Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
67 online now:
kjsimons (1 member, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5062
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 18 of 393 (755127)
04-04-2015 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Admin
04-04-2015 5:23 PM


That would be German. Though it would be interesting to learn whether other languages use it too.

{ABE - I believe his e-mail adress is public here. Look at that. - Adminnemooseus)

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : ABE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Admin, posted 04-04-2015 5:23 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 04-04-2015 7:29 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 106 by caffeine, posted 04-07-2015 3:02 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5062
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 20 of 393 (755130)
04-04-2015 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Admin
04-04-2015 7:29 PM


Seven or eight years studying the language. BA German degree. All our textbooks and academic publications used „these quotation marks."

However, in looking through my German paperbacks, I find them using French double quotes, albeit inconsistently:

either «comme ci» (which I understand to be correct French and is confirmed by my copy of Ian Fleming's «Bons Baisers de Russie»)

or »comme ça«

But then I pulled down my Reclam paperback copies of „Also Sprach Zarathustra" and of „Das Nibelungenlied". Both of those use „this style of double quotes."

But like I said, maybe other languages use traditional German double quotes too.

So, yeah, what do I know?

PS

Refer also to PDF at http://usa.usembassy.de/...%20Twain%20Awful%20Broschuere.pdf: Mark Twain's "The Awful German Language". From page 7:

quote:
Grußwort

Mark Twain beschrieb in seiner Abhandlung „Die schreckliche deutsche Sprache“ seine Erfahrungen beim Erlernen der deutschen Sprache.


Na also.

PPS

Mind you, I haven't been in-country since 1974, so I'm probably not up on current usages.

Edited by dwise1, : corrected Ian's name

Edited by dwise1, : PS

Edited by dwise1, : PPS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 04-04-2015 7:29 PM Admin has seen this message

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5062
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 40 of 393 (755164)
04-05-2015 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tanypteryx
04-05-2015 12:54 PM


Re: Um...
So God was a writer on Star Trek.........

No, not just a writer, but rather the Executive Producer: The Great Bird of the Galaxy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-05-2015 12:54 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-05-2015 2:26 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5062
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 42 of 393 (755166)
04-05-2015 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tanypteryx
04-05-2015 2:26 PM


Re: Um...
Q was a fictional character. The Great Bird of the Galaxy was real. In case you did not follow that link, that was fans' nickname for Gene Roddenberry, based on a referenced made by Sulu in The Man Trap, the very first Star Trek episode that ever aired.

Though funny that you should bring up Q. The solution he offered once to La Forge for a problem was, "Simply change the laws of physics." What Faith keeps trying to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-05-2015 2:26 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-05-2015 3:00 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5062
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 47 of 393 (755171)
04-05-2015 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 12:58 PM


Even if a few writers had decided to consciously write all episodes in a similar way, this series heavily relied on fan scripts, who were certainly not informed about any secret guideline

But that is not how TV screen plays are created. Yes, fan scripts could very well be submitted and even used, but only after having been rewritten by the writing staff. If you doubt that, try sitting through an interview with Harlan Ellison some time. He wrote and received credit for the script for the award-winning episode (also voted best episode of the original series), The City on the Edge of Forever (1967). He goes on and on about how his beloved baby had been evisserated and stitched back together like some kind of hideous monster that he could not even begin to recognize. The staff writers had reworked it and rewritten it. Though according to the article, Ellison apparently finally found some degree of satisfaction in the outcome of a 2009 lawsuit he filed.

Nor was that an isolated incident. The producers of the original series were constantly struggling to meet deadlines. One problem was how time-consuming the special effects were -- believe it or not, they were pushing the state-of-the-art at that time; Star Wars with its new special effects tech was a full decade in the future. The other problem was that Roddenberry was having to rewrite virtually every script.

Nor would there be any TV series where this wouldn't be expected to happen. Every script would have to be edited by a writing staff or a "show runner" (as I've seen that job mentioned in Doctor Who), such that a particular style in the ordering of scenes would become apparent. Similarly, any book that is published has an editor who will critique the authors' submissions and suggest -- nay, impose -- stylistic changes. And if that editor works on several different books, then that editor's editorial style should be apparent in all those books.

But what do the show runner and the book editor base their particular style on? Among other factors, they would base it on the predominant style of that genre. There are particular ways in which stories and information are presented and which create the style of a genre. In the old 50's monster movies and sci-fi films (of which I watched many on TV as a kid), they all followed the same basic style: trace evidence of the monster is hinted at, followed by more tangible evidence (eg, footsteps, dead bodies), followed by a shadow or the like moving in the dark, then a poorly seen clawed hand, etc, etc, until finally at the end of the movie you get to see the entire "man in a rubber suit" monster. You can find similar stylistic patterns in other genre, like westerns, film noir, war movies, etc, such that whenever a parody of a genre is produced they're able to recreate that genre's style perfectly and the audience is able to recognize every single element of that style. What are the odds?

