Genesis after TWOK?

[Batman]

Given that the CANON ST universe already is I rather suspect that's a given.

[Jedi Master Spock]

The complete and utter lack of Genesis ever showing up again sort of points to that being the case.

Given the unstable, destructive, and highly politically sensitive nature of the Genesis device, I wouldn't really count that as evidence. It is highly unlikely that more than a few weeks' worth of work - at the very most - hadn't been reported on, if only on a classified level, and most likely the only thing missing would have been David's secret addition of protomatter - something relatively easy to figure out given the mostly-complete plans and the knowledge that protomatter was used.

It may well be that it is impossible to make work according to original spec (i.e., stable), and the Federation clearly isn't in need of planet-wiping weapons... so...

[Who is like God arbour]

I admit that the novel states that the staff has erased the "data banks" and "memory cells" containing the Genesis information.

• • • If that would have been said in the movie, Mr. Batman, it would be an evidence for the loss of Genesis. And as you may be able to notice, to refer to such a dialogue wouldn't be an impossible proof. As well as it wouldn't be an impossible proof to show a dialogue in which was said that Dr. David Marcus was in fact the only one who could build the Genesis Device or that it would be impossible to reconstruct it without him - because he has used Protomatter, a substance even Saavik has heard from, but what - according to you - have to be so extraordinair that no other scientist could find out how it was used by Dr. David Marcus. Because - but also for that there is no indication - Dr. David Marcus was a Ãœber-Genius, ahead of the times.
      
      You would have to show such things to make it even plausible that Genesis is lost with the death of Dr. Markus and the destruction of the prototype. But till now you have provided nothing.

But the novel states also that they have brought these informations in the Genesis cave in Regula One.

And the novel of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock states that these informations were brought to Earth by the Enterprise.

It may be that the novels are not canon. But that this has happened is - even without the novels - more than likely .

• • • Again, Mr. Batman, you would have to show that they have not made construction drawings while building the prototype or that they have totally obliterated them. But the movie doesn't support it. It isn't mentioned and it would be implausible.
      
      And pease take note: a negative proof is not always impossible and doesn't always result in a reversal of burden of proof. Especially if that what you usually would have to prove - and usually you have to prove what you claim - is implausible and unlikely. Then you need a fortiori a proof.
      
      And it is irrelevant what you think of German Law. The rules for the distribution of the burden of proof are philosophical rules which also apply in each civilised debate and only therefore are taken over from the German law of procedure. They are not arbitrary.

[Who is like God arbour]

It may well be that it is impossible to make work according to original spec (i.e., stable), and the Federation clearly isn't in need of planet-wiping weapons... so...

Agreed.

But that is something we will probably never know because - as it seems - they don't even try do make it work proper anymore.

• • • It could be as well that if scientists from the 24th century would try, that they would be able to reconstruct a new Genesis device without protomatter that work proper nevertheless.
      
      But even if not, the original Genesis device or its underlying technology would still be able to destroy a whole planet - only that the Federation intends to never use it.

[Mike DiCenso]

Okay, I went back over the Wrath of Khan DVD a bit more carefully, and they do have a much shortened version of Kirk asking about the Genesis materials, and Terrell responds that the data banks were empty. So I guess that pretty much settles that. The Regula One station copies of the materials are gone.
-Mike

[Cpl Kendall]

Fudge! Now I have to edit something else.

[Batman]

I admit that the novel states that the staff has erased the "data banks" and "memory cells" containing the Genesis information.If that would have been said in the movie, Mr. Batman, it would be an evidence for the loss of Genesis. And as you may be able to notice, to refer to such a dialogue wouldn't be an impossible proof.

You DO not understand what proving a negative means. And are apparently quite in the dark about what consists credible evidence in a Vs debate.

As well as it wouldn't be an impossible proof to show a dialogue in which was said that Dr. David Marcus was in fact the only one who could build the Genesis Device or that it would be impossible to reconstruct it without him

Which would be evidence of THEM SAYING SO, nothing more.

- because he has used Protomatter, a substance even Saavik has heard from, but what - according to you - have to be so extraordinair that no other scientist could find out how it was used by Dr. David Marcus.

Given that NOBODY ELSE WORKING ON IT noticed he did... But feel free to show evidence that a) the Genesis data, which did NOT include the information about HOW David incorporated protomatter, survived, and b)anybody else ever figured out how to make it work. For the umpteenth time, I don't have to show the Fed's don't have Genesis. YOU have to show they DO.

