Goofs section Edit
I just added the section 'goofs' and the two first goofs. Why has it been removed? Evangelis 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- As I said in the edit summary, it was decided in the forums that we did not want goofs/bloopers. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Very well. I will add it to background information instead. Evangelis 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. We don't want them at all. Not in the article. Period. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well ya don't hafta be so harsh about it, lad. That could serve to alienate other contibutors. Evangelis, the forum discussion to which Cobra is referring ended with the consensus that nitpicks and bloopers did not belong in articles as they are not to serve as a critique of an epidode or film's writing or production values. The actually discussion might be found here, although I could have sworn we discussed this a lot earlier that June 2006. Hope that helps! --From Andoria with Love 06:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was not trying to be harsh, I was trying to leave no room for misunderstanding. My first response was misunderstood to mean that we just did not want a seperate section, so I re-iterated to state that we don't want them at all. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh. Well then, try to reiterate in a lighter tone... meanie. :-P --From Andoria with Love 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see such information about 'production errors' all over the place. I did not believe this was anything obstrusive. I will discontinue to add such information, but I do not believe in what I am doing. Evangelis 13:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- These production errors are all over the place from before the forum discussion was held. We are still working on getting rid of them, but with 700+ episode articles, it is taking a while. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Picard's head cover?Edit
in the tng episode 'Violations', there is sometihng attached to Picards head in the flashback of Crusher remembering the death of Jack. Does anyone know what is it or what it is supposed to be? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk).
- It's a bandage or band-aid, as Picard was wounded in the last mission, the one where Jack Crusher died. According to the script of the episode, Picard's "head sports a bandage". --Jörg 09:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Removed the following nitpick:
- -Troi's memory during her "rape" would seem to suggest that she and Riker did engage in at least one sexual tryst during their time serving together aboard the Enterprise-D, despite their later claims that their relationship had cooled and that they were only friends. Since Riker has a beard in the memory, this event would most likely have taken place sometime during the 3rd or 4th season of TNG.--31dot 11:37, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Episode "Violations" and J.S. Mill's Canons of Inductive Method Edit
One of J.S. Mill's Canons of Induction, the Direct Method of Agreement states that "If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon."
'Violations' provides a good illustration of the use of the inductive method to arrive at the cause of the phenomenon under inquiry. Both Riker and Picard assert that they are examining all possibilities-all hypotheses. At the conclusion, when Data tells Troi how he and Geordi identified the culprit Jev he says:
"We discovered two instances of unexplained comas on Nel Three while the Ullians were there... but Tarmin was not part of the group. A closer examination revealed that only one Ullian was present at all incidents of coma -- Jev."
They were invoking Mill's Direct Method of Agreement.
Uncljoedoc 07:16, March 22, 2011 (UTC) uncljoedoc
- Unless you have evidence that was the intention of the Trek writers or staff, it cannot be in the article.--31dot 10:30, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
I hope it is permitted in 'Talk'. However while there is no testimony from the writer I submit there is sufficient evidence within the script to indicate that this was a deliberate exploration of the inductive method. Without my going into painful detail, the script has both Riker and Picard explaining that they are only interested in eliminating possibilities as they explore hypotheses. There is Geordi's remark about the careful doctor who does not make the 'quick diagnosis'. Geordi's remark gives an indication of the seriousness with which the author considers the art of problem solving.
And then there is Geordi's correlation of instances of coma seemingly due to Iresine Syndrome with the presence of Ullians which ultimately increases precision and identifies the culprit. Here Geordi is in effect using another of Mill's Canons: The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference which states that
"If two or more instances in which the phenomenon occurs have only one circumstance in common, while two or more instances in which it does not occur have nothing in common save the absence of that circumstance: the circumstance in which alone the two sets of instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or a necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon."
At first I did not think my commentary could be inserted in the article itself but since you bring it up and I am able to produce from within the script itself a second related usage of Mill's Canons- a usage of a second of Mill's Canons-does this not then rise to the level of evidence of a literary kind? In that case can there not be a category of each article entitled COMMENTARY AND INTERPRETATION to encourage discussion of this kind? Respectfully submitted, Uncljoedoc 13:01, March 22, 2011 (UTC)uncljoedoc
- While this is interesting information, without direct evidence of intent by the writers it is only original research, which is not permitted in articles. We must have evidence of any claims of similarities to other works, or references to other works, to ensure it is not a coincidence.
- As an encyclopedia, this is not the forum for analysis or outside commentary of Star Trek. However, I would encourage you to register at our associated MA Forums site which is designed for all types of Trek discussion.--31dot 13:34, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen similar discussions like this elsewhere. I agree that saying this is a reference to J.S. Mills book is wrong without a specific reference from a writer, director, etc. (anyone have Jeri Taylor on speed-dial?) But what is mentioned is a exposition of the general concept that goes by the name inductive reasoning in any standard English dictionary. Or I should say I think, not having read that specific book, but having a knowledge of the English language that I'd guess would be.. ninth- or tenth-grade level (U.S. school levels, as of about 1995..) At what point does saying this is an example of the concept of logical induction counted as original research, other than the "original research" of picking up a dictionary? Of course, we can't go around "citing" every two-bit literary concept out there. Jswitte (talk) 00:28, January 2, 2013 (UTC)