forum.comicostrich.com Forum Index forum.comicostrich.com
ComicOstrich Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Technobabble!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forum.comicostrich.com Forum Index -> PodWarp 1999
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Selezen
Egg


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 26
Location: Derby, UK

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apologies if this post sounds like the POdwarp podcasts - I've just paused Podcast 2 to type this, and I think I'm writing like Ben...

I think there are two distinct flavours of 'technical description' in sci-fi. The first is when something technical needs to be described in order to further the story. For example, explaining that the dilithium crystal is used to focus the particles of antimatter and thus control the explosion. That sort of description needs to be kept as simple as possible in order to avoid confusing the reader or making them run to Wikipedia. It should ONLY be used IF that piece of technology and how it works is an important plot point. One of the most important parts of storytelling is introducing an element before it becomes important. In sci-fi, this can often involve a piece of technology and its accompanying description.

The second flavour is techno-babble. Vaguely scientific sounding things that serve no purpose or have been made up to explain what's happening or (god forbid) how to fix all the problems. Star Trek TNG was too find of this 'deus ex machina' approach to technology, and it's all their fault that technobabble became a commonly accepted concept. Distrupting the electron flow at the quamtum level with a reversed polarity plasma blast from the deflector dish can solve everyone's problems, but does that mean that it should? I mean the Enterprise D's main deflector spent more time throwing stuff out of its emitters than actually deflecting space junk.

Technobabble has its place. In what I call "real" sci-fi, where science is part of the story, technobabble is important, but only if it is used sparingly (like Kyle's spica analogy) and in such a way as not to alienate the non-technical readers. I suppose the basic rule is that if you don't need to describe it then don't. Leave that for an appendix on the website or some forum discussion. Character-based stories should have very little (if any) technical talk...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
ttallan
Egg


Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, I don't know how many of you read Narbonic, but I was reading through the print collections and came across a strip that cried out to be linked to in this thread.

Go see! Third one down.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Axonite
Super Ostrich


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 1560
Location: NEPA

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a *good* use of technobabble! (Of course, if it was meant to be serious, it'd be pretty bad...) Smile
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Adam_Y
Egg


Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Selezen wrote:
Apologies if this post sounds like the POdwarp podcasts - I've just paused Podcast 2 to type this, and I think I'm writing like Ben...

I think there are two distinct flavours of 'technical description' in sci-fi. The first is when something technical needs to be described in order to further the story. For example, explaining that the dilithium crystal is used to focus the particles of antimatter and thus control the explosion. That sort of description needs to be kept as simple as possible in order to avoid confusing the reader or making them run to Wikipedia. It should ONLY be used IF that piece of technology and how it works is an important plot point. One of the most important parts of storytelling is introducing an element before it becomes important. In sci-fi, this can often involve a piece of technology and its accompanying description.

The second flavour is techno-babble. Vaguely scientific sounding things that serve no purpose or have been made up to explain what's happening or (god forbid) how to fix all the problems. Star Trek TNG was too find of this 'deus ex machina' approach to technology, and it's all their fault that technobabble became a commonly accepted concept. Distrupting the electron flow at the quamtum level with a reversed polarity plasma blast from the deflector dish can solve everyone's problems, but does that mean that it should? I mean the Enterprise D's main deflector spent more time throwing stuff out of its emitters than actually deflecting space junk.

Technobabble has its place. In what I call "real" sci-fi, where science is part of the story, technobabble is important, but only if it is used sparingly (like Kyle's spica analogy) and in such a way as not to alienate the non-technical readers. I suppose the basic rule is that if you don't need to describe it then don't. Leave that for an appendix on the website or some forum discussion. Character-based stories should have very little (if any) technical talk...

Wrong on so many levels. First of all blame technobable on scientists and engineers. The sad fact is that scientists and engineers can sound like incomprehensible nutcases depending on the field. Long before Star Trek exisisted people were making fun of technical jargon. Though if you try and fake it in hard science fiction I and probably many others will personally come and burn your transcripts.
Exhibit #1- The Turboencabulator-This was written by a man who reads technical documents for a living almost fifty years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator
Exhibit #2- Course Descriptions-
Quote:
Discusses probability, random variables, random processes, and their application to noise in electrical systems. Begins with the basic theory of discrete and continuous probabilities, then develops the concepts of random variables, random vectors, random sequences, and random processes. Continues with a discussion on the physical origins of noise and models of where it is encountered in electronic devices, signal processing, and communications. Defines the concepts of correlation, covariance, and power density spectra and uses them to analyze linear system operations in continuous time.