Because - but also for that there is no indication - Dr. David Marcus was a Ãœber-Genius, ahead of the times.

We know he made a modification to Genesis nobody was aware of. We know Genesis NEVER EVER showed up again with or without his modification. There is no mention, EVER, of a)Genesis being still around and b)anybody ever having figured out what David did to make it (sort of) work. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

You would have to show such things to make it even plausible that Genesis is lost with the death of Dr. Markus and the destruction of the prototype. But till now you have provided nothing.

There's evidence for Genesis being destroyed, and for the one man who knew to make it work being dead. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THROUGHOUT ALL OF STAR TREK FOR GENESIS STILL BEING AROUND.
Again, wether you admit it or not you ARE asking me to prove a negative.
I don't have to show it was destroyed (which I nevertheless did). YOU have to show it still exists.

]But the novel states also that they have brought these informations in the Genesis cave in Regula One.
And the novel of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock states that these informations were brought to Earth by the Enterprise.
It may be that the novels are not canon. But that this has happened is - even without the novels - more than likely .

It's not that it MAY happen those novels aren't canon. It IS A FACT that they aren't. And I don't care if it is LIKELY that that happened. Show that it CANONICALLY DID, and that it included the information about David's modifications.

Again, Mr. Batman, you would have to show that they have not made construction drawings while building the prototype or that they have totally obliterated them. But the movie doesn't support it. It isn't mentioned and it would be implausible.

I absolutely do NOT. YOU have to show they did and that those drawings survived. That pesky proving a negative thing again...

And please take note: a negative proof is not always impossible and doesn't always result in a reversal of burden of proof.

Proving a negative IS impossible and and the only area where reversal of proof ever happens is law, not science.

Especially if that what you usually would have to prove - and usually you have to prove what you claim - is implausible and unlikely. Then you need a fortiori a proof.

You mean like the COMPLETE AND UTTER ABSENCE of Genesis from post-TWOK Trek?

And it is irrelevant what you think of German Law. The rules for the distribution of the burden of proof are philosophical rules which also apply in each civilised debate and only therefore are taken over from the German law of procedure. They are not arbitrary.

Because you say so. Well guess what, I DISAGREE. In a debate the burden of prove is ALWAYS on the party making the positive claim. So show me the evidence for Genesis being around past TWOK, fucktard.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Because you say so. Well guess what, I DISAGREE. In a debate the burden of prove is ALWAYS on the party making the positive claim. So show me the evidence for Genesis being around past TWOK, brother.

In rational discussion, the burden of proof - so to speak - is upon anybody who wishes to make a definite statement. Neither I nor any other reader are likely to take much from reading you and W.I.L.G.A. argue over whose turn it is to say something substantive.

If you want to claim that Genesis is unavailable to the post-TWOK Federation, then provide evidence for that claim. If you want to claim that Genesis is available to the post-TWOK Federation, then provide evidence for that claim.

The only available position that would let you dodge away from providing evidence for or against the 24th century Federation having Genesis available should they need it would be the claim that evidence is insufficient to determine whether or not Genesis is available to the Federation post-TWOK.

[Who is like God arbour]

In rational discussion, the burden of proof - so to speak - is upon anybody who wishes to make a definite statement. Neither I nor any other reader are likely to take much from reading you and W.I.L.G.A. argue over whose turn it is to say something substantive.

If you want to claim that Genesis is unavailable to the post-TWOK Federation, then provide evidence for that claim. If you want to claim that Genesis is available to the post-TWOK Federation, then provide evidence for that claim.

The only available position that would let you dodge away from providing evidence for or against the 24th century Federation having Genesis available should they need it would be the claim that evidence is insufficient to determine whether or not Genesis is available to the Federation post-TWOK.

I agree and will stop this argument after I have added some points:

Jurisprudence is a science

• • Merriam Webster Online:
    1 : the science or philosophy of law
  or
  • Webster's Online Dictionary:
    Jurisprudence (from Latin: juris prudentia -- by the activity of prudentes; advisors, experts), is the philosophy, science, study, and application of law.

It's after theology and philosophy the oldest science at all.

The jurisprudential basics don't change with laws or states. They are always the same.

The rules how to prove something are philosophical rules. They were elaborated long before there were natural sciences or even jurisprudence.

