Criteria for dismissing Evidence
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Criteria for dismissing Evidence
When two canon sources contradict one another, there are typically several methods of reconciliation:
1. Rationalize the sources into a cohesive, internally consistent universe. Never break SoD.
2. Take the source that is more logically sound, believable, and consistent.
3. If possible, side with the higher canon source; dismiss the lesser one.
4. Side with the source with a larger quantity of other sources backing it up.
5. Dismiss both sources as being incorrect.
Personally, I would first attempt option one. Then, option two or three, then four, and then five. The problem here is that debaters have a tendency of applying different standards to different pieces of evidence to suit their own side in an argument. Which leads us to the conflict between canon and logic.
Where do logic, mathematics, and science fit in the canon scale? If a secondary source states something that doesn't make the slightest shred of sense, do you simply accept it as fact, or dismiss it as being a ridiculous outlier?
1. Dismiss the source; it is wrong.
2. Accept the source; it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it's canon.
3. Attempt to interpret the source so as to not have to do either of the above.
Once again, the answer often shifts depending on what is convenient to the debater at hand. I personally attempt to do 3 first, then 1 (possibly unless if it is an observable fact), then 2.
------
As people will doubtless attempt to turn this into, the question here isn't relately to any specific incident. However, I will use Star Wars as an example, for recognition's sake.
Problem: The four million man clone army. To puts things bluntly, the idea of four million men fighting a galactic war makes no sense on any conceivable level, so much that it is completely impossible to form in one's mind how this could possibly have happened. It is one of the largest brain bugs in the Star Wars mythos.
First, the claim here blatantly contradicts several canon sources that indicate the exact opposite; the ICS's, the Essential Chronology, etc. All of these imply far more massive clone armies.
1. Impossible, so far.
2. Obviously, this sides with the higher figures.
3. TCW appears to support the millions figure, and there is no G canon evidence explicitly indicating otherwise. However, the presence of a "million star systems" in the Empire's control necessitates a massive army and navy to police it; the manpower needed to construct the Death Star, and estimations to Coruscant's population alone also implicitly contradict TCW. Are implicit contradictions enough?
4. If we do not factor in implicit sources, the minimalists win.
5. Impossible here, as it is an either/or proposition.
Additionally, there is a very blatant clashing between these sources and Common Sense.
Solution 1: Four million men cannot possibly fight a galactic war.
Solution 2: I guess that both sides have a gentleman's agreement to magically use only millions of troops. Really, it is impossible for me to even comprehend this in my brain.
Solution 3: The clone army is only a small percentage of entire Galactic army. There were also trillions of volunteers and conscripts that we do not see, because the imaginary cameraman focuses more on the exciting clone troopers and their exploits.
Here, solution three is what I would go with; and, on a completely unrelated note, it happens to be supported by secondary canon here as well.
Most board members here would go with 3 and 2 here. But then, for the contradiction between ridiculously close ranges fought in Trek combat (even when there is no discernible reason why they would intentionally do this, in many cases) and BVR ranges, you go with 2 and 1.
Or, for example, it has been suggested that the Geonosis acceleration feat, and by one member that the probe droid turning a wampa into dust in the ESB novel, be dismissed because they aren't "logical". Ignoring my own disagreements with this accusation, we have debaters valuing logical analysis over canon evidence. Which I typically agree with. But why are various standards of canon applied arbitrarily, bound to change on a whim?
If you keep the four million man army, no matter how ridiculous, because it is canon, you must also accept:
-That Dooku's sailship really did accelerate at 20,000 Gs.
-That a probe droid really does pack the firepower to turn a wampa into dust.
-That turbolaser bolts really do have a magical component preceding them.
-That, in large scale combat, Trek ships engage one another within 10 km, even against massive and lumbering borg cubes.
-That phasers on standard settings hit redshirt pajamas and natural rock formations, and make no markings.
-That Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi in ANH would have gotten their asses kicked by any random Jedi padawan in the prequels.
-That a 4.7 kilojoule shield generator is used to protect a starbase in Trek.
-That half a kiloton of gradual EM radiation is too much for the Enterprise's shields to handle.
If you dismiss short ranges in Trek on the basis of not making sense, or on the basis of authorial intent, then nitpicking Alderaan's explosion becomes extremely hypocritical, as does purporting a four million man GAR.
1. Rationalize the sources into a cohesive, internally consistent universe. Never break SoD.
2. Take the source that is more logically sound, believable, and consistent.
3. If possible, side with the higher canon source; dismiss the lesser one.
4. Side with the source with a larger quantity of other sources backing it up.
5. Dismiss both sources as being incorrect.
Personally, I would first attempt option one. Then, option two or three, then four, and then five. The problem here is that debaters have a tendency of applying different standards to different pieces of evidence to suit their own side in an argument. Which leads us to the conflict between canon and logic.