But there should still be outliers, episodes and films that break out of the pattern, such as a Star Trek:Voyager episode which concentrated on low-ranking crew members and only showed any of the main characters incidentally. That was also done in a TNG episode whose name I cannot recall and in which a Bajoran junior officer ended up volunteering for a secret mission in which she was killed. Did you include that one in your analysis? Similarly, you mentioned the style of a character appearing on the screen before speaking his first line. That would be normal procedural style for TV, kind of like always opening a door before going through it, which would only be violated for the purpose of special dramatic effect, such as somebody's identity being revealed.

Handling outliers is important so as to avoid cherry-picking. One benefit of observing creationists is learning to appreciate the personalities of some professions, especially of engineers (who form the majority of "scientists" who are creationists). Engineers are pragmatic empiricists who hate theory and so look down on scientists who are trying to figure out how things work. My math department's newsletter used to carry engineer jokes. In one upper-division computer science class instructed by a mathematician, to illustrate inductive reasoning he told an engineer joke in which the engineer proved by induction that all odd numbers are prime (spoiler alert: they're obviously not). Here is how his proof ran: Start with 1, which is odd and a prime, then test each successive odd number for being prime. He got to 13 (odd and prime) at which point he took the inductive step that all the rest of the odd numbers would also be prime. QED. OK, yes, there was one exception, 9, but we would expect to have one data point being off in a statistical sampling this size, so he could safely throw that one out.

Here's an idea. Set up a table at Star Trek conventions and you might be able to sell a couple copies of your paper. Or at least give it away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 12:58 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5062
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 52 of 393 (755180)
04-05-2015 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 3:48 PM


There were 3 other series (England, Japan, India) with the same pattern that were examined, created from 1980 to 2015. Writers wouldn't try to create all of them in a similar way.

We're not saying that the writers would try to create their shows in a similar way, but rather that they would create their screenplays in the manner in which they had been trained to. Different people with the same training tend to approach similar situations in the same manner. When you observe dancers out on the dance floor (I mean partner dancing, not free-style "shake whatever you have"), you can usually see who their teachers were, or at least see that a number of the dancers had the same teacher. They certainly are not trying to dance like each other, but rather are dancing in the manner they had been trained to.

Where did the writers get their training from? From school, including film school and other creative writing courses. And from actual experience, which involves being able to sell their scripts and having to work with editors. So where did the editors get their training from? From the same sources, since most screenplay editors should have previously worked as writers themselves (and still do).

Are you starting to see the pattern yet? So if they're from different schools, then why should their training be virtually the same? For one thing, their teachers and their teachers' teachers and their teachers' teachers' teachers descend back to a small number of schools of thought on writing scripts and screenplays.

Certainly, the centuries of playwrights played a role, but that had to be adapted to a new medium, film, and then episodic TV. Out of stage arose a small set of formats and overall structure for plays, formats and structures that were then adapted to film and ultimately to TV. True, individual cultures produced different theatrical traditions and techniques, but then the cultures started learning and borrow from each other, even though the true effect was small ... for a time.

One thing that should be noted is that those theatrical traditions were not arbitrarily and deliberately created, but rather they developed in a manner analogous to evolution. What is the single best explanation for why a particular theatrical format and structure would prevail in a given culture? Because it is successful, because it works! The formats and structures that the audience is able to follow and understand and that evokes the desired emotions are the ones that playwrights are going to use over and over again, and that new playwrights will know to use themselves. A playwright could invent an entirely new and innovative format and structure, but if it doesn't work then it will not survive and it will not be used again (though it could inspire a later more successful format). Survival of the most popular.

Then with the advent of film, we see another analogy to evolution in which a new form develops in one locale and then radiates out to other locales. The original adaptation of stage structures to film happened in a small number of countries starting in France with the Lumière brothers. Then film production spread to other countries, each one trying to adapt it to their own culture, but still based primarily on the work of the first pioneers. Plus they would watch each other's films drawing ideas from each other. And again which new ideas and formats and structures were kept was based on whether they worked! Survival of the most popular.

Suggestion: Watch The Story of Film: An Odyssey. It's on NetFlix in the USA.

Then came TV, which based itself on what had developed in film. Again, it first developed in the few countries with the technology, which were mainly Western European (including Nazi Germany) and the USA, then was exported around the world along with commercial TV which developed after the war. Thus, every country with commercial TV learned from and borrowed from those few countries that had laid the groundwork. And they continue to watch each other to borrow from each other. Again testing and keeping that which works and discarding that which does not.

Survival of the most popular, especially considering that they are always watching the ratings by which they live or die. You can try to be innovative in commercial TV, but you still do not dare risk losing any of your audience. If you try something that confuses your audience, then you can lose that audience. So you continue to use the tried-and-true formats and techniques. And the show runners will have learned to sense what will appeal to the audience and what won't. They're not trying to fit their show to a set pattern, but rather they know what works and that is what they're fitting their shows to.

