What is the 23rd Century Starfleet?

[Mikey]

Because we have seen them now, as opposed to when they were -- and here I quote myself -- "previously-unseen".

Lest you fail to understand, I shall explain it to you slowly . . . this means that before those ship classes were seen, we did not know of them. Ergo, someone who is engaged in the starship class version of argumentum ad ignorantium (we don't know other classes exists, therefore they can't, and therefore Ship X must be a part of a known class) would therefore have claimed prior to their appearance that any such class could not exist, and that all other starships must be of known-extant classes.

That would hold right up until the new class appeared. Except whereas the argumentum ad ignorantium guy would be shocked -- shocked, I say! -- to have a new class upset the delicate balance of his life, someone not constrained by such illogic would say "oh, neat."

This is tangential at best. Neither Tyyr nor anyone else said heretofore-unseen classes couldn't or don't exist... they (correctly) said that if we see a ship for which evidence exists which indicates it is a Connie (for example;) ) then it is illogical to assume that it is NOT a Connie. Those classes above were indeed "previously-unseen," and as such it would be nonsensical to assume that a ship fragment were one of those before they were extant rather than something else for which evidence allows.

Based on "very scant visual evidence" you would seek to claim a contradiction of Picard's statement that there is but one Constitution and that it is in the fleet museum, with all the absurdity that entails.

Based on "very scant visual evidence" you would take a sliver of what looks like a Constitution secondary hull and conclude that the entire Constitution class must still be active, despite the fact that Constitution-style saucers and nacelles show up in many other classes, as if having that small part of a Constitution secondary hull (the only piece not seen to be repeated) would be impossible to repeat in another class.

Picard's statement is canon only insofar as what he says, not what is absolute truth in the universe. That's what visual canon is for. Nor did anyone claim that the connie was a class which was in common active service. The Iowa-class wasn't in the early 1990's, yet one was used in battle, wasn't it?

. . . which could just as easily be the saucer of an Oberth for all the detail we get of it . . . is considered to be proof of the non-retirement of the entire Constitution Class, despite it not showing the neck to any saucer or the struts to any nacelles (meaning it could connect to anything from almost any angle save for those we see), and despite clear evidence of the class retirement from Picard and ST6.

Nothing to do with retirement of the class. See above. What it does have to do with is usage of an extant vessel, which is eminently possible, and preferable to making something up to fit the image which has no basis IU.

[stitch626]

I'm sorry, but where have we ever seen part of any of those "previously unseen" ships before their on screen appearance? Also, since we never saw the time period of the Ambassador, and the others were seen in their time period, your argument loses all validity.

Also, Picard's statement does not preclude that an unfinished Connie or a mothballed Connie could exist. All he says is that none are active and one is in a museum.

And we cannot guess it belongs to another ship because no evidence exists as such. By canon, it is a Connie, whether you like it or not.

Also, the Connie saucer has been used on no other canon ships.

Also, that picture is not displaying what you wanted it to... for me at least.

[DSG2k]

'Also, since we never saw the time period of the Ambassador, and the others were seen in their time period, your argument loses all validity.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. What does time period have to do with anything? Your argument is that if it hasn't been seen on screen it cannot exist. If you were talking about a starship from 2320 then you might have that "out", but that's not the context of this discussion. As such, your retort is a bit of a non sequitur in my view. No offense.

Also, Picard's statement does not preclude that an unfinished Connie or a mothballed Connie could exist.

"There's one in the fleet museum" does not allow for a mothballed ship. And an unfinished hull being dragged to Wolf 359 makes no sense.

By canon, it is a Connie, whether you like it or not.

No, you guys are assuming it's a Constitution . . . nothing more.

All you can say with any certainty is that it is a hull segment that appears similar to the Constitution Class lower forward secondary hull. Anything more is purely speculative on your part.

Also, the Connie saucer has been used on no other canon ships.

You are incorrect.

TOS saucers: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sftm.htm
TMP saucers: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ds9tm.htm

That's a lot of Constitution saucer usage, as well as nacelle usage. I'm counting at least five different classes or variations. And we can't forget the Miranda either, can we? That's six.

So knowing the Constitutions are retired, and knowing there don't seem to be any but for a museum ship, and knowing that Starfleet made use of portions of the hull design for other classes, many of which survived longer than the Constitution, why is there such unpleasantness at accepting even the possibility that a small hull segment resembling a Constitution Class lower forward engineering hull just might've come from some other starship class?

I find the hostility to the notion most curious.

[DSG2k]

This is tangential at best. Neither Tyyr nor anyone else said heretofore-unseen classes couldn't or don't exist...

