might feel "naturalistic", but that doesn't mean it's a sound concept. The "plausible technical accuracy" in the "in theory" paragraph is a bold hypothesis. However, to me the setup honestly looks more like "doing soft SF with the bad stuff left out". And the "no deus ex machina" concept needs to be looked askance at vis-a-vis the cancer cure as well.

The stories Galactica has to tell are great, but I personally believe that as a consequence of RDM not wanting to "tie himself down" dramatically, what is lacking is a solid concept of the level of technology. A lot of things might look perfectly feasible when seen isolated, but on an overall level, I believe putting FTL (or quasi-FTL) and anti-gravity together with a lot of 20th and 21st century technology, and in some aspects apparently even less, RDM actually backpedaled to a lot of early SF, which had FTL travel because it was dramaturgically necessary, and some development in the physics department such as beam weapons, but lacked any development in biology. Likewise, BG shows technologies that suggest availability of humongous amounts of energy but shows little other use than one or two applications. This gives a discontinous impression of the technological level.

So, theoretically, my concerns would require a complete rewrite of the text, which is why I rather voiced them here before changing something. I believe, though, the false information re:StarTrek should be thrown out posthaste, since it weakens any other points. --OliverH. 15:49, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Over the months, this article has been edited to the point where it does have a bias towards "Star Trek," which, given its location in the pop SF food chain, is a deserved prime target. Yet, I agree, the article need not be a "Star Trek"-bashing article, but to contrast and compare it (and other series, such as another high level target, "Stargate SG-1") to what BSG strives to be. And, as you've noted in other articles, BSG isn't perfect. Rather than duplicating what is on the Science in the Re-imagined Series page, dividing the page by section with comments and comparison relevant to where NSF principles succeeded or failed so far in BSG could be useful. To aid in this, I've tagged this article with the (rarely used here) tag of disputed neutrality to get some attention. --Spencerian 16:00, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I must disagree utterly with OliverH's comments:

• Yes, I agree with Spencerian that certain small tweaks should be made. However, if Oliver wanted to change small-sclae complaints like "inexhaustible dilithium crystals to "inexhaustible energy supply based on dilithium controlled matter/anti-matter reaction", he should simply have done so immediatly instead of forcing debate on the subject. Although "photon torpedos" are not energy weapons, phasers are; he should have just edited this accordingly, as he saw fit.
• Yes, Guns aren't as good weapons as lasers. That doesn't change the fact that 1) At dogfight and regular battle distances, they're still pretty useful and 2) The BSG universe is intentionally not that technologically advanced. The fact that lasers are superior to guns doesn't change the fact that they still use these more "realistic" weapons. The entire point of that, of course, is more story design: being shot with bullets (i.e. Tarn), has more emotional impact than being shot with "lasers").
• Yes, it is almost certainly the direct purpose of this article to critique Star Trek, by contrasting it with BSG. Oliver, the entire concept of making the new BSG was that it was RDM's "answer" to the poor quality of the later Star Treks (Voyager and Enterprise, rife with technobabble an implausibility), in this area as well. Quite frankly, it's impossible to separate the two: when the first page of the series bible states that "we propose nothing less than the re-invention of the scifi tv series genre"...it's kind of required that you make comparisons to the "old" model of the genre which was "re-invented". This part of the article must stand.
• So, basically, no, your comments do not "require" a "complete rewrite of the text". This is overboard. However, I do *commend* you on stating your feeling on the talk page instead of just making them without consensus. I would like to say that I do not mean to offend, Oliver, but these Star Trek/BSG issues bring up strong emotions. Like the silly pages and other talk-commentary, the "Naturalistic Science Fiction" page, is, by its very nature, going to be NPOV. I do agree with Spencerian's assessment that it could use some tweaking here or there, mostly for fact correction (dilithium, phasers,etc.) but the derision of Star Trek must remain, because BSG defines itself in opposition to this. --The Merovingian 16:51, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I believe it's possible for this article to reach a reasonably NPOV status. Sadly, it's going to have to be near the bottom of my considerably long to-do list. --Peter Farago 18:45, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I concur.--The Merovingian 19:04, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I obviously disagree with Merovingian. While it is ok to contrast BG with StarTrek, this should be done in a professional, matter-of-factly way, not by derisive comments and certainly not with plain falsehoods. It also should not be done with exaggerations by labelling everything "fantasy" that one doesn't like. It's totally ok if the ST/BSG issues "bring up strong emotions". But they should stay on talk pages, or the article be justly brought in question.