• • • • • • Specialty Definition: Philosophy

      Philosophy is the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask. In doing so, Philosophy asks what is the nature of reality, and what is the reality of nature. Do our perceptions of reality match the actual reality that is "out there"? What does it mean to think, to have a mind? How can we know that other minds (i.e. other thinking beings) actually exist? Is there a difference between right and wrong, and if so, how can we prove this? How do we define rules that allow us to apply theoretical ideas of right and wrong in practical situations? What do we mean by the word "God"? Does God exist? Philosophy studies such concepts as existence, goodness, knowledge, and beauty. It asks "Is knowledge possible," and if so, "What is knowledge?" Philosophy is the critical, speculative or analytical study of any of these topics.
      
      Philosophers generally frame problems in a logical manner then work towards a solution based on logical processes and reasoning, based on a critical reading and response to previous work in this area.
      
      It proceeds by formulating problems carefully based on all known facts, and proceeding to logically offer solutions to them, giving arguments for the solutions, and engaging in a dialectical process to discern the truth; this is the method of science without so much dependence on physical experimentation. Just as science proceeds by observation, formulation of a hypothesis, and further experimentation, so philosophy proceeds by logical formulation of a problem, argument for a solution, and counter-argument. These processes proceed until a solution is reached. Philosophy has developed more slowly than other sciences because it is solely dependent on cognitive integrity, without a coherent paradigm determining what kinds of experimental evidence to accept. In fact, some have argued that the existence of such a paradigm is what caused the various natural sciences to diverge from philosophy, which was their original home (as reflected in the term Ph.D, for Doctor of Philosophy).
      
      [...]
      
      Philosophy contrasted with other disciplines
      
      Natural Science
      
      Originally the term "philosophy" was applied to all intellectual endeavour. Aristotle studied what would now be called biology, meterology, physics, and cosmology, alongside his metaphysics and ethics. Even in the eighteenth century physics and chemistry were still classified as "natural philosophy", that is, the philosophical study of nature. Today these latter subjects are referred to as [natural] science.
      
      [...]

Natural sciences - as the jurisprudence before - has only availed themself to the rules, philosophy has already elaborated.



There is not really a big difference between natural science and philosophy or jurisprudence:

• In a natural science one can often made an experiment or a calculation and some scientists think that they get non-ambiguous outcomes.
  
  In philosophy and jurisprudence that is seldom possible. But nevertheless, especially in jurisprudence, one has to ask what is necessary to prove something: A jurisprudent has to know what is necessary to prove that the accused has done the accused criminal offence or what is necessary to prove or disapprove a title.
  
  In real life it is seldom possible to achieve a non-ambiguous outcome. The plausibility of evidences are often deciding.
  
  • But that applies also for natural sciences. Because it is not always possible to make experiments or calculations.
    
    • And even if it is possible to make experiments, the outcomes are often only statistical figures. They are in each repetition of the same experiment often slightly different - also then when the measurement methods are too imprecise to register these differences.
      
      But when the vast majority of them are in a small margin, the probability that the searched figure lies in this margin, is very high. It's still possible that it is otherwise - but it is extremely improbable. In such cases the outcomes of such experiments are not a mathematical proof - but they are enough for a plausible assumption and are regarded as adequate proof.
      
      And calculations often uses figures that are determined that way. If the figures are wrong, the calculation - although done correct - doesn't reflect reality or only to a certain degree.
      
      Subjects like physic and cosmology have the advantage that they often have the more precise figures because more specialised and isolated experiments are possible. But subjects like biology, psychology, palaeontology or history don't have that advantage. These subjects are far more complex and usually have to deal with the same uncertainty as jurisprudence.
    That's why there are not seldom several theories and postulates, a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning.
    
    The question is, which theory or postulate is more plausible.
    
    One can only bring forward more or less compelling proofs which together support the plausibility of a theory. But all proofs together can only - at the best - approach a 100% mathematical certainty but never achieve it.
  Usually it is not possible to prove something with 100% mathematical certainty.

That's why it is usually impossible to really prove which one of two only possible options are true and which one is false - although one has to be true and one has to be false and it is impossible that both are false or both are true.

But sometimes there are only weak evidences - or rather almost equal strong evidences - for both options and it is difficult to decide.

In such case, like it is always done, the option still has to be assumed as true which is more plausible.

It can be that later - with more informations - this decision is proved as wrong - or rather the then choosen option is not longer the more plausible option. But that is life. One always decide with the informations one has at the time at which one has to decide.