Where do logic, mathematics, and science fit in the canon scale? If a secondary source states something that doesn't make the slightest shred of sense, do you simply accept it as fact, or dismiss it as being a ridiculous outlier?
1. Dismiss the source; it is wrong.
2. Accept the source; it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it's canon.
3. Attempt to interpret the source so as to not have to do either of the above.
Once again, the answer often shifts depending on what is convenient to the debater at hand. I personally attempt to do 3 first, then 1 (possibly unless if it is an observable fact), then 2.
------
As people will doubtless attempt to turn this into, the question here isn't relately to any specific incident. However, I will use Star Wars as an example, for recognition's sake.
Problem: The four million man clone army. To puts things bluntly, the idea of four million men fighting a galactic war makes no sense on any conceivable level, so much that it is completely impossible to form in one's mind how this could possibly have happened. It is one of the largest brain bugs in the Star Wars mythos.
First, the claim here blatantly contradicts several canon sources that indicate the exact opposite; the ICS's, the Essential Chronology, etc. All of these imply far more massive clone armies.
1. Impossible, so far.
2. Obviously, this sides with the higher figures.
3. TCW appears to support the millions figure, and there is no G canon evidence explicitly indicating otherwise. However, the presence of a "million star systems" in the Empire's control necessitates a massive army and navy to police it; the manpower needed to construct the Death Star, and estimations to Coruscant's population alone also implicitly contradict TCW. Are implicit contradictions enough?
4. If we do not factor in implicit sources, the minimalists win.
5. Impossible here, as it is an either/or proposition.
Additionally, there is a very blatant clashing between these sources and Common Sense.
Solution 1: Four million men cannot possibly fight a galactic war.
Solution 2: I guess that both sides have a gentleman's agreement to magically use only millions of troops. Really, it is impossible for me to even comprehend this in my brain.
Solution 3: The clone army is only a small percentage of entire Galactic army. There were also trillions of volunteers and conscripts that we do not see, because the imaginary cameraman focuses more on the exciting clone troopers and their exploits.
Here, solution three is what I would go with; and, on a completely unrelated note, it happens to be supported by secondary canon here as well.
Most board members here would go with 3 and 2 here. But then, for the contradiction between ridiculously close ranges fought in Trek combat (even when there is no discernible reason why they would intentionally do this, in many cases) and BVR ranges, you go with 2 and 1.
Or, for example, it has been suggested that the Geonosis acceleration feat, and by one member that the probe droid turning a wampa into dust in the ESB novel, be dismissed because they aren't "logical". Ignoring my own disagreements with this accusation, we have debaters valuing logical analysis over canon evidence. Which I typically agree with. But why are various standards of canon applied arbitrarily, bound to change on a whim?
If you keep the four million man army, no matter how ridiculous, because it is canon, you must also accept:
-That Dooku's sailship really did accelerate at 20,000 Gs.
-That a probe droid really does pack the firepower to turn a wampa into dust.
-That turbolaser bolts really do have a magical component preceding them.
-That, in large scale combat, Trek ships engage one another within 10 km, even against massive and lumbering borg cubes.
-That phasers on standard settings hit redshirt pajamas and natural rock formations, and make no markings.
-That Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi in ANH would have gotten their asses kicked by any random Jedi padawan in the prequels.
-That a 4.7 kilojoule shield generator is used to protect a starbase in Trek.
-That half a kiloton of gradual EM radiation is too much for the Enterprise's shields to handle.
If you dismiss short ranges in Trek on the basis of not making sense, or on the basis of authorial intent, then nitpicking Alderaan's explosion becomes extremely hypocritical, as does purporting a four million man GAR.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Anything posted by SWST.SWST wrote:Criteria for dismissing Evidence
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Seconded.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Anything posted by SWST.SWST wrote:Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Your list would be correct for condradictions among sources of same canon status. but when source of higher canonicity level contradicts one with lower canonicity level, one with lower canonicity is either rationalized, or dismissed. but source with higher canonicity must be analyzed as standalone, without any regard for lower canonicty source, first, and cannot be rationalized to fit lower canon source if it would mean ignoring (dismissing) any evidence from higher canon source.1. Rationalize the sources into a cohesive, internally consistent universe. Never break SoD.
2. Take the source that is more logically sound, believable, and consistent.
3. If possible, side with the higher canon source; dismiss the lesser one.
4. Side with the source with a larger quantity of other sources backing it up.
5. Dismiss both sources as being incorrect.
Personally, I would first attempt option one. Then, option two or three, then four, and then five. The problem here is that debaters have a tendency of applying different standards to different pieces of evidence to suit their own side in an argument. Which leads us to the conflict between canon and logic.
