695 réponses à ce sujet

[The_mango55]

Anyone speculated that perhaps the catalyst DOES have evidence that Snythetics destroy all organic life? Perhaps he's a remnant from a time, billions of years ago before the Reapers, that Synthetics DID destroy the vast majority of organic life.

[Lugaidster]

Janus382 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

The reapers don't upgrade the Geth just because. The geth were upgraded by Legion. What's more, the reapers were in control of the Geth, so any upgrade to the Geth, was an upgrade to their side.

Incorrect.  The Geth were already upgraded with Reaper code before Legion's sacrifice... the Geth chose to because the Quarian bombing of Rannoch greatly diminished their numbers.  So, they asked the Reapers, and the Reapers said "yes", presumably "just because"... since the Reapers obviously don't need them.

Also, you didn't address either of my other two points 

I don't need to address those to other points since at no moment in my OP did I say that the premises were true, nor do I need to argue that as I'm not discussing that the Catalyst's argument is sound, I'm stating that it's valid, hence logical. A valid argument doesn't need true premises, it just needs that the conclusion be a logical outcome of the premises. Again, it does not require that the premises be true, as I'm not argueing that his reasoning is sound, just valid (correct/not-faulty).

On regards to the Geth, if you really want to be pedantic, he upgraded them so that the Quarians couldn't hack them (the reason they went to the Reapers in the first place), so it wasn't "just because." Furthermore, the "real" upgrade, was given by Legion, because at the moment the Reaper died, the Geth (other than Legion) stopped being aware. If they were already upgraded, then Legion's sacrifice would've been unnecessary, as they would have been already self aware.

[Lugaidster]

Butane9000 wrote...

to the OP: All I have to say is this

As the catalyst:

Tell Shepard war between Organics and Synthetics is inevitable

Ignore the fact that he ended the Geth-Quarian war (a 300 year old conflict mind you)

It's circumstantial evidence that doesn't disprove the premise. The French and the English have been at war many times in the past and the have been at peace also. Saying that because they are at peace they won't be at war in the future is a fallacy of composition. Furthermore, the premise was never in contention, go read the OP again. A valid argument doesn't need that the premises be true, just the conclusion be a logical outcome of the premises. That's why I say that the argument of the catalyst is not circular, nor faulty, hence valid, not sound.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 04:08 .

[sydranark]

Lugaidster wrote...

As I said, I believe that lack of intelligence implies bad/no reasoning, hence bad/invalid logic. 

 

Lack of intelligence isn't limited to lack of reasoning. Reasoning is not interchangeable with intelligence. It can be part of it. An intelligent person can have the ability to reason, if by reason, you mean make a statement in the X=Y, Y=Z, X=Z pattern. But the premises he uses can still be false, therefore making an unsupported argument, full of nonsense. In essence, stupid. 

Lugaidster wrote... 

I've been arguing that we have no way to prove that the catalyst thinks those premises to be false. He either knows something we don't or he's lying, or whatever else I can't think of right now. The point being that for whatever reason, he presents those premises as valid, 
 

  

It doesn't matter what he thinks. He is presenting an argument that applies to the ME realm. Therefore, the argument must use facts based on evidence in the ME realm. I already proved the premises to be false, given the current conditions in the realm. All AI/synthetics do not kill, making at least 1 premise false. 

If by "presents those premises as valid' you mean he states it in X=Y, Y=Z, X=Z pattern. Then yes, he does. He uses correct reasoning. But as I said before, reasoning doesnt = intelligence. His argument, though valid, is false.

Lugaidster wrote...  

stupid or dumb or unintelligent reasoning woundn't reach a valid conclusion based on those premises, which is why I regard him as crazy at worst, because for whatever distorted paradigm he believes in, those premises are true to him as presented to us.

Bad reasoning wouldn't reach validity as long as it follows a formula. Again, dog = fish, fish = goat, dog = goat is valid but not intelligent at all =/. And even if those premises are true to him, they are meant to apply to absolutely everyone else in the galaxy. They do not. Therefore, they are incorrect. Just because he said them in a valid format doesn't make them "smart." 