And in such situations, in which only one option can be true, one has to decide - at least - which option is more plausible. It would be unlogical to base following acts and beliefs on the possibility that the less plausible option could be true.

In such case, it can happen, that different persons come to different conclusions, what is more plausible.

Then, one can only bring forward the own arguments and hope to convince the majority or controlling interest. It can be that they intended or unintended decide wrong.

But that is life and it doesn't have to mean that one has to change its beliefs. Further arguments for the own position can always change the opinion of the majority or controlling interest.

And that is exactly what one tries in a debate: to try to convince others that the own position is the more plausible.

One doesn't has to convince oneself and one doesn't has to convince the opponent because all parties of a debate should be convinced of their own positions - although sometimes it would be good to perceive if the opponent has the stronger arguments (and maybe to concede that he could indeed be right) and to stop to fight a forlorn battle before one makes oneself appear like an idiot - in the eyes of the audience.

[Who is like God arbour]

Excuse me, but I have had to say that.

I hate it if some people like Batman always demand proof despite any plausibility.

We have never seen toilets on the Enterprise. We have seen showers, bathtubs and washbasins - but - as far as I know - never toilets.

If someone would argue that they are there nevertheless, somone like Batman would still demand a proof for this.

If asked why he would think that, he would complain that one demand a negative proof from him. After all, he couldn't proof that there are no toilets.

That's so stupid.

You can't really argue with such persons.

They don't even notice that they appear like a fool when they argue that way because everybode else can see what is plausible and what is implausible and while demanding unnecessary proofs they aren't bringing forward real and cogent arguments to make their own position more plausible.

• • • Otherwise we have to assume that there were Genesis constructional drawings saved somewhere.

      We most definitely do NOT have to assume that. I happen to agree that it is LIKELY but there's no information in the movie actually CONFIRMING that.

      But the novel states also that they have brought these informations in the Genesis cave in Regula One.
      And the novel of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock states that these informations were brought to Earth by the Enterprise.
      It may be that the novels are not canon. But that this has happened is - even without the novels - more than likely.

      It's not that it MAY happen those novels aren't canon. It IS A FACT that they aren't. And I don't care if it is LIKELY that that happened. Show that it CANONICALLY DID, and that it included the information about David's modifications.

      There are no information in Star Trek CONFIRMING that there are toilets on board of the Enterprise and he doesn't care if it is LIKELY that they are there. I would have to show that they CANONICALLY are there - even if they are mentioned in a novel - because it IS A FACT that the novel isn't canon.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Because you say so. Well guess what, I DISAGREE. In a debate the burden of prove is ALWAYS on the party making the positive claim. So show me the evidence for Genesis being around past TWOK, brother.

In rational discussion, the burden of proof - so to speak - is upon anybody who wishes to make a definite statement. Neither I nor any other reader are likely to take much from reading you and W.I.L.G.A. argue over whose turn it is to say something substantive.

If you want to claim that Genesis is unavailable to the post-TWOK Federation, then provide evidence for that claim. If you want to claim that Genesis is available to the post-TWOK Federation, then provide evidence for that claim.

The only available position that would let you dodge away from providing evidence for or against the 24th century Federation having Genesis available should they need it would be the claim that evidence is insufficient to determine whether or not Genesis is available to the Federation post-TWOK.

Well, arguably, if it still had been in the UFP's hands, it would have logically creeped out a day or another, for the plot of an episode, or a film, or even a simple but still solid reference, etc.
You know, just to make it clear that they still have the blueprints, the tech, but that for reason X and Y, they don't use it.

I know, there's a that treaty thing, but it's rather vague, isn't it, and does it really point to anti-Genesis law code?

Even more, when fighting against powerful enemies such as the Borg or S 8472, sure someone, mad enough or not, would have suggested to re-use in last resort, pretty much like in the EU, during the NJO, there was a Jedi Twi'lek, under Luke's teachings, who deiced that a new Death Star/Superlaser was needed. It was shown that the tech was not totally lost.

We'd be asking for something as substancial as that as far as Trek is concerned.

[Who is like God arbour]

Not necessary.

The Genesis device would be useless against the Borg or Species 8472. As far as I understand the underlying principles, it can't be used against shielded objects. It has to have contact to matter which it can transform. Insofar it is only usefull to destroy a planet - after it is brought behind a potentially existing planetary shield.

