Science and Fiction in Science Fiction

[crystalswolf]

Okay, there was a conversation about this in another thread and I didn't feel comfortable continuing off-topic.

Recap. There has been very vocal opposition to accidental interspecies pregnancies (obviously TnT specifically) because it's not scientific enough for the science in science fiction. As a possible peace-offering, I suggested that the telepathic bond may have caused T'Pol's brain to adjust some cells allowing for a natural conception.

My argument is that if you can accept telepathy in the realm of believable science then you can accept that the mind can manipulate more detailed aspects of the body than just autonomic functions.

Side topic: Lies vs Exaggerations/Misdirection. Now I reluctantly argue this point because I'm all for looking for the deeper meanings of statements and stretching possibilities when it comes to storytelling. But if people want me to put on my literal hat, I can do that too.

[Transwarp]

As a broad and general statement, I prefer the science in my science fiction to be accurate. My standards are higher for written science fiction than they are for TV science fiction (for obvious reasons). However, a good story trumps good science, as long as a couple of preconditions are met:

1) The author or script writers acknowledge the impossibility. Give me a wink-wink nudge-nudge that says "Yeah, we know this is impossible, but the story requires it, so here's an explanation of sorts." Without that, the reader is prone to suspect the writers are ignorant of the science, and it can change their perception of the story. Also, if it's not there, it leaves the characters ignoring the elephant in the room. It's a problem for me if the hero is the science officer on a starship, and he doesn't notice a glaring violation of the laws of physics. It's kind of like watching an action film where the hero shoots the bad guy once in the chest, then turns to the distraught heroine, comforting and reassuring her. Meanwhile, you're screaming at the TV, "Get the bad guy's gun! Make sure he's dead!" Because he's probably not.

So, it's best not to give the reader an excuse to scream things at the hero of your story, whether they be instructions ("You have a transporter. Use it!"), or otherwise ("You call yourself a scientist and you didn't notice THAT?")

2) The science is not TOO bad. I know that's not very precise, but this is impossible to quantify. An (obviously exaggerated) example of a story that I would quit reading because of bad science--
The spaceship screeched to halt, avoiding impact by a matter of inches with Ganymede, Jupiter's largest moon.
"That was too close for comfort, Captain," the ship's engineer said. "You just about killed us, plus I'm gonna have to replace all the brake linings now."

Another example (from the real world) is the genetic memory in the episode 'Sim'. It teetered right on the brink of the 'too bad to endure' line, but didn't cross it, because I was able to finish watching. (Just barely.)

Exceptions are granted for errors that are so frequently repeated that they have become commonplace. An example is the asteroid field crammed full of asteroids a few hundred meters apart, bumping and grinding against each other. It is such a hoary old cliche that I just roll my eyes when I see it, then forget it. In fact, it's so prevalent that I think I would be startled right out of the story if I ever saw an accurate depiction of an asteroid belt on TV.

Another example is the Universal Translator. I understand the need for an episode to get right to the point without taking weeks and months for both parties to learn each other's language. Still there are limits to my tolerance. Don't equip a character with a Universal Translator and send him on an undercover mission to impersonate a member of another species, and expect me to believe no one would realize he's using a UT. (As in 'The Good that Men Do.)

Transporter technology also falls into this category. And not the technology itself which is scientifically implausible (but I can recognize the benefits it provides in propelling the plot forward), but all the myriad reasons that the damn things DON'T' work. I wish I had a nickel for every Star Trek episode where the crew was in a bind that could be easily resolved with the transporter. But wait! The transporter won't work, because of dampening fields, or topaline ore deposits, or mysterious energy fields, or... well, you name it. Sometimes it seems that it's a wonder the damn things EVER work, but then along come some alien marauders to beam the good guys right off the bridge of their ship, leaving me to wonder why Starfleet doesn't routinely line the bridge of their ships with any of the myriad substances or fields that inhibited the transporters in previous episodes.

Telepathy. To me, this is like warp drives and transporters and sub-space radios. It's a commonplace feature of the science fiction landscape and requires no scientific explanation. Just stick with whatever rules exist for it in the particular universe you're working in. Where canon is silent or contradictory, use whatever works best for your story.

Holodecks. Same as telepathy, except I find many of the plot devices around the holodeck to be highly implausible. It is no accident that both of my favorite Star Trek series (TOS and ENT) occur BEFORE holodeck technology is available.

Aliens. The Star Trek penchant for putting markings or sticking a few rubber doo-dads on a person's face and declaring him an alien is yet another example. I understand the constraints of special-effects budgets on TV shows, so I am perfectly fine with the alien-of-the-week looking like a human with rubber doo-dads on his cheeks.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

[crystalswolf]

Um, my post was about how many have voiced that accidental interspecies pregnancy (aip) is beyond the scope of science fiction. So much so that the the topic cannot be brought up without the inevitable "conversation". Although I'm not among those that feel the need to explain everything, I do believe with a little imagination, you can in writing.