- Trinoya
- Security Officer
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
There is nothing wrong with any of these options, although the last one only matters if a franchise has no clear canon policy.StarWarsStarTrek wrote:When two canon sources contradict one another, there are typically several methods of reconciliation:
1. Rationalize the sources into a cohesive, internally consistent universe. Never break SoD.
2. Take the source that is more logically sound, believable, and consistent.
3. If possible, side with the higher canon source; dismiss the lesser one.
4. Side with the source with a larger quantity of other sources backing it up.
5. Dismiss both sources as being incorrect.
Well that's an opinion I would disagree with. Before doing any of these activities you should ALWAYS cross reference with the canon policy of the franchise. At that point if one canon is higher than another then that canon always trumps and defeats any and all lesser canon, no matter how numerical superior or logical the lesser canon would be on the matter. As things go up the canon ladder they get filtered until there is no contradiction. Only after things like that are filtered out can you then do the other options.Personally, I would first attempt option one. Then, option two or three, then four, and then five. The problem here is that debaters have a tendency of applying different standards to different pieces of evidence to suit their own side in an argument. Which leads us to the conflict between canon and logic.
It's hardly a brain bug.Problem: The four million man clone army. To puts things bluntly, the idea of four million men fighting a galactic war makes no sense on any conceivable level, so much that it is completely impossible to form in one's mind how this could possibly have happened. It is one of the largest brain bugs in the Star Wars mythos.
Several lesser canon sources are contradicted by the numbers presented in star wars. The higher canon would overwrite it, seems simple enough.First, the claim here blatantly contradicts several canon sources that indicate the exact opposite; the ICS's, the Essential Chronology, etc. All of these imply far more massive clone armies.
Hardly: The entire was was engineered by palpy, and the republic hadn't seen major warfare for thousands of years. There is no need to presume you couldn't fight the war with such a small army under those conditions. When put into context with the resources being funneled, the corruption of the republic, and the general problems of trying to obtain a mere five million more clone troopers it seems to fit in just fine. It all is reconciled into a nice neat little package of a personal war designed to wipe out the Jedi. After that all military power is consolidated within the Empire and fear of retaliation helps keep systems in line, when that plan stops working the death star is brought out to reinforce it, keeping troop costs low, while fear factor rises through the roof.1. Impossible, so far.
It's actually brilliant in a way, by keeping the military as a small personalized fighting force palpy could put down any major threat that arose, while funneling all his money into his countless black book projects, and not needing to be fearful of having sections of his army suddenly rebel.
Hardly contradictions. The forces respond quickly to matters that require their response. Courscants police force is a droid police force as seen in TCW so using that as a contradiction just doesn't work at all.3. TCW appears to support the millions figure, and there is no G canon evidence explicitly indicating otherwise. However, the presence of a "million star systems" in the Empire's control necessitates a massive army and navy to police it; the manpower needed to construct the Death Star, and estimations to Coruscant's population alone also implicitly contradict TCW. Are implicit contradictions enough?
Ultimately just because the Empire has a million systems doesn't mean a million systems are constantly in danger. Every town and city in the USA doesn't require its own personal military force, and there are some where the only police you can get are the state police, as there isn't anything local for miles in any direction, and even then you may be waiting hours.
Ironically since we saw the scale of some of the largest battles, and we know both from lesser and higher canon sources how much of a threat even a few hundreds of ships can be, not only is there no contradiction, but some lesser canon sources even support the lower numbers.
Who says? The canon would appear to disagree.
Solution 1: Four million men cannot possibly fight a galactic war.
This I agree with.Solution 2: I guess that both sides have a gentleman's agreement to magically use only millions of troops. Really, it is impossible for me to even comprehend this in my brain.
That would seem to be contradicted by TCW, if they had trillions of volunteers then the separatists making a mere five million droids would be meaningless to them.Solution 3: The clone army is only a small percentage of entire Galactic army. There were also trillions of volunteers and conscripts that we do not see, because the imaginary cameraman focuses more on the exciting clone troopers and their exploits.
Hardly, I go with what the canon says first, then I determine if anything else must be done afterwards. If the canon says something happened then it happened. I can argue why it happened, what methods brought about it happening, how much energy it used and so forth, but I can't say the 'event' didn't occur.Most board members here would go with 3 and 2 here. But then, for the contradiction between ridiculously close ranges fought in Trek combat (even when there is no discernible reason why they would intentionally do this, in many cases) and BVR ranges, you go with 2 and 1.
