Headscratchers / Star Trek: The Next Generation S2E3 "Elementary, Dear Data"

• If Moriarty, as a holographic construct, can't leave the holodeck, how does Data take Moriarty's drawing of the Enterprise out to show to Picard? The original shooting script addressed this, but the final scene was cut.
  • In "Encounter at Farpoint", Data mentioned that much of the content on the holodeck (in that case of a woodland) was real. This could suggests that at least some of the content in the holodeck may by replicated, which would make sense for things like food and drink. It's possible that simple objects like paper will be replicated rather than being holographically generated which would allow Data to have taken it with him. Alternatively, there may be some mechanism to convert small holographic objects to real objects automatically when you leave the holodeck if you're carrying them (which would be useful if someone does an art project on the holodeck and wants to take it with them). Of course, it's all speculation but it's at least plausible.
    • Not only plausible, outright stated in side media that the Holodeck includes a replicator and will replicate food, liquids, and props that the computer believes will leave the holodeck confines. Such as the snowball Wesley throws that hits Picard in an earlier episode.
• Also, Moriarty is clearly shown to become aware of the arch before Geordi asks for an opponent capable of defeating Data. This is necessary for the story, as he wouldn't be able to control the arch unless he first heard Geordi call for it, but it doesn't make any sense, as he should still just be another automated image at this point.
  • It's not clear that he was aware of the arch itself. He overheard Geordi and the others talking (in a way that was out of character if they were really Holmes and Watson) before they called for the arch and that's what aroused his suspicion. While he heard Geordi call for the arch, it's not clear if he actually saw the arch or not before becoming self-aware. He may just have heard the characters talking and seen them apparently talking to thin air, which would make sense for a holographic character to see.
• When Geordi flips over Moriarty's sketch of the Enterprise to show the audience, it's right-side up, which means that Data handed it to him upside down. Audiences in 1989 might not have thought about it, but in high definition, you can actually see the upside-down drawing through the paper when it's facing Geordi.
  • I'm not clear on what the headscratcher here is. Is this is a question of why Data handed the paper upside down? Or why Geordi didn't flip it over? Or something else?
• Polaski is sure that Data cannot possibly solve a mystery he hasn't already read the answer to, but if that were the case, how could he possibly function as a Star Fleet officer? Even if she didn't respect his status as a living being, she should still be able to see that he analyses and reacts to new stimuli on a daily basis simply in the course of his standard duties. Even the ship's computer can draw conclusions.
  • This is just Polaski's anti-android racism at full throttle. She doesn't only lack respect for Data as a living, sapient creature; she literally has no faith in any of his abilities beyond just being an ambulatory computer. And remember that her quasi-Luddite attitude extends also to transporters and other hi-tech gizmos; she probably thinks the same way about the ship's computer as well.
    • Yes, it's clearly her anti-android bias talking, but it stretches credulity for the character to hold that position in the situation she's in. Even if he were simply an ambulatory computer as she believes, he's still obviously sophisticated enough of a computer to solve a mystery.
    • Her argument wasn't that Data was incapable of simple reasoning at a functional level to do his job (that he couldn't draw conclusions or react to new stimuli), particularly in an area where he had extensive specialised knowledge and understanding of similar situations to base that reasoning on. Her argument was that the type of reasoning Sherlock Holmes did required something beyond Data (innovation and leaps of logic) of which she considered Data incapable (and therefore the only way Data could solve a Holmes mystery was if he'd read it before). That doesn't mean that he can't do his job, any more than Lastrade (who also can't solved Holmes' crimes) would be incapable of functioning as a human being. It just means that he is capable of doing his job but not things outside that role. So it's quite plausible that she could believe that.