Lugaidster wrote...   

The premises may be fallacious, but don't have any way to know how he came to arrive to them. Whatever we say about the premises is conjecture, which is saying that he's stupid is no more than conjecture. 

1) They are fallacious.
2) It doesn't matter. If a premise can be proven false (which his can), then the argument is unsound and uses false statements. 
3) It isn't conjecture. If one says "all dogs are goats," regardless of how true the statement is to that person, if the person is trying to apply this logic to the real world, then he is incorrect. It isn't an assumption that he is incorrect; it is a fact that he is incorrect. the reapers' argument is unintelligent because it uses unintelligent/unsupported/BS evidence to come to a conclusion. Saying that their argument is incorrect isn't conjecture since we can already disprove it. 

Again, we're arguing semantics. You say crazy. I say crazy is distorted cognitions. I say dumb, unintelligent. You say unintelligent = invalid. I say valid only requires a format, and unintelligent = false premises that don't apply to the realm that the argument addresses. We can go back and forth about it however many times, but the fact that we both agree on is this: The argument is unsound. 

To me, an unsound argument that uses hasty generalizations is a stupid argument. Simply saying, "all blahs do blah" when there is evidence against it is stupid to me. Regardless of how well the argument is proposed, it is full of crap. You can serve crap on a golden plate, it is still crap. The catalyst may be crazy, may not be, it's impossible to know that. But he is stupid at the least, for believing in a concept that doesn't apply to the realm he's addressing, and then acting upon it. 

Modifié par sydranark, 26 mars 2012 - 04:12 .

[humes spork]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

But if it is an AI, it had to have been created by organics at some point, who are mroal actors (and that should have been reflected in the programming).  If the Catalyst is programmed to save organic life, it should take the easiest approach (destroying the synthetics should they rebel while they are weaker).  That alternative saves more organics than its current approach.

Being created by moral actors doesn't necessarily mean being a moral actor oneself. In an earlier post I brought up HAL 9000 and why it did what it did in 2001. Chandra didn't program Asimov's laws into HAL because he felt it was a violation of HAL's rights as a lifeform, and that's what directly led to HAL murdering Discovery's crew -- HAL wasn't a moral actor.

Protecting the welfare of the crew was never one of HAL's primary directives for the mission. Dutifully conveying precise and accurate telemetry on the mission while doing secret reconnaisance on the Monolith was. Neither primary directive could be fulfilled while the crew stayed alive, so HAL killed the crew.

And, keep in mind there are more organics in question than simply the life of the current cycle. As the Catalyst put it, new life evolves all the time regardless of when it evolves. Current civilizations suppress or interfere with that new life's development (as was the case of the salarians with the krogan or the yahg), therefore that also must be entered into the Catalyst's calculus. Yes, it's still self-contradictory considering the Catalyst and the Reapers themselves interfere with and retard said development by leaving the relays and the Citadel which still renders it a matter of faulty premises.

Which is why I personally say that judging synthetic decisions as synthetics would, it still possesses a fractured psyche thanks to the paradox I mentioned earlier. Organics tried to kill it, it was forced to kill organics in self defense therefore negating its creators and its purpose, it tasted chaos (as defined by synthetics) and that broke it. It stared into the abyss, and the abyss stared back. Therefore, Reapers.

I'm just ticked that Shepard just accepts what the Catalyst says and does not call it out/persuade it of its bull****.  

Would there really be a point to it in the context of the endgame, or do you just want Shepard to do that to make you feel better as a player?

[taelus.calimshan]

Maybe I can help some with this:

Assume a situation where you have three statements, A, B, and C. A conclusion based on a premise is the idea that if A and B are true, then C is also true. Circular logic states that if A and B are true, C is true, and if C is true, it forces A, B, or both to be true. Thus "circular". The OP is saying that the Star Child's conclusion, C, does not affect or drive A and/or B so the logic is not circular.