Furthermore you're comparing opinions on canon with two different canon systems. In one there are tiers (and naturally opinions would be different then) and in another it is a clear cut, "this is it, nothing more."
If the very rules are different you can't expect the methodology to be the same.
You'd have to reconcile all of these events separately within their own universes canons. I already covered why the methodology would have to change. Also, for some of them you'd have to reconcile them with later time frames, when technological capabilities could have changed. With others, if they share the same level of canon, and contradict with other moments in canon, then you must go about the process of debating the point until a solution is found. No need for headaches over it all, just procedure.If you keep the four million man army, no matter how ridiculous, because it is canon, you must also accept:
-That Dooku's sailship really did accelerate at 20,000 Gs.
-That a probe droid really does pack the firepower to turn a wampa into dust.
-That turbolaser bolts really do have a magical component preceding them.
-That, in large scale combat, Trek ships engage one another within 10 km, even against massive and lumbering borg cubes.
-That phasers on standard settings hit redshirt pajamas and natural rock formations, and make no markings.
-That Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi in ANH would have gotten their asses kicked by any random Jedi padawan in the prequels.
-That a 4.7 kilojoule shield generator is used to protect a starbase in Trek.
-That half a kiloton of gradual EM radiation is too much for the Enterprise's shields to handle.
No one dismisses short ranges in trek for not making sense, it's well known that trek ships can engage in both close range and long range combat, one need only watch star trek for that to be obvious. Since we know that guns can shoot at both short and long range then were fine.If you dismiss short ranges in Trek on the basis of not making sense, or on the basis of authorial intent, then nitpicking Alderaan's explosion becomes extremely hypocritical, as does purporting a four million man GAR.
Now if you have a statement that said, "Sir, they have entered our maximum firing range of two meters" and then had another episode say, "they are at our maximum firing range of 50,000 AU" well then there would be a contradiction and now the procedures must be taken out and used.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Yes, it is. Fighting a galactic war with four million men scales to significantly less than one man fighting world war II. Would you have believed that, if you read that two opposing factions sent a single soldier to fight a war now?Trinoya wrote:
It's hardly a brain bug.
You aren't understanding context. I was examining specific methods of analysis.Several lesser canon sources are contradicted by the numbers presented in star wars. The higher canon would overwrite it, seems simple enough.
There is "small army", and then there is "one toddler at D-day."
Hardly: The entire was was engineered by palpy, and the republic hadn't seen major warfare for thousands of years. There is no need to presume you couldn't fight the war with such a small army under those conditions.
Circular logic. My entire point is that the resources needed just to sustain 0.001% of the populace on minimal nutrients would be more expensive than raising a 4 million man army.When put into context with the resources being funneled,
Not nearly sufficient to account for the unimaginable incompatibility of scale here.the corruption of the republic,
And my entire point is that the above is completely illogical, for a society that can build a Death Star. Circular reasoning?and the general problems of trying to obtain a mere five million more clone troopers it seems to fit in just fine.
Look; there is "small personalized fighting force", and there is "one man fighting as the entire Allied army."It all is reconciled into a nice neat little package of a personal war designed to wipe out the Jedi. After that all military power is consolidated within the Empire and fear of retaliation helps keep systems in line, when that plan stops working the death star is brought out to reinforce it, keeping troop costs low, while fear factor rises through the roof.
It's actually brilliant in a way, by keeping the military as a small personalized fighting force palpy could put down any major threat that arose, while funneling all his money into his countless black book projects, and not needing to be fearful of having sections of his army suddenly rebel.
And you have not explained how this 4 million man army policing around a million star systems. Do four men retain law and order in an entire star system?
No, your argument would lead to the question as to how the entire alleged clone army could conquer and control a singular world of, for example, one billion beings. They would have to deal with a soldier:civilian ratio of one to 250, which is entirely asinine and impossible.Hardly contradictions. The forces respond quickly to matters that require their response. Courscants police force is a droid police force as seen in TCW so using that as a contradiction just doesn't work at all.
Ultimately just because the Empire has a million systems doesn't mean a million systems are constantly in danger. Every town and city in the USA doesn't require its own personal military force, and there are some where the only police you can get are the state police, as there isn't anything local for miles in any direction, and even then you may be waiting hours.
Ironically since we saw the scale of some of the largest battles, and we know both from lesser and higher canon sources how much of a threat even a few hundreds of ships can be, not only is there no contradiction, but some lesser canon sources even support the lower numbers.
Since this point is dealing with the logical, not canon, issues with the quote, feel free to rationalize it within a rational context.
Your ability to maintain track of context in large posts needs work. This is my entire point.Who says? The canon would appear to disagree.