So I offered the explanation above to appease those that see no acceptable way for AIP to happen in science fiction (at least TnT). Now there is a difference between "it can't happen" and "I don't think it could happen" and I guess we can explore both but one will only end in a circular argument.

[Silverbullet]

Transpoerter, The Transporter idea was Roddenbury's. He could not think of a way to land the Enterprise on a Planet and didn't think a shuttle would be good enough. He had no idea how a Transporter would work but he used it.

Sim, there wre so many things in that episode that wre impossile to implausible that I retch just thinking of it. What ground my teeth was two tiny shuttle Pods moving a huge ship weighing several thousand tons caught in the grip of a Magnetic anomoly. totally impossible. then, Archer saying to the guys piloting them, "come in". Hell, if the anomoly could stop Enterprise going at Warp six it damned sure woud stop the Enterprise going 12 Kpsec/per sec. The shuttles would have ot say out providing power to keep the enterprise moving.

I still cannot understand what stopped the Enterprise in the first place. The Magnetic Anomoly? or was it because the Engines were fouled by something taken in by the Jeffries tubes? If it was stuff taken in by the Jefrries Tubes that sounds like a Car carbertor being fouled by a drivng Sandstorm, getting clogged and stopping the engine. Can't see that.

Don't get me started on the clone.

[Distracted]

My argument is that if you can accept telepathy in the realm of believable science then you can accept that the mind can manipulate more detailed aspects of the body than just autonomic functions.

I'm willing to, and regularly do, suspend disbelief when it comes to things like this. The point I've been making is that based on current understanding, spontaneous in-vivo interspecies conception is un-explainable. Unfortunately, based on current understanding of brain function the effects of the brain on the body are endocrinological and chemical rather than physical, so your telepathy explanation doesn't change my opinion any.

That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy a story in which an "accidental" interspecies pregnancy occurs. I have and will continue to enjoy any well-written story in which the author makes at least a token attempt to recognise that such a conception isn't easy to achieve and would require some sort of extraordinary circumstance.

Keep in mind that this is also just my opinion, and unfortunately for my enjoyment of such stories I'm often in the position of knowing "too much" about biology. Your average reader isn't overeducated like I am, and so if I were you I wouldn't worry too much about satisfying the minority of readers like myself who know enough genetics to object to your premise. I certainly wouldn't try to write a story in which my physics assumptions were rigorously accurate enough to satisfy someone with an advanced degree in theoretical physics. It would require WAY too much research, and the details I'd spent so much effort to clarify probably would go over the heads of the majority of my readers. If I were you I'd just write your science on a basic liberal arts college grad level and you'll satisfy 90% of your readers.

[Pegmumm]

If I were you I'd just write your science on a basic liberal arts college grad level and you'll satisfy 90% of your readers.

Especially when you consider the reader has the average reading level of an 8 year old. I worked as a senior TA for 2 professors at WWU in the psych department editing thesis' and grading test papers. Senior level writing is atrocious. You have no idea how bad these liberal arts grads were.

I think you're being way too kind.

peg

[Transwarp]

Um, my post was about how many have voiced that accidental interspecies pregnancy (aip) is beyond the scope of science fiction

Oh. my bad.

So I offered the explanation above to appease those that see no acceptable way for AIP to happen in science fiction

As for that, if I read a story where T'Pol accidentally became pregnant, and biochemical changes induced by the bond was offered as an explanation, I would be perfectly happy with it.

[crystalswolf]

Unfortunately, based on current understanding of brain function the effects of the brain on the body are endocrinological and chemical rather than physical, so your telepathy explanation doesn't change my opinion any.

I guess that's my point exactly. It's seems a bit strange that where someone is willing to accept telepathy as sound, the ability to control more of the body with the mind is impossible. That makes no sense to me.

That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy a story in which an "accidental" interspecies pregnancy occurs. I have and will continue to enjoy any well-written story in which the author makes at least a token attempt to recognise that such a conception isn't easy to achieve and would require some sort of extraordinary circumstance.

Keep in mind that this is also just my opinion, and unfortunately for my enjoyment of such stories I'm often in the position of knowing "too much" about biology. Your average reader isn't overeducated like I am, and so if I were you I wouldn't worry too much about satisfying the minority of readers like myself who know enough genetics to object to your premise. I certainly wouldn't try to write a story in which my physics assumptions were rigorously accurate enough to satisfy someone with an advanced degree in theoretical physics. It would require WAY too much research, and the details I'd spent so much effort to clarify probably would go over the heads of the majority of my readers. If I were you I'd just write your science on a basic liberal arts college grad level and you'll satisfy 90% of your readers.

As for my stories, I have no desire to explain anything or "hang a lantern on" (SG1 ref) anything. I just noticed that each time any topic comes close to the subject, the thread turns in this direction and was trying to offer a peaceful solution as well as one place to have the discussion instead of scattered among several threads and story comments. Personally, I would hope that my readers read to stimulate their imagination than to reinforce their scientific knowledge.

