2

I asked this question at the Movies & TV stackexchange: https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/118433/how-did-voyager-know-the-pilot-was-a-he

It got an okay answer, but it seems more speculative than I was hoping for and it isn't really theorizing from a solid basis that can be found in the source material. Do you think SciFi stackexchange would have better expertise for this question? If so, how do I get it over here?

9
  • 4
    Why not just comment on the highest voted answer there explaining why it’s not sufficient for you to accept it? Maybe you can explain what you mean by “not really based on the source material". A lot of the time, there’s no solid objective answer for minutiae like this. The actors read what’s in the script. The writers write what they hope will make sense and be entertaining as quickly as they can to keep on the production schedule. They don’t have the time to obsess about things like "he" the way that audience members who can stream can obsess and analyze.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 4:29
  • Done. But my question still stands. I'd like to know if this site would have better expertise and if so, whether and how I could migrate the question over here. The second part of your comment seems like a proposed out-of-universe answer to the actual question.
    – user152192
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 10:14
  • 1
    I guess you’re right about the second part of my comment. What I was trying to get at is that I’m curious what kind of “expertise” you’re asking about, and also trying to understand what is wrong with speculation when the question itself can likely only be answered with speculation.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 13:17
  • Compare with scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/151330/…
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 13:21
  • I just don't want to assume that speculation is the only way. I have often been surprised by the sources that experts in an area can come up with. I don't expect you to be one. I certainly am not. My question is whether this site might have a better chance at having that kind of expertise in its user base. That example answer you link to gives me some hope that this site does indeed have more relevant expertise. The answerer was able to say much more about the nature of the bio-sensors (although still un-cited, so maybe not truly more authoritative).
    – user152192
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 13:43
  • 1
    As far as I can tell, the only thing less speculative about the answer I linked is its tone. It’s just as speculative because there is no actual science behind Star Trek. It’s all fiction. So interpreting fiction and trying to address its verisimilitude is all we have.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 13:54
  • In case you misinterpreted me, I am not expecting a real-world scientific explanation. The kinds of things I've seen in the past that experts in an area are able to draw from include: interviews, scripts, technical manuals, show "bibles", advisors' notes, etc. And there are likely many more sources that I am not even familiar with. And I'm not expecting you to know where an answer might come from either. Also, I did acknowledge that the non-cited nature of the answer you link to means it is not truly more authoritative.
    – user152192
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 14:09
  • I am sorry, but I don't understand the point of our discussion now. Are you trying to tell me that this site does not have better expertise for the sensor question?
    – user152192
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 14:10
  • 1
    I don’t think “expertise” is relevant. But you should do what makes sense to you.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 14:16

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

I don't know about us having "more expertise"TM, but I've certainly noticed over the years that answers on SFF:SE tend to have a stronger emphasis on in-universe-evidence compared to Movies:SE where there's often a stronger emphasis on real-world-evidence. Based on the comments you've made under the answers you got, it sounds like you were much more keen on the former than the latter, which means that SFF:SE might have been a stronger choice for your question.

If I was answering this one, I would probably have focused on identifying any episode examples where the sensors are used to identify individuals by gender (e.g. demonstrating that trek sensors can or cannot readily distinguish male from female), examples of crewmen referring to a sensor-detected person by their gender (e.g. demonstrating that the crew typically assume someone is male until positively advised otherwise) and evidence from the various factbooks that make reference to how the sensors work.

I'm reasonably sure there are in-universe examples of each that would have allowed me to craft an answer that satisfied my own curiosity on the subject.

As to how to ask it over here, you simply need to avoid it being a cross-site duplicate. Merely ask the question in a slightly different way (for example "Can Trek sensors tell the difference between male and female lifesigns?") and you'll get another set of answers, hopefully to your own satisfaction.

0

You must log in to answer this question.