And it is the equivalent of both sides in WWII making an agreement to only send one soldier to fight the entire war. This you agree with?
This I agree with.
Ahem. If they can build a Death Star, a Star Wars society can produce the "quintillions" of battle droids that many consider ridiculous for no reason at all.
That would seem to be contradicted by TCW, if they had trillions of volunteers then the separatists making a mere five million droids would be meaningless to them.
So then, the Geonosis acceleration incident is canon; ergo, Saxtonite yields are plausible now?Hardly, I go with what the canon says first, then I determine if anything else must be done afterwards. If the canon says something happened then it happened. I can argue why it happened, what methods brought about it happening, how much energy it used and so forth, but I can't say the 'event' didn't occur.
Then explain why examples of Trek phasers doing no damage to natural rock formations and redshirt pajamas is rationalized within your rules of "canon > logic".
Furthermore you're comparing opinions on canon with two different canon systems. In one there are tiers (and naturally opinions would be different then) and in another it is a clear cut, "this is it, nothing more."
If the very rules are different you can't expect the methodology to be the same.
No. Nobody on the Trek side attempts to reconcile the ICS with canon, even though making the Death Star DET, and assuming that the fire ring indicates exotic energy, not less energy being used, would solve all of their problems.
You'd have to reconcile all of these events separately within their own universes canons.
So, by this logic, there is nothing wrong with SW combat ranges of 8 light minutes.
No one dismisses short ranges in trek for not making sense, it's well known that trek ships can engage in both close range and long range combat, one need only watch star trek for that to be obvious. Since we know that guns can shoot at both short and long range then were fine.
Now if you have a statement that said, "Sir, they have entered our maximum firing range of two meters" and then had another episode say, "they are at our maximum firing range of 50,000 AU" well then there would be a contradiction and now the procedures must be taken out and used.
I must note that these extreme combat ranges are not used in incidents in which using them would benefit the side by an enormous margin and save millions of lives. Eh.
- Trinoya
- Security Officer
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
No it isn't. See below.StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
Yes, it is. Fighting a galactic war with four million men scales to significantly less than one man fighting world war II. Would you have believed that, if you read that two opposing factions sent a single soldier to fight a war now?
I understood the context entirely, I presented to you why it isn't a brain bug in my view, via my method of analysis. I apologize if that wasn't clear, but since it was in response to those specific points of yours I figured you'd know that.You aren't understanding context. I was examining specific methods of analysis.
And apparently that is enough in star wars land.There is "small army", and then there is "one toddler at D-day."
Then clearly the republic needs to better handle its economic power, after all, the children on Naboo had to go without ELECTRICITY during the war...Circular logic. My entire point is that the resources needed just to sustain 0.001% of the populace on minimal nutrients would be more expensive than raising a 4 million man army.
War in a galaxy doesn't equate to the entire galaxy being at war. It was either A) A localized conflict or B) Engineered to be that way.Not nearly sufficient to account for the unimaginable incompatibility of scale here.
Oh look. B. Solution found.
That's what you're using here. "They can build a death star, so they must have a bigger army, because DEATH STAR." The fact they can build big projects is meaningless to the numbers given, it's just a representation of impressive constructive/industrial capabilities, not man power, especially in a land of droids.And my entire point is that the above is completely illogical, for a society that can build a Death Star. Circular reasoning?
First: It isn't my job to explain it, it's a canon statement, that's all that matters.Look; there is "small personalized fighting force", and there is "one man fighting as the entire Allied army."
And you have not explained how this 4 million man army policing around a million star systems. Do four men retain law and order in an entire star system?
Second: Clearly they COULDN'T police it all since the rebellion happened, and they were dependent on fear to keep the systems in line, per tarkin.
Orbital bombardment? Orbital Supremacy? Superior weapons? The threat of having your homes burned to a cinder?No, your argument would lead to the question as to how the entire alleged clone army could conquer and control a singular world of, for example, one billion beings. They would have to deal with a soldier:civilian ratio of one to 250, which is entirely asinine and impossible.
Simple fact, a modern war, even by star wars standards, wouldn't need millions of men on the ground. The Second Battle of Geonosis demonstrates the relatively low troop numbers in use for an entire planetary scale invasion.
I'm not sure you quite get what you're actually claiming. I understood your post perfectly well, just because you don't like my views doesn't mean I'm not getting YOUR context... or is this a debate now, and not merely a demonstration of view points.Your ability to maintain track of context in large posts needs work. This is my entire point.
Oh my fucking god, and you're talking to me about context, I AGREED WITH YOUR OPINION. You're quickly demonstrating a failure to read again.And it is the equivalent of both sides in WWII making an agreement to only send one soldier to fight the entire war. This you agree with?