Actually, yes they did, by rejecting the notion that the hull segment could've been part of another class, despite the fact that we've seen hulls of the types used on the Constitution used elsewhere . . . a lot.

they (correctly) said that if we see a ship for which evidence exists which indicates it is a Connie (for example;) ) then it is illogical to assume that it is NOT a Connie.

Except that's not correct, because all evidence suggest it's even more illogical to assume that a Constitution could've been present at Wolf 359. Per Picard, there's a single Constitution in the fleet museum. Given the context of Scotty and his being out of touch, noting that there were other ships in mothballs ready for reactivation would've been terribly polite, but Picard made no such statement . . . he explicitly referred to only a single ship of that design in existence, and we can also gather from his words that it was not named Enterprise.

Picard's statement is canon only insofar as what he says, not what is absolute truth in the universe.

I reject the character-idiocy assumption that so sullies such discussions. I see it far too often used as a wedge by which to insert one's own preferences at the expense of the canon. I prefer to assume, instead, that the main characters have a good idea of what they speak, given that they also drive the plots, and assume error only when it is absolutely necessary.

Given the retirement of the class and the use of Constitution style hull components on numerous classes, I don't view it as necessary at all in this case. A hull segment does not prove the presence of an entire Constitution Class starship . . . at best, one can claim a Constitution-style secondary hull, but to go ahead and claim that an entire Constitution was present is an indefensible leap of logic.

[Reliant121]

Okay, Im gonna put it simple and blunt as how I understand it. You're right DSG2k, there is indeed a possibility that the hull section is from another vessel. But...

Do you dispute that it is a constitution style engineering section? if you do, I would have to disagree entirely. It is plainly evident, from the large recreation windows and the small build ups that sit next to the deflector dish, that it is a Connie engineering section.

In that instance, I would fall with the Razor in that "the simplest answer is usually the correct one". Ergo, there was a Constitution present at Wolf359. I shall divide your theory into two "points of attack".

1) It was another class of ship that utilized the Constitution section. Per the Razor, logic would dictate that it IS a Constitution. Why create some wild fantasy of a different vessel being present? Is that logical? Thats like saying "We discovered a human leg in the wreckage of a plane crash, but since there aren't that many humans around this area we must surmise that it's a new species of animal." Personally, I fail to see how this argument is valid?

2) Picard's statement. First there are the conflicting levels of canon. I believe visual evidence overrides verbal evidence, although I am not sure. So the evidence in the image you posted would override the statement. Even if it did not, Picard isn't infallible. He's a human being, and humans are sometimes...you know, wrong? He might well believe there are none left apart from the museum ship, but that doesn't mean hes right. People make mistakes.

I cannot remember exactly Picard's quote that there was none left, But so far I have only seen quotes explaining there was one in a museum. On that basis, that doesn't dispute one being in inactive service. Even then, this makes a contradiction in Canon. Statement vs. Visual evidence. What do we do? in this instance there is nothing LEFT but to fall to logic. Hence the Razor returns, and we fall at the conclusion of point 1.

[Mikey]

Well said, Reliant.

Actually, yes they did, by rejecting the notion that the hull segment could've been part of another class, despite the fact that we've seen hulls of the types used on the Constitution used elsewhere . . . a lot.

No, actually, they didn't - what they said was that the available evidence points to the possibility of the wreckage in question being a Connie, rather than another possibility. The indicated possibility is also, as Reliant mentioned, the one which Occam's Razor prefers.

Except that's not correct, because all evidence suggest it's even more illogical to assume that a Constitution could've been present at Wolf 359.

Only if you start with an assumption and mold the logic and interpretation of evidence to fit it - which seems to be the case.

I reject the character-idiocy assumption that so sullies such discussions. I see it far too often used as a wedge by which to insert one's own preferences at the expense of the canon. I prefer to assume, instead, that the main characters have a good idea of what they speak, given that they also drive the plots, and assume error only when it is absolutely necessary.

You can assume or reject whatever you want, but this isn't about any presumption of idiocy - it's a statement of fact. A character's dialogue speaks to what the character believes, while visual evidence speaks to what is extant. It's easier to fit your assumption of a non-Connie by rejecting certain things, but that doesn't make those things disappear.

...but to go ahead and claim that an entire Constitution was present is an indefensible leap of logic.

No more so than some imaginary ship class.

I find the hostility to the notion most curious.

Persecution complex much? People following the evidence to their own conclusions and then explaining/defending their conclusions =/= "hostility toward an idea."

