Nov 06 2007
Q and Data (and Mark too)
Mark Goodacre has a post today in which he succinctly sets out one of the key planks of his argument against Q. Fans of ST:TNG will know that Q is very good at distorting reality, or making new realities. Data is no more immune to his power than the human (and other species) crew of the Enterprise.
Whatever solution to the synoptic problem one prefers, Mark does illustrate a perennial problem. The theories we choose to examine the data, and turn it into information, themselves tend to determine which data we look at, and how we classify it. His example of the way in which certain material is classified as Mark-Q overlaps, while other material is classified as “minor agreements”, is a very clear example of how the data is massaged by the theory in order to prove the theory.
The data do in fact reveal the kind of continuum he outlines. That could still be a Q-continuum. But perhaps we should remember that (as Wikipedia says) “Q is a mischievous, seemingly omnipotent being.” For his tricks, Q depends on that “seemingly” and, as Mark shows, Q-theorists too are not above their own smoke and mirrors. The accurate description of data should not simply be determined by theory which purports to explain it. Unfortunately, all too often it is.