Damn, it's a good thing they didn't just produce those quintillions and instead TOOK OUT A LOAN TO BUY A FEW MILLION. I seriously doubt they have the quintillions you claim.Ahem. If they can build a Death Star, a Star Wars society can produce the "quintillions" of battle droids that many consider ridiculous for no reason at all.
YOU forget context. I spoke nothing of those yields and nothing of the geonosis acceleration incident... although I believe there is a non contradictory canon statement that decidely says they can lessen their mass, so that would make any NON STATED YIELDS suspect.So then, the Geonosis acceleration incident is canon; ergo, Saxtonite yields are plausible now?
But the event, yeah, Dooku totally had a ship go into orbit. I saw that. If you wanted to debate the merit of that event and its calculations well NOW we would be moving on to that whole DEBATE thing, wouldn't we?
.Then explain why examples of Trek phasers doing no damage to natural rock formations and redshirt pajamas is rationalized within your rules of "canon > logic"
Settings.
You know, years ago I actually DID try to reconcile the book, but then I found out there weren't guns on the acclamator in the higher canon, that mere tanks can destroy starships, and that it was apparently preferable to land on Dothomir to EXTERMINATE A PEOPLE than to bomb them from orbit. Higher canon would seem to trump them.No. Nobody on the Trek side attempts to reconcile the ICS with canon, even though making the Death Star DET, and assuming that the fire ring indicates exotic energy, not less energy being used, would solve all of their problems.
Then again, "I" personally believe the ICS to be a crutch, not unlike Leo from spacebattles.
Absolutely nothing. They have maximum and minimum ranges as well, and while I've denounced the light minute range as being impractical, I don't believe I've ever claimed it didn't occur.So, by this logic, there is nothing wrong with SW combat ranges of 8 light minutes.
I must note that these extreme combat ranges are not used in incidents in which using them would benefit the side by an enormous margin and save millions of lives. Eh.
Ayup, just like those light minutes aren't. Sucks for everyone involved, if only gunnery srgt Herp Imperial Derp and Herp Federation Derp would remember they could shoot at things much further away.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Which is my entire point.Trinoya wrote:
And apparently that is enough in star wars land.
War in a galaxy doesn't equate to the entire galaxy being at war. It was either A) A localized conflict or B) Engineered to be that way.
Oh look. B. Solution found.
[/quote]
I could bother balking at the stupidity of "solution" B, or I could just point out that this completely nullifies any possibility of using low CW figures as evidence for a minimalistic Star Wars; if it were engineered to be that way, it's entirely irrelevant within the context of an actual conflict.
1. If the Death Star isn't indicative of manpower because of droids, then it is certainly indicative of droid power, and it certainly puts to shame any idea of the CIS only possessing a few million battle droids.That's what you're using here. "They can build a death star, so they must have a bigger army, because DEATH STAR." The fact they can build big projects is meaningless to the numbers given, it's just a representation of impressive constructive/industrial capabilities, not man power, especially in a land of droids.
2. Having a large enough population pool is uncontested; the Republic possesses trillions, quadrillions or quintillions of beings, depending on who you ask, and neither of these statistics indicates a million man military.
3. Supplying and organizing enough people is hardly an issue either, because the Death Star is indicative of an enormous supply of resources, far more than the amount needed to supply four trillion soldiers.
So then, you subscribe to the "canon overrides all logic based objections" here. That...was my entire question.First: It isn't my job to explain it, it's a canon statement, that's all that matters.
The problem is that it is entirely impossible to imagine an actual universe in which this would be the case. Put yourself in Star Wars, and ask a senator why their galactic army only consists of 4 million men; your brain won't come up with a satisfactory answer. You might as well say "I can't explain why a 900 kilometer sphere has an area of 943 kilometers; it's canon."
Oh please. There is "couldn't police everyone 100% efficiently" and "couldn't police anything at all, because they devoted a whopping four men to retain control over a star system."Second: Clearly they COULDN'T police it all since the rebellion happened, and they were dependent on fear to keep the systems in line, per tarkin.
So then, invading and occupying a world that you wish to keep intact is completely impossible in this Loony Toons version of Star Wars. After all, 1% of the populace, armed with sticks and stones, makes your occupation force drown in numbers.
Orbital bombardment? Orbital Supremacy? Superior weapons? The threat of having your homes burned to a cinder?
It's amazing how you attempt to rationalize bullshit canon sources with even more bullshit canon sources. My entire point is that these sources are bullshit, based on certain methods of analysis; either that, or you consider that we only see a few square kilometers of the battlezone, and are never informed of what is going on throughout the entire rest of the planet.Simple fact, a modern war, even by star wars standards, wouldn't need millions of men on the ground. The Second Battle of Geonosis demonstrates the relatively low troop numbers in use for an entire planetary scale invasion.