[pdsldl]

Transwarp has it right. The only addition would be the transporters. They either didn't work when really needed or they malfunctioned causing some catastrophe so they could center a plot around it.

As far as the telepathy and allowing for a natural pregnancy/birth I still say the science required would be on the most basic genetic level (and way way over anything believable) in both TnT and that would create one or two new species as a result of those changes. Not something I want to see happen in Star Trek.

Ans I'm not accepting telepathy as sound but it hasn't been proven to be impossible so I can go with it until they show me evidence that says otherwise. But it does has it's limits. You can't change a being on the molecular level and say they are the same being they started off as.

[crystalswolf]

Telepathy hasn't been proven impossible but neither has the extent of control over one's body.

Can you say an organ transplant recipient isn't the same person? Of course not. I'm not suggesting complete change of the entire body.

[pdsldl]

Organ transplant patients have to take anti-erjection drugs for life to keep their bodies from rejecting a donated organ because it's foreign. In order for a human or Vulcan to procreate and blend on a genetic level massive changed would have to take place. Not saying it's impossible for a healthy baby to be born but naturally would be impossible as T'Pol's body would attack the fetus as foreign without several major interventions.

If you were to suggest that the telepathic bond was the reason for it to be possible you would be saying that changes took place in both Trip and T'Pol on the most basic of levels so that the fetus was a viable combination of them both. For that to happen their individual genetic makeup would have to be altered on the molecular level so their DNA was similar and would combine to create a fetus. To me that's stretching the science of what telepathy and science in general too far to even a layperson to believe it is in the the realm of possibility.

[Distracted]

Crystalswolf, it sounds like you really want to somehow find a way to explain "AIP" scientifically based on current scientific knowledge. Let me see if I can explain why that's not possible.

Hormonal and chemical triggers can cause tissues to grow, to stop growing, to differentiate into more specialized tissues, or to regress to less specialized tissues. The brain can also regulate metabolism. So it's possible for changes in the brain to cause things like tumors, increased or decreased ovulation, faster wound healing... that sort of stuff. But changes in the brain can't change the basic genetic structure of a person's cells. That is immutable. And genetic alterations at the chromosomal level would be required for members of two different species to interbreed, since if they are different species, by definition they are genetically different enough not to be able to interbreed. That's one of the qualities which define separate species. Two organisms are not members of separate species if they can interbreed.

Telepathy, on the other hand, as others have pointed out, has not been disproven by current science.

But this is Star Trek. It's not reality. Write what you want.

[Pegmumm]

I agree... write what you want, you're only limited by your imagination...

Now... what if all life in the universe was seeded through either intelligent intervention or accidental seeding through comets. Or the progenitors...

Or an even more drastic view... what if God... or "god", if you will... created many Adams and Eves using a common DNA as its base?

In addition I was reading an article in the New York Times about interbreeding hybrids between emergent man and ape. And maybe we aren't so far from the trees as we like to think.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/science/18evolve.html?_r=2&ex=1149307200&en=c50c55c811de69b6&ei=5070

Once upon a time when I was doing my bachelors... one of my profs asked me not to go on for a Masters. It was because the more education you have, the less creative you are capable of being.
The mind can easily be trained out of seeing new possibilities.
I see it every day at work... and it's depressing.
peg

[pdsldl]

I've said this before: Write your story but have enough respect for science to acknowledge that your science is impossible or that you aren't even trying to make something plausible by offering some reasoning for how it works so those of us who prefer to see some adherence to scientific theory know you are aware so we can past it and enjoy the rest of the story. Otherwise my brain can get stuck on the impractical things and it ruins the story. I have forced my way past such things if the author is good and the story is very good but it hangs back there and colors the whole experience. It doesn't take much. As mentioned in the other topic Spock's existence was explained by stating that there was more than one medical intervention to allow Amanda to carry him to term. If you want telepathy, which may or not be scientifically possible, to be the reason a totally natural conception happens then just find some very general scientific reason how it happened.

[crystalswolf]

Okay, I'll put it this way. The criteria seem to be that anything proven to be true or not proven to be false is allowed. Has it been proven that the mind cannot cause such changes? With a definitive statement about what the brain can or cannot do, I would require thorough proof because (and please correct me if my limited understanding is wrong in this) I believe our knowledge of the human brain is very limited at this time. Growing by leaps and bounds but still very limited. Also, in the name of science, I believe something that is scientifically sound must be proven.

My writing recently has become a non-issue, but I can understand FULLY how someone will avoid writing a story because they do not want the rain of comments about the impossibility of accidental pregnancy. I offered a scenario that seems as unlikely as something else more accepted and scientifically unproven in the hopes that writers that wish to craft a story about such a thing would feel free to do so while those that oppose can at least take my suggestion and continue in peace.