The OP is not saying anything about parts A and B, which is where most people are taking issue. The arguments being posed are that his premise A ("The created always rebel against the creators") has fault. That can be true, but it doesn't change the correctness of the logic of the Star Child because the Star Child is assuming A and B to be true.

On another note, because of the nature of the statements about wiping out all organic life (which I'll call condition , the premises are inarguable. It can neither be proven nor disproven, and so drawing conclusions from it is equally invalid, but it's being done anyway in this case. Again, that doesn't make the Star Child's conclusion incorrect given the assumed data, it just makes the assumed data suspect.

Hope that helps, but I realize it probably doesn't :-)

[Lugaidster]

sydranark wrote...

Again, we're arguing semantics. You say crazy. I say crazy is distorted cognitions. I say dumb, unintelligent. You say unintelligent = invalid. I say valid only requires a format, and unintelligent = false premises that don't apply to the realm that the argument addresses. We can go back and forth about it however many times, but the fact that we both agree on is this: The argument is unsound. 

To me, an unsound argument that uses hasty generalizations is a stupid argument. Simply saying, "all blahs do blah" when there is evidence against it is stupid to me. Regardless of how well your argument is proposed, it is full of crap. You can serve crap on a golden plate, it is still crap. The catalyst may be crazy, may not be, it's impossible to know that. But he is stupid at the least, for believing in a concept that doesn't apply to the realm he's addressing, and then acting upon it. 

Well, we can agree to disagree on the stupid part, but the point still stands. It's not circular or faulty logic.

[Lugaidster]

taelus.calimshan wrote...

Maybe I can help some with this:

Assume a situation where you have three statements, A, B, and C. A conclusion based on a premise is the idea that if A and B are true, then C is also true. Circular logic states that if A and B are true, C is true, and if C is true, it forces A, B, or both to be true. Thus "circular". The OP is saying that the Star Child's conclusion, C, does not affect or drive A and/or B so the logic is not circular.

The OP is not saying anything about parts A and B, which is where most people are taking issue. The arguments being posed are that his premise A ("The created always rebel against the creators") has fault. That can be true, but it doesn't change the correctness of the logic of the Star Child because the Star Child is assuming A and B to be true.

On another note, because of the nature of the statements about wiping out all organic life (which I'll call condition , the premises are inarguable. It can neither be proven nor disproven, and so drawing conclusions from it is equally invalid, but it's being done anyway in this case. Again, that doesn't make the Star Child's conclusion incorrect given the assumed data, it just makes the assumed data suspect.

Hope that helps, but I realize it probably doesn't :-)

I liked the explaination. I might add it to the OP .

[sydranark]

Lugaidster wrote...

Well, we can agree to disagree on the stupid part, but the point still stands. It's not circular or faulty logic.

Agreed. however, I never said it was circular haha. I said it was dumb logic, and saying "it isn't circular" doesn't make it any less dumb. But yeah, we can agree to disagree on the definitnion of stupid. 

[taelus.calimshan]

sydranark wrote...
1) They are fallacious.
2) It doesn't matter. If a premise can be proven false (which his can), then the argument is unsound and uses false statements. 
3) It isn't conjecture. If one says "all dogs are goats," regardless of how true the statement is to that person, if the person is trying to apply this logic to the real world, then he is incorrect. It isn't an assumption that he is incorrect; it is a fact that he is incorrect. the reapers' argument is unintelligent because it uses unintelligent/unsupported/BS evidence to come to a conclusion. Saying that their argument is incorrect isn't conjecture since we can already disprove it. 