No, you disagree with the manner in which I use a certain method of analysis by using a different method of analysis; it amounts to nothing at all. You're crossing solutions, using canon to address an argument in which the entire premise is to analyze canon from a logical perspective!I'm not sure you quite get what you're actually claiming. I understood your post perfectly well, just because you don't like my views doesn't mean I'm not getting YOUR context... or is this a debate now, and not merely a demonstration of view points.
Yeah, but then you argue that it isn't a brain bug. Go figure. But if you really meant to agree with me that this specific rationalization was broke, then I apolo-no, wait, your own solution is the same thing, that the war was "fixed". Never mind. Huh.
Oh my fucking god, and you're talking to me about context, I AGREED WITH YOUR OPINION. You're quickly demonstrating a failure to read again.
My entire point is that it isn't logical, not that it is not supported by canon. That was the entire point.Damn, it's a good thing they didn't just produce those quintillions and instead TOOK OUT A LOAN TO BUY A FEW MILLION. I seriously doubt they have the quintillions you claim.
No, the point I am making here is that, in the hypothetical context of a debate, you cannot dismiss the above, as you did not, on the grounds of being an "outlier" and not making logical sense to you, while championing other implications that make not even the slightest shred of sense, on the basis of being canon and thus being gospel.YOU forget context. I spoke nothing of those yields and nothing of the geonosis acceleration incident... although I believe there is a non contradictory canon statement that decidely says they can lessen their mass, so that would make any NON STATED YIELDS suspect.
But the event, yeah, Dooku totally had a ship go into orbit. I saw that. If you wanted to debate the merit of that event and its calculations well NOW we would be moving on to that whole DEBATE thing, wouldn't we?
In other words, don't use double standards. Hopefully, we understand that "you" is sometimes being used impersonally here.
Ah, so a "cannot noticeably scratch pajamas" settings now, used by baddies with no intentions of taking prisoners?
Settings.
Gotcha.
No, you simply don't see them. Perhaps they are retracted, or the earliest version possessed no guns. If you really stopped after this, you never really put any effort into reconciliation at all.
You know, years ago I actually DID try to reconcile the book, but then I found out there weren't guns on the acclamator in the higher canon,
Except that said tanks are destroyed by weapons that don't make a scratch on AT-AT walkers in ESB; that even starfighters typically cannot scratch starships in typical conditions, and that this is hardly something that cannot be reconciled.that mere tanks can destroy starships,
Yes, I wasn't speaking to you in particular, and I don't think anyone could argue that eight light minutes is a practical range for any <=C weapon.Absolutely nothing. They have maximum and minimum ranges as well, and while I've denounced the light minute range as being impractical, I don't believe I've ever claimed it didn't occur.
Nope. A YV worldship is hit from across the star system in Rebel Dream; the Falcon is trapped in a tractor beam several thousand kilometers away from the first Death Star; the Rebel ion cannon two-shots an ISD from many thousands of kilometers away; Darth Vader contemplates destroying the Hoth base from beyond the star system; I could go on and on, could I?Ayup, just like those light minutes aren't. Sucks for everyone involved, if only gunnery srgt Herp Imperial Derp and Herp Federation Derp would remember they could shoot at things much further away.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Trinoya, be careful with SWST as he may be trying to restart again the debate on some figures, under the guise that he's studying methodology and not the value of certain claims. If you really want to debate this with him, I'd strongly suggest not to lose time on the examples, but confine your opinion to the methods and criteria.
In the case of SW, you first have to define if you accept the EU or not. If yes, then it is necessary to show that the superior canon clearly imposes a vision which the EU has to agree with. If it's not the case, as if there's enough leeway, then the EU can claim what it wants within the boundaries of what is left possible by the superior canon.
In the case of SW, you first have to define if you accept the EU or not. If yes, then it is necessary to show that the superior canon clearly imposes a vision which the EU has to agree with. If it's not the case, as if there's enough leeway, then the EU can claim what it wants within the boundaries of what is left possible by the superior canon.
- Trinoya
- Security Officer
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Oh don't worry, he's basically trying to claim that logic trumps cannon and it doesn't. There is no debate because it can't exist. What happens happens, and unless another cannon source details something different that is also not a contradiction with any higher canon then there isn't really a whole lot that can be done in regards to it.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
The problem is that all of these happen at the same time. Contradiction happens through a variety of mediums - math, science, or some basic assumptions of interpretation.StarWarsStarTrek wrote:When two canon sources contradict one another, there are typically several methods of reconciliation:
1. Rationalize the sources into a cohesive, internally consistent universe. Never break SoD.
2. Take the source that is more logically sound, believable, and consistent.
3. If possible, side with the higher canon source; dismiss the lesser one.
4. Side with the source with a larger quantity of other sources backing it up.
5. Dismiss both sources as being incorrect.
If the apparent contradiction is fairly easy to rationalize, we will rationalize it without a second thought. We do the first one of these without even realizing we're doing it.