What the hell does that mean? I'll tell you in two months because right now I have no idea wat that means.
Exhibit #3- Omniwheels- We've invented stuff that literally defies any sort of reasonable explanation. The term here is pretty self explanatory once you actually see the wheel otherwise I find it a lesson in futility in trying to only use words.
More exhibits to follow because I need to go play with flying capacitors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alitorious
Egg


Joined: 24 May 2008
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What's not to understand about the description? Wink
It sounds like an electrical engineering course, mainly focusing on noise in electric circuits and systems. It looks like the first half of the course is about the noise itself: where it's from, how to model it mathematically (which is where all the probability stuff comes from), and where to watch out for it. I don't know what the last sentence means, but I expect it's using statistics tools (covariance, correlation) and seeing what happens when you apply them to electric signals.

Essentially: "Why sunspots make your radios sound worse - for engineers."

What's the name of the course? What year EE is it?


I don't know if omniwheel is the best example of something that defies explanation. I'd think parts or instruments named after people, or after effects named after people, are probably worse. Looking at omniwheel: wheels roll forwards/backwards, so what does an "all"-wheel or "any"-wheel do?
On the other hand, what's a Jacob's Ladder?


I'd never heard of the turboencabulator before, but I like it!


Jargon's not specific to engineers and scientists, either. Almost any specialized profession or hobby has their own jargon.

Modern Art critic: "It's the artist's expression of his frustration with the dichotomy between the apparent discontinuity of our own self awareness and the fundamental abhorrence integral to human existence."

Music: "Listen to the cadences at the fourteenth measure after the coda. The composer asks for extra vibrato from the woodwinds at the same time the basses pull off a discordant countermelody - the piece is in F sharp yet the bass is in D sharp. After that he pulls things into a harmonic minor from the suspended seventh before bringing in the horns with sforzando, reminding us of the second movement."

Pick any game with a competitive scene, and go browse some forums for there. Sometimes not only do you have the characters/unit names and move/spell names, but roles, or even names for strategies or techniques. (Wavedashing in Smash Bros?)

Incomprehensible jargon's not limited to sci-fi technobabble, but it does seem to be where we find the most infamous and gregarious uses of it, probably because technology is often integral to the setting or story.

Hrm, there's a question: is the stuff you find in House or Grey's Anatomy technobabble? Medibabble? Or is it different? How about in Indiana Jones, when he's talking archeology?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ttallan
Egg


Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alitorious wrote:
is the stuff you find in House or Grey's Anatomy technobabble? Medibabble? Or is it different? How about in Indiana Jones, when he's talking archeology?


Interesting comparison, for this thread! I don't have much background at all in medicine, other than what I occasionally read in newspapers or magazines, so the "medibabble" (medicobabble?) just washes right over me. I'm not saying I don't know what a pulmonary embolism is or whatever the problem of the day happens to be, but usually it all sounds good enough and my brain just accepts that these are all smart people solving a problem. Whether or not it is a correct solution to the problem, or even a real problem at all, is irrelevant to me as a viewer. Same goes for the legalese of shows like Law and Order. The writers of the show have done enough research to make it sound good to a layperson such as myself, who knows some basic things but none of the detail.

But I never once confused what Indiana Jones was doing for real archeology. Wink

For myself, I do my best with my webcomic's technology, but I have long since accepted that there will always be people who are career engineers or astronomers or whatever who will know more than me, no matter how much research I try to do. Blunders and inaccuracies and just-plain-dumb things will happen, especially when I'm on a deadline, and the readers who care about that kind of thing will point it out. I'm not going to give up on trying to write science fiction just because I never got my PhD in astrophysics. I just hope it all works for the layperson, that's my goal. Eh, I never claimed I was writing hard SF anyway. Smile
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tbowl
Hatching


Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well like in Jurassic Park, Sam Neil's character knows, and flat out acts and says that he isn't doing real paleontology all the time... for example. But ya, Indianna Jones.... They do get into scrapes with the locals though. Especially in South America. But not like every 2 seconds trying to find the golden monkey skull of the hoopy doopy clan that was wiped out over 5000 years ago by an astroid fiered by aliens that also made the pyramids which by chance has the other hoopy doopy emerald skull that when combined has the power to get to the 3rd hoopy doopy skull and when those 3 are together they make an ultimate weapon that can only be countered by the happy dappy skull ring thats been passed down through the ages from generation to generation that secretly my new girlfriend has, she just didn't tell me, cuz she isn't really here to help, she's here to be the sacrifice to be the body of the monster when I inadvertantly ressurect it cuz she's just been using me.

Hmm..

But technobabble? I hate it when they say things just to sound cool.

Quote:
The odds are too small to calculate.


Has anyone ever stopped to think what that really meant? Are the numbers a tiny tiny font so the person can't read them? Are the numbers like so far past the decimal point on the right side that he has a hard time doing the math?

0.00000000000000000000000001 + .0000000000000000000000000000001 = ?