[Deepcrush]

Persecution complex much? People following the evidence to their own conclusions and then explaining/defending their conclusions =/= "hostility toward an idea."

Mikey, I know I'm a bystander in this but... he's and idiot. There for he has to try and trash others and their ideas. If he doesn't then he may be introduced to reality and that would just be to painful to bare.

As for my brief thoughts to the matter. They used a Connie model, there for its a Connie. As is canon, as is final.

[Tyyr]

Because we have seen them now, as opposed to when they were -- and here I quote myself -- "previously-unseen".

Lest you fail to understand, I shall explain it to you slowly . . . this means that before those ship classes were seen, we did not know of them. Ergo, someone who is engaged in the starship class version of argumentum ad ignorantium (we don't know other classes exists, therefore they can't, and therefore Ship X must be a part of a known class) would therefore have claimed prior to their appearance that any such class could not exist, and that all other starships must be of known-extant classes.

That would hold right up until the new class appeared. Except whereas the argumentum ad ignorantium guy would be shocked -- shocked, I say! -- to have a new class upset the delicate balance of his life, someone not constrained by such illogic would say "oh, neat."

And you again, you take a flying leap off into the ether. No one has claimed that no other starship classes exist. No one. In fact I'd venture to claim that most everyone here would be of the opinion that in universe there are very likely quite a few classes we haven't seen. No one is denying that possibility. You implying that anyone has is either a case of you simply not paying attention to what's being said in a rush to try and prove yourself right, ie being daft, or knowing what's being said an instead inventing a strawman you can set on fire, ie being an asshat. Idiot or asshole, it's your choice but those are the options.

Based on "very scant visual evidence" you would seek to claim a contradiction of Picard's statement that there is but one Constitution and that it is in the fleet museum, with all the absurdity that entails.

Picard's statement is just that, his statement. Do you really want to start holding the words of characters as inviolate laws about how the ST universe works? Really? With all the numerous inconsistencies that entails? A single statement by a single man. It doesn't jive with the visuals. Not to mention there are numerous scenarios where Picard can be right and the ship can still show up. None on active duty, one in the museum. That's all he said and it can be worked around with nothing like the mental gymnastics required to try and bring the numerous claims about the power output of a GCS into line.

Based on "very scant visual evidence" you would take a sliver of what looks like a Constitution secondary hull

Visual evidence corroborated by the fact that we know the model used was in fact a Connie.

and conclude that the entire Constitution class must still be active,

Which I haven't suggested. I never said that the Constitution class was still active in Starfleet at the time of Wolf 359, mearly that one was apparently there. Maybe it was pulled out of reserve or mothballs, maybe it had been sold off to a private group and was re-appropriated in an emergency, maybe they yanked it out of the museum.

despite the fact that Constitution-style saucers and nacelles show up in many other classes, as if having that small part of a Constitution secondary hull (the only piece not seen to be repeated) would be impossible to repeat in another class.

Again, which no one has suggested but you. However, given that the visual evidence looks like a Connie and the model used was a Connie I think the people arguing that it was a Connie have the preponderance of evidence on their side.

is considered to be proof of the non-retirement of the entire Constitution Class,

The only person pushing that is you.

you seek to insult those who might dare disagree with your fallacy-based viewpoint.

No, I insult people who decide to use strawman arguments to support a viewpoint that is far less logical than the one they are attacking.

More to the point, when the fallacious basis of your argument (even if we grant that it is a secondary hull tube of the Constitution type) is pointed out, with re-iteration of the canon statements made, you get nasty and flamy.

Well ya know if the visuals from the show and behind the scenes info on ship models used are a fallacious basis for an argument then I've got no idea what you might consider a sound basis for this aside from your imagination.

Very peculiar. Seems like you're emotionally invested in the survival of the class. You may want to reconsider that.

You might want to reconsider pretending you have any clue what people are thinking or their motivations. Frankly I think it's ridiculous to have a Connie at Wolf 359. I think it was a lazy way to boost the body count of the scene. However what I think doesn't amount to jack or shit when a Connie can be seen. I have to remember that my own personal opinions and theories are just that, mine, and they in no way change the fact that a Connie was there. So while I don't like that it was there I won't shove my fingers in my ears and close my eyes and scream, "LALALADIDNTHAPPENLALALA!" at the top of my lungs.

[DSG2k]

Persecution complex much? People following the evidence to their own conclusions and then explaining/defending their conclusions =/= "hostility toward an idea."

You haven't been paying attention. I'm the one following the evidence and defending a conclusion. In response I've been flamed and am being piled upon. I don't react well to that, nor to any pretense of the contrary.