On top of all that, there's the simple need to crank out script after script after script. As a result, shows become formulaic, creating a basic pattern for presenting the scenes and characters and reusing it in order to save time. I encountered the same thing when I was Admin Officer and then later XO and CO. We had reports to produce in short amounts of time, so we created a format that we would use over and over again, updating it with that reporting cycle's information. There was simply no time available to create an entirely new format for each report. Plus, sticking to the same format made it easier for our command to interpret our reports -- again with not wanting to confuse or lose your audience.

Writers get paid for writing and they get paid the same amount regardless of how long it takes them to write. So as a writer you want to be able to do a lot of writing in a very short amount of time. In the Golden Age of Science Fiction (1930's to late 1940's), most writers of fiction were writing for the pulp magazines (eg, Amazing Stories), for which they were paid by the word -- popular Western author, Zane Grey, used to have his characters fire every single bullet in their guns, because he got paid for every single bullet. Comic book writers were paid by the page, so they would throw in a lot of big explosions to get paid more.

TV writers (and film screenwriters as well) do something similar. One technique is to have a basic format for an entire episode (or movie) into which he simply inserts different characters and locales and a different MacGuffin (the precious item or person which is the motivation for the action) and, voilà!, he has an entirely new script in a matter of days. Of course, the basic format that he used had to be one that he could sell, which is determined by the show runner and editors, so it's also going to be very similar in structure to what the other writers are cranking out. Not a coincidence, not footprints in the sand being left by the Hand of God. Rather, survival of the most popular.

The second TV writer's trick is to take a script that he had sold to a show and sell it to another show by just changing the names to the other show's characters. One late night, my ex-wife had been watching old reruns on TV. There was an episode of Charlie's Angels followed by one of The Mod Squad. They were the exact same script, except for a few cosmetic changes.

So then, who is more powerful? An editor or God? In the beginning of one of his novels, Edgar Rice Burroughs recounted the remarkable circumstances by which he received a personal account of the hero of the story, thus attesting that the story he was about to tell was true and not fiction (a frequent fiction of Burroughs' stories). Burroughs concluded the introduction by saying that he had submitted for publication every single word as it was given to him. However, before it could come to his readers it must first pass through the hands of an editor and everybody knows that an editor would even change the Word of God Himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 3:48 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5062
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 75 of 393 (755221)
04-06-2015 3:41 PM


Keeping in Mind How ID Operates
I have always been struck by how much ID bases itself on "God of the Gaps" reasoning and arguments: that God exists within the gaps of our knowledge and understanding. Basically, they try to prove that something is beyond our ability to understand or to explain so that they can then claim that that is proof of God.

The problem with "God of the Gaps" reasoning, which "creation science" argumetns also rely on very heavily, is that it puts an end to any kind of investigation.

From my signature:

quote:
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

In another of his articles investigating Gentry's claims, Wakefield observed (paraphrased from memory): "A scientist looks at a mystery and sees a problem to be solved. A creationist looks at a mystery and sees proof of God. A scientist wants to solve that mystery, while the creationist wants above all else to keep it a mystery."

We have been observing ID in action.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Steven Colbert on NPR


  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5062
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 107 of 393 (755339)
04-07-2015 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 2:08 PM


Perhaps you can be forgiven, having been raised on German TV (assuming that about your personal history). In the brief time that I watched German TV (a couple months in 1974), the structure of the programming was that the entire show would be shown and then at the end would be about 5 or more minutes of commercials. IOW, the continuity of the show was not broken up by commercial breaks.

US commercial TV is quite different. Hour-long programs were structured as four-act plays with a prologue, Act 1, Act 2, Act 3, Act 4, and epilogue with commercials inserted between each one -- in fact, the shows produced by Quinn Martin (eg, The FBI) would typically entitle each one as "Epilogue" or "Act 2" as appropriate; I also seem to remember it being done in The Invaders, but I'm not so sure about The Streets of San Francisco.

And each act of a program would end with a teaser or a mini-cliff-hanger. Some plot turn or a hint of a big revelation and the music would build and then we'd cut to a commercial. The purpose of that teaser was of course to engage the viewers' interest to not change the channel during the commercial. And those teasers would always be there every single time! Nothing the least bit random about it. That is simply how you did TV!

Well, in the USA at least. I grew up with it so I never gave it a second thought. Until I watched an episode of „Die Strassen von San Francisco" on German TV and those teasers with the big build-up not being followed by a commercial break just jumped right out at me and I was suddenly made very aware of what US commercial TV was doing. We can get the same effect watching US TV shows on NetFlix.

Then last summer a Swedish comedy series, "Welcome to Sweden", played on US TV and I became aware of the opposite effect. I assume that Swedish TV's approach to commercial breaks are very similar to German TV (at least circa 1974) in that the program itself is not interrupted by commercial breaks. In the USA, the show would be playing and then suddenly in what appeared to be the middle of a scene there'd be a commercial. It would happen so suddenly and unexpectedly (there was, after all, no teaser nor any kind of build-up to the commercial) that it was quite jarring and irritating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 2:08 PM Dubreuil has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022