The comment that the BG universe is intentionally not "that advanced" is not tenable, and I already pointed that out above. Lasers are no "advanced" technology, they exist today. And if I have some kind of reactor which can give me enough energy to fold space, I have plenty of energy to cut open a sheet of metal. Remember that lasers capable of at least destroying a satellite or a warhead have already been worked on by 20th century engineers and scientists, but deemed not feasible for the forseeable future at that time. The prime limits, however, were energy and the material capable of handling it, and they are being overcome at this point in time with planned airborne anti-missile lasers at least. This is the main problem with the approach: Immensely advanced technology in two specific points (BG technology is already more advanced than that of Babylon 5 Earth in that they are capable of large-scale artificial gravity) but in most others a technological level on par with the third quarter of the 20th century. You speak of "realistic" weapons. Is it realistic that mankind researched practically only FTL travel and artificial gravity, and that this research did not bear fruit in other fields? And "realistic battle distances" are those at which you can hit your enemy. Of course when your weapon has a low effective range due to predict problems, then battle distance is short. If your weapon has near speed of light, it's entirely possible to engage your enemy at large distances.

Likewise, you still maintain some "inexhaustible" energy supply on the part of StarTrek, when that is not, in fact, the case. Hydrogen and antimatter tanks exist on Star Trek ships. Antimatter can be produced -again, that is no fantasy, but 20th century technology, albeit in larger quantities. And hydrogen can be gathered in space. Again, no fantasy, but the working principle behind the bussard ramscoop proposed as far back as 1960. This principle has been used by the likes of Heinlein, Niven, and Poul Anderson. As I already mentioned, Tylium has much bigger questions to answer.

By the way, dilithium crystals were already introduced in the original Star Trek series. This alone should illustrate that they can hardly be instrumental in the quality problems of late Star Trek. So I suggest rather than picking random aspects to actually get to specific points.

Point being: There's plenty of "technobabble" in StarTrek, but the cited examples are the least suitable to criticize that. They in fact fall back on the author, because they suggest being familiar neither with key concepts of the pioneers of astrophysics and ideas for interplanetary and interstellar space travel, nor with those of the pioneers of science fiction literature. And not the least, they fall back on BSG, because they suggest that there's a lot of hype about nothing.

While it's perfectly ok to cite that line from the series Bible, it's in my opinion not ok to uncritically reproduce it as holy writ. JMS started B5 with quite similar intentions, and that was ages ago. RDM is fallible. He's also capable of misdiagnosing. Doesn't matter, as long as he intuitively does the right thing. --OliverH. 20:08, 13 February 2006 (EST)

No. First, I always mean practically inexhaustible; using bussard ramscoops, starships can have a cheap and easily available source of fuel (gas clouds, etc.) while on BSG, Tylium is rare and hard to find. Second, this failed on the later Star Treks, even though it was present in all of the series, because the later ones overused these; every week the ship was spic and span and never had any problems finding fuel, fixing the ship, etc. --The Merovingian 20:36, 13 February 2006 (EST)

While it's true that B5 adopted a "hard sci-fi" position with regard to some aspects, its atmosphere does not greatly resemble the new BSG's. "Naturalistic sci-fi" actually eschews accuracy when it interferes with story - the point is to tell a modern, relevant story in the clothing of science fiction. When realism on the show makes that connection clearer, it's an asset (the use of nukes, for example) - but when it doesn't serve the story, it's generally overlooked (artificial gravity, hyperspace).

The difference, I guess, is that BSG is "The Day After", B5 is a weird hybrid of "1984" and "The Lord of the Rings", and Star Wars is "The Hidden Fortress". Each one uses the trappings of literary sci-fi where it suits their purpose, and discards them where it doesn't. The concept of naturalistic sci-fi as defined by Moore is only relevant to the particular story he's trying to tell. --Peter Farago 20:27, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Peter's comments detail the flaw of NSF better than anything I've read to date, and clarifies what he had been trying to tell me earlier here in talk. Any show is subject to the whim of the writer. While NSF tries to prevent technological limits to what they can write, NSF can also be selective of what is relevant or in need of explanation. With that, I'm aware of the needed revisions, and will do so when time allows to show a better opposing viewpoint to NSF in brief bullets. --Spencerian 20:46, 13 February 2006 (EST)

I also, based on the above, would feel far more comfortable with Farago making the updates than Oliver. --The Merovingian 21:19, 13 February 2006 (EST)

For the benefit of everyone who hasn't been on this wiki forever, I believe the prior comments Spencerian is referring to were on Talk:Science in the Re-imagined Series. --Peter Farago 22:10, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Re-imagined Series definition: technology enabling travel across distances faster than the speed of light would permit, see: FTL

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Original Series definition: a title of nobility (e.g. Lord Baltar)