First, Reliant:

You're right DSG2k, there is indeed a possibility that the hull section is from another vessel. But...

Well, at least we're getting somewhere.

Do you dispute that it is a constitution style engineering section?

Actually, such a case could be made:



What we see, canonically, appears to be a portion of a Constitution-style engineering hull.

We do not know what exists beyond what was seen, and while we know from off-screen sources that the disassembled ST3 self-destruct hull was used, it was not shown in its entirety and thus we cannot make any claims as to what is seen or was meant to be seen beyond that.

That said, I figure that it is the complete tubular section, with deflector in the front and shuttlebay in the rear.

It is plainly evident, from the large recreation windows and the small build ups that sit next to the deflector dish, that it is a Connie engineering section.

That's wrong, because now you're speculating beyond what is seen. You're at liberty to do so, but don't tell me I'm wrong if I do not make the same leap.

I would fall with the Razor in that "the simplest answer is usually the correct one". Ergo, there was a Constitution present at Wolf359.

Don't pretend this is a matter that Occam could get involved in. The Constitution claim is based on leaps of logic, and Occam's Razor hardly supports such things. Even if we grant that the Constitution-style engineering hull tube is present in its entirety, it does not follow that an entire Constitution Class ship was present, because we have it on good authority they do not exist save for a single example in the Starfleet Museum, as well as other suggestions that the class is long-gone.

Rather than ignore those facts as you are attempting to do, feigning the presence of a contradiction where one is not required (which, I'll point out, is itself a logical fallacy), I am asserting that it is merely a Constitution-style hull section of an unknown vessel that, unlike the Constitution herself, is not retired. Use of hull sections and entire hull components is not an unknown, so it isn't like I'm creating some impossible entity . . . I am merely avoiding canon contradiction by refusing to jump to the conclusion that a small hull section somehow proves that an entire Constitution Class starship was present.

The rest of your post is thus nullified, in concert with my prior comments on assumption of ignorance on the part of the characters.

Now, back to Mikey:

Actually, yes they did, by rejecting the notion that the hull segment could've been part of another class, despite the fact that we've seen hulls of the types used on the Constitution used elsewhere . . . a lot.

No, actually, they didn't - what they said was that the available evidence points to the possibility of the wreckage in question being a Connie, rather than another possibility.

Please do not try to reimagine messages that are right here in this thread. That's offensive behavior.

1. I implied in my long first post that the Constitutions were retired.
2. Stitch said "Do remember the remains of a Constitution was seen in the fleet of Wolf 359."
3. I said "Not necessarily. The secondary hull design (which is all that is seen) could've been used on another class. Picard explicitly puts the Constitution as being out of service in the 2360's, per "Relics"."
4. Stitch said "Considering we have not seen any other canon ship with a Constitution hull, canon wise, it must be a Constitution class ship."
5. I pointed out the fallaciousness of that argument, but said he was free to believe whatever he wished.
6. Stitch said "Its not belief, its canon. Canon rules all unless overwritten by other canon. It looks like a Connie. There are no canon ships that make use of the Connie hull. Therefore, it must have been a Connie. Therefore, the Constitution Class must have an operable ship during TNG."
7. Tyyr flamed me for daring to point out the fallacious argument.

There's no "maybe" or "possibly" in there. And even when I gave the option to agree to disagree (in #5), I was told that it wasn't a matter of opinion but that I was wrong and he was right and his assertion was canon fact . . . and then I was flamed besides, called dishonest and more. And now you sit there and try to present those who would seek to be my opponents as being innocently engaged in rational discussion toward a rational conclusion on mere possibilities, rather than what they're actually up to?

I'll have none of that. And let's not forget your own insult:

Only if you start with an assumption and mold the logic and interpretation of evidence to fit it - which seems to be the case.

Only on your side.

[quote[

I reject the character-idiocy assumption that so sullies such discussions. I see it far too often used as a wedge by which to insert one's own preferences at the expense of the canon. I prefer to assume, instead, that the main characters have a good idea of what they speak, given that they also drive the plots, and assume error only when it is absolutely necessary.

You can assume or reject whatever you want, but this isn't about any presumption of idiocy - it's a statement of fact.[/quote]

No, the only fact is that you'd rather assume that a hunk of broken metal is representative of a retired ship class and that the star of the show is portraying an idiot than allow for the possibility of a separate ship class using Constitution style components, despite the fact that half a dozen such classes exist in the canon.

I don't know why you guys are so emotionally invested in having Constitutions in the TNG era, but it is very clear that I've struck one helluva nerve.

[DSG2k]

Mikey, I know I'm a bystander in this but... he's and idiot.