It's important, I think, to judge sources based on the following criteria:
1. Canonical level.
2. Consistency within the source itself and/or a related body of sources.
3. Consistency within the canon level on the topic.
4. Consistency within the entire body of work on the topic.
5. Explicitness of the source.
6. Consistency with external reality.
7. Limitations of the medium (e.g., reliability of visual portrayals based on SFX or cartoon illustrations).
To resolve a contradiction, we should balance the body of material on each side and look at the quality of the sources.
For example, in Star Wars, all explicit references to the size of the clone army agree. The body of material that contradicts the size of the GAR described in those material consists of implicit references in lower-level EU material, mostly in combination with one another, and in many cases being identifiably low-quality sources (e.g., the ICS).
It's clear we're talking about an army of millions of clones, although at some point (ROTS) we start seeing non-clone military personnel (just not in the infantry or as fighter pilots).
In Star Trek, by contrast, the evidence of starship weapons being mainly short-range is based on an implicit and not particular consistent body evidence collected under limitations of visual special effects (wanting to show a space battle on screen), while the evidence of starship weapons being long-range is consistent across the entire body of explicit references and also consistent with high-precision strikes on planet-bound targets. This is a large and consistent body of explicit evidence backed up by a modestly large body of strong and consistent implicit evidence.
It's not at all hypocritical to say that Star Trek ships have very long range weaponry while saying that the clone army was actually quite small; in both cases, you're relying on a substantial body of consistent explicit evidence compared with a combination of implicit material from less consistent bodies of evidence.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Your argument is invalid because you spelled it cannon first.Trinoya wrote:Oh don't worry, he's basically trying to claim that logic trumps cannon and it doesn't. There is no debate because it can't exist. What happens happens, and unless another cannon source details something different that is also not a contradiction with any higher canon then there isn't really a whole lot that can be done in regards to it.
- Trinoya
- Security Officer
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
I can't argue with that logic :P I concede to your superior reasoning :)
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Cannon always trumps logic.Trinoya wrote:I can't argue with that logic :P I concede to your superior reasoning :)
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Does it now?Picard wrote:Cannon always trumps logic.Trinoya wrote:I can't argue with that logic :P I concede to your superior reasoning :)
Anyways, I certainly have to side with SWST on this one. 4 million doesn't even approach credible for a police force for a planet like Tatooine, let alone an army for a war being conducted across what is certainly more then two planets.
I suppose I could buy the idea of volunteer forces taking up a very significant portion of 'TEH GRAND ARMY OF TEH REPUBLIC!!1', but thematically it makes very little sense, given that nearly 100% of all written and viewed military conflicts of the period are entirely focused on Clone forces. If 99.99% of this 'GRAND ARMY OF TEH REPUBLIC!!1' consisted of normal volunteers, you'd think that there'd be a larger bulk of material dedicated towards their exploits (certainly more then a couple snippets and some vague implications towards their existence for that matter).
-
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 2239
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Criteria for dismissing Evidence
Trinoya wrote:I can't argue with that logic :P I concede to your superior reasoning :)
Picard wrote: Cannon always trumps logic.
Tatooine only has something like 200,000 people living on it last time I checked Wookiepedia. You seem to assume planets in Star Wars are like real world Earth when no one bats an eye when they read a home world's population to be in the thousands.the atom wrote: Does it now?
Anyways, I certainly have to side with SWST on this one. 4 million doesn't even approach credible for a police force for a planet like Tatooine, let alone an army for a war being conducted across what is certainly more then two planets.
I suppose I could buy the idea of volunteer forces taking up a very significant portion of 'TEH GRAND ARMY OF TEH REPUBLIC!!1', but thematically it makes very little sense, given that nearly 100% of all written and viewed military conflicts of the period are entirely focused on Clone forces. If 99.99% of this 'GRAND ARMY OF TEH REPUBLIC!!1' consisted of normal volunteers, you'd think that there'd be a larger bulk of material dedicated towards their exploits (certainly more then a couple snippets and some vague implications towards their existence for that matter).
You run into more problems the larger the numbers of ships and troops get because then the Rebelion's tiny numbers makes even less sense.Star Wars is the love child of Flash Gordon and WW2 dog fights.