Erm. Well sir. The odds are too small to calculate. Like is there some cut off point when taking the odds that your ship is going to blow up, where in the academy they say okay, if the odds are below 0^15th, then its too small.

I mean seriously. Razz
_________________


Last edited by tbowl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Arioch
Egg


Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tbowl wrote:
Well like in Jurassic Park, Sam Neil's character knows, and flat out acts and says that he isn't doing real archeology all the time...

Especially since he's a paleontologist, not an archeologist. Wink

Medical jargon is a good example of jargon vs. technobabble. Sometimes the medical problem (and possibly the treatment) is important to the story, or in some cases may be the crux of the story -- I've never seen House, but from what I understand, diagnosis and treatment are the main focus of each episode. In these cases, jargon is used, but it is explained in some fashion. M*A*S*H was pretty good at this -- they would most often use the device of having a layman like the chaplain or Radar standing nearby, and the doctor would explain to the layman what the problem was. Or one of the doctors would have an expositional tirade ("using these burning phosphorous rounds is just cruel!").

Other times, in shows like Scrubs or Gray's Anatomy, the medical stuff is really ancillary to the human drama that is the main focus of the story. In these cases, a lot of this medical talk is indeed medi-babble that is not explained. This is not ideal, but is more permissible for one major reason: it's usually real. Even laypersons have been in hospitals and have heard how doctors talk, so we have some sense of how they are supposed to sound. Even if you don't know what a pulmonary embolism is, you can look it up if you're interested, and doing so might actually teach you something useful.
_________________
Jim Francis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ttallan
Egg


Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a point of interest: after this was first brought up in the topic thread, I asked my sister-in-law, who is a family doctor, about shows like House, and if they make her want to throw things at the TV. She said that although she's able to enjoy the medical dramas, they are full of inaccuracies that she and her colleagues like to complain about at work the next morning. Smile
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adam_Y
Egg


Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tbowl wrote:

Erm. Well sir. The odds are too small to calculate. Like is there some cut off point when taking the odds that your ship is going to blow up, where in the academy they say okay, if the odds are below 0^15th, then its too small.


Actually, I pretty sure there is a scientific fact for that saying. Science can not calculate the probability of something being zero. So it would be something like .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
And so on.So you know the answer aint zero but you sure as hell can't calculate how small it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adam_Y
Egg


Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Has anyone ever stopped to think what that really meant? Are the numbers a tiny tiny font so the person can't read them? Are the numbers like so far past the decimal point on the right side that he has a hard time doing the math?

I nearly cursed out loud in class because my professor showed us what that meant.. You can have a calculation in which you can't figure the probability directly because the numbers involved exceed the number of bits a calculator or computer can use. You then have to fudge it.
Quote:
Are the numbers like so far past the decimal point on the right side that he has a hard time doing the math?

The irony of your question is that the answer is both. The problem I was shown had one part shooting up towards a very large problem and the other side of the problem shooting to being really close to zero. So yeah.... It's one of those scenarios where the technobable has a basis in reality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dph_of_rules
Ostrich


Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 359
Location: theoritically and only theoritically somewhere in this universe

PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adam_Y wrote:
Quote:

Has anyone ever stopped to think what that really meant? Are the numbers a tiny tiny font so the person can't read them? Are the numbers like so far past the decimal point on the right side that he has a hard time doing the math?

I nearly cursed out loud in class because my professor showed us what that meant.. You can have a calculation in which you can't figure the probability directly because the numbers involved exceed the number of bits a calculator or computer can use. You then have to fudge it.


There are ways around that problem if you can reduce the number of digits of precision: Take the log of the numbers you're multiplying. That way, you can get at least get the magnitude of the answer. Yea, that giving up certain degrees of accuracies.
_________________
Whatever happened to simplicity?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tbowl
Hatching


Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see how bits could start getting too small on a computer to calculate. Each bit would be a decimal backwards... right?

I mean, the whole concept is freaking hillarious don't get me wrong, but Data can practically fly the Enterprise without using its navigation but well. I guess it was Spock that always said their chances were too small to calculate?

Ah I can't think. Need to go lay back down. :/
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dph_of_rules
Ostrich


Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 359
Location: theoritically and only theoritically somewhere in this universe

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem isn't you can't calculate those large numbers, but rather how much accuracy you can give.
_________________
Whatever happened to simplicity?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arioch
Egg


Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dph_of_rules wrote:
The problem isn't you can't calculate those large numbers, but rather how much accuracy you can give.

Yes, but if the number is so small that your largest-precision number representation can't handle it (i.e., represents it as zero), then it's not easily calculable.

Although frankly, I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "The odds are too small to calculate." I've more often heard various forms of "The odds are so small as to be statistically indistinguishable from zero."
_________________
Jim Francis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forum.comicostrich.com Forum Index -> PodWarp 1999 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group