Ah look, more flames! Thanks for proving my point yet again, and for doing so in such a way as to make me laugh. ("and idiot"? Really?)

[Deepcrush]

Mikey, I know I'm a bystander in this but... he's and idiot.

Ah look, more flames! Thanks for proving my point yet again, and for doing so in such a way as to make me laugh. ("and idiot"? Really?)

A, you're not laughing. I laugh at enough people to know when someone's feelings have been hurt.
B, not a flame. Its simple truth to the matter, being you that is.
C, you haven't proven a point. In fact you've failed to the extreme of such point.
D, "an idiot" "really?"... Yeah, you are. Shame for you but if you stick around long enough without getting banned. You'll learn that people's feelings rarely matter to me.

[DSG2k]

Idiot or asshole, it's your choice but those are the options

False dilemma fallacy, chief. Also, flaming +1.

No one has claimed that no other starship classes exist.

Then why reject the idea for one when it is the only way to avoid intracanonical contradiction? Why is it that then, all of the sudden, no other classes exist? And why is it that if no one has made such a claim, why did Stitch reject the contrary?

If you want a real dilemma, then ask yourself how other classes using Constitution parts could exist yet also they must not.

Do you really want to start holding the words of characters as inviolate laws about how the ST universe works?

Nope, but thanks for the false dilemma again. I'm just not going to toss the words out the airlock without good reason.

If there is clear evidence that a character is wrong, then it's probably a plot point (e.g. Data lying under orders from Picard) . . . but your automatic assumption of character stupidity is dangerous and silly, and is probably meant only to allow you to insert your own fanciful re-interpretations into the canon. Unless we have specific reason to distrust main character statements (beyond crappy FX), then I don't see any rationale in opposing it. I've seen far too many examples of people declaring character idiocy as a prelude to inserting their own ideas into the canon rather than what was clearly meant to be, and this is an example.

If there is a contradiction between what is seen and what we're told, then demonstrable character bias relating to the contradiction in question is a valid argument. Demonstrable lying by a character relating to the contradiction in question is a valid argument.

But the thing is, you guys don't even have a real contradiction to play with. You have a partial segment of a Constitution engineering hull, so in your minds there's a contradiction between the rest of the canon and this imaginary completely-functional Constitution of yours. You guys even claim the class is fully active!

despite the fact that Constitution-style saucers and nacelles show up in many other classes, as if having that small part of a Constitution secondary hull (the only piece not seen to be repeated) would be impossible to repeat in another class.

Again, which no one has suggested but you.

Then why won't you people stop arguing against the point?

is considered to be proof of the non-retirement of the entire Constitution Class,

The only person pushing that is you.

You're just trolling now. That's the precise opposite of my position, and you well know that.

shove my fingers in my ears and close my eyes and scream, "LALALADIDNTHAPPENLALALA!" at the top of my lungs.

That section of text is the most truthful statement you've made. Pity you were trying to pretend you weren't up to that.

[DSG2k]

Mikey, I know I'm a bystander in this but... he's and idiot.

Ah look, more flames! Thanks for proving my point yet again, and for doing so in such a way as to make me laugh. ("and idiot"? Really?)

A, you're not laughing. I laugh at enough people to know when someone's feelings have been hurt.

1. So your goal is merely to hurt feelings? Why is it, then, that you shouldn't be banned?
2. Kid, I've dealt with a lot worse than you on the internet. Some kid with an inability to spell is hardly going to get through this thick skin.

[Deepcrush]

1. So your goal is merely to hurt feelings? Why is it, then, that you shouldn't be banned?

Never said that. I said that I've hurt a lot of feelings. Not that its what I enjoy doing. But you're partly right, as there are times I do so enjoy it. As to being banned, I don't know. I've temp kicked three or four times before.

2. Kid, I've dealt with a lot worse than you on the internet. Some kid with an inability to spell is hardly going to get through this thick skin.

Kid? Really! Thats awesome! (I'm not kidding, everyone who meets me in person thinks I'm in my mid to late 30's) And yeah, I fail at spelling and math and I have sloppy hand writting (but thats from the thing that went boom but thats another matter). Though I don't have to get under your skin. I've read enough of the threads you've been in to tell that quite a few people here have already gotten under your "thick skin". Its not so thick as you'd like to think.

[DSG2k]

I've read enough of the threads you've been in to tell that quite a few people here have already gotten under your "thick skin". Its not so thick as you'd like to think.

To use an analogy, punching someone for disrespecting you is one thing. Punching them because they actually upset you is another. You'll want to learn the difference for future reference.