And it could be that they have contemplated to use it against the Borg in Starfleet Command. But we wouldn't know because we have not seen Starfleet Command on screen.

And neither the Enterprise nor the Voyager could have build a new Genesis device because they wouldn't have the construction drawings in their data base.

And a fact is that it was mentioned again by Kathryn Janeway in VOYAGER: "The Omega Directive" in a direct connection to the Omega molecule - from which we also never have heard before or after this episode - and which is highly classified. That even supports the notion that Genesis is a classified technology - like the Omega molecule.

If you need more indications, I'm sorry, but I can't provide any.

Nevertheless, my opinion is, that the events in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" - the explosion of the prototype and the death of one scientist who has worked on it - haven't necessary resulted in the loss of the Genesis device.

Because that would assume that they haven't made construction drawings, which they would have brought to the Genesis cave - along with the prototype - and that Dr. Carol Marcus has no clue how the Genesis device was supposed to work. Both assumtions seem to me very implausible.

It would be more plausible - in my opinion - that all recordings were destroyed and all research in that area prohibited to assure that a device like the Genesis device is never deployed.

But even that wouldn't mean that scientists - a generation later - with more fundamentally understanding of science - wouldn't be able to create a similar device. But such technology and the research on it would be prohibited.

[Who is like God arbour]

Even more, when fighting against powerful enemies such as the Borg or S 8472, sure someone, mad enough or not, would have suggested to re-use in last resort, pretty much like in the EU, during the NJO, there was a Jedi Twi'lek, under Luke's teachings, who deiced that a new Death Star/Superlaser was needed. It was shown that the tech was not totally lost.

I don't know the EU. That's why I have to ask:

Has this Twi'lek only expressed his opinion that a new Death Star/Superlaser was needed or was it said or implied that it would be possible to have acces to construction drawings?

I don't claim that it would be impossible to build something like the Death Star again. It was done and it can be done again.

But if there are no construction drawings anymore and parts of the used technology are lost, it would be necessary to reinvent them.

But I see no reason why that should be impossible.

It would need time and resources.

But there is no reason - unless they have really lost their scientifical understandig and knowledge - why that should be impossible.

[Jedi Master Spock]

If you're interested in the ST EU - to throw another perspective out there:

Project Genesis -- once it was a Federation scientist's brainchild, the ultimate solution to overpopulation and food shortages in the Alpha Quadrant. Instead, it became a weapon of awe-inspiring destructiveness, capable of rearranging matter and life energy on a planetary scale. Starfleet destroyed all Genesis data and records, hoping to bury its terrible secrets forever. But now, nearly a century later, Captain Jean-Lud Jean-Lud Picard and the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise must suddenly face the deadly rebirth of Genesis -- with the fate of the galaxy hanging in the balance.

[Who is like God arbour]

Thank you. I haven't known that book. (I have neither Star Trek nor Star Wars EU novels - only the novelizations to the movies.)

But after I have read your post, I have searched and have found that:

[quote="Amazon about "The Genesis Wave - Book One""]Intended to create life from nothingness, the Genesis Device became instead a weapon of awe-inspiring destructiveness, capable of rearranging matter and life energy on a planetary scale. After the cataclysmic death of the Genesis Planet, Starfleet wisely decided to destroy all data and records on Project Genesis, hoping to bury its deadly secret forever. Now, nearly a century later, all that remains of Genesis is the knowledge stored in the mind of an elderly, almost forgotten scientist named Dr Carol Marcus. But Dr Marcus has gone missing, and a mysterious wave of energy is sweeping across the Alpha Quadrant at terrfying speed, wiping out the populations of entire planets, rearranging matter on a molecular level to create bizarre new landscapes and lifeforms. The USS Enterprise, commanded by Captain Jean-Luc Picard, is the first Starfleet vessel to discover the threat, but they are not the only ones in danger. Trillions of souls and hundreds of inhabited planets lie in the path of the mutagenic wave, which is expanding outwards as it traverses the cosmos, and Earth itself faces total obliteration! [/quote]

But Star Trek EU isn't canon.

But nevertheless, it would confirm my opinion. The Genesis technology has survived the events of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" and was then destroyed (what I assume as possible but not likely. It could alway happen that a third power does invent a similar device and it would be usefull to have enough informations ready to be able to counter the hassard).

And Dr. Carol Marcus has known enough about Genesis to revive it - either she herself or another with her knowledge.