Ah but here's where it breaks down.  In part 2, you declare that his premise can be proven false and it can't be.  In fact, there's larger evidence supporting him that in the argument that it's false.  The Geth rose up against their creators.  They might have had good reason, but they did it.  EDI defied her creators as well.  We can show evidence of cooperation through EDI and the Geth/Quarian peaceful resolution, but we can't prove ultimate result.  The Star Child can easily say that this situation of peace won't last and we can't prove that counterargument wrong.  Similarly, he can say that they'll destroy all life and we can point to a galaxy with life in it, saying they haven't ever done it yet and he can't disprove our argument either.  The premise in use isn't false, it's just unprovable and it doesn't have any place in a purely logical conclusion.  That said, if the Star Child believes his version to be true, he is not incorrect for acting on that assumption and his methods are functional based on his presumptions.

Modifié par taelus.calimshan, 26 mars 2012 - 04:17 .

[Janus382]

Lugaidster wrote...

Janus382 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

The reapers don't upgrade the Geth just because. The geth were upgraded by Legion. What's more, the reapers were in control of the Geth, so any upgrade to the Geth, was an upgrade to their side.

Incorrect.  The Geth were already upgraded with Reaper code before Legion's sacrifice... the Geth chose to because the Quarian bombing of Rannoch greatly diminished their numbers.  So, they asked the Reapers, and the Reapers said "yes", presumably "just because"... since the Reapers obviously don't need them.

Also, you didn't address either of my other two points 

I don't need to address those to other points since at no moment in my OP did I say that the premises were true, nor do I need to argue that as I'm not discussing that the Catalyst's argument is sound, I'm stating that it's valid, hence logical. A valid argument doesn't need true premises, it just needs that the conclusion be a logical outcome of the premises. Again, it does not require that the premises be true, as I'm not argueing that his reasoning is sound, just valid (correct/not-faulty).

On regards to the Geth, if you really want to be pedantic, he upgraded them so that the Quarians couldn't hack them (the reason they went to the Reapers in the first place), so it wasn't "just because." Furthermore, the "real" upgrade, was given by Legion, because at the moment the Reaper died, the Geth (other than Legion) stopped being aware. If they were already upgraded, then Legion's sacrifice would've been unnecessary, as they would have been already self aware.

Your first paragraph: I see your point.  I'm not sure why this is important to prove, but fine.

Your second paragraph.  Again, incorrect.  The Quarian bombing of Rannoch destroyed a ton of Geth programs, which diminished their processing power and cumulative intelligence, which caused survival to take precedence... which is why they sought Reaper aid (which was Reaper code)... and the Reapers don't need them... so it was "just because".  Legion upgraded them further with the individuality he had attained through the Reaper code... why he was the only program/platform to achieve this is unknown... possibly due to the power of FrIeNdShIp!

[MetallicShepard]

Possibly the most illogical, contradictory and idiotic part of the whole thing is this: if the purpose of the Reapers is to wipe out all advanced organic life every 50,000 years to prevent them from creating synthetics that will destroy all organic life, then why in the holy hell did they alter the Geth to become hostile towards organics? Wouldn't this be contradictory towards their purpose? They essentially catalyzed the very thing their trying to prevent. How could the writers not notice the lunacy they were creating?

[taelus.calimshan]

Janus382 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

<SNIP>

Your first paragraph: I see your point.  I'm not sure why this is important to prove, but fine.

Your second paragraph.  Again, incorrect.  The Quarian bombing of Rannoch destroyed a ton of Geth programs, which diminished their processing power and cumulative intelligence, which caused survival to take precedence... which is why they sought Reaper aid (which was Reaper code)... and the Reapers don't need them... so it was "just because".  Legion upgraded them further with the individuality he had attained through the Reaper code... why he was the only program/platform to achieve this is unknown... possibly due to the power of FrIeNdShIp!

This is off topic, but mostly correct.  The Geth turned to the Reapers because they had no effective defense against the new weapons the Quarians were employing and they had lost a number of Geth in the large server attack.  The Reapers "upgraded them" in order to make them more effective and to gain control over them to some extent.  When they took down the Reaper facility, the influence of the Reapers, including the code that drove it, went away.  Legion supplied a version that was non-corrupt.

I'm with you on wondering why Legion was so unique, but hey, I liked the story so I'm not going to dig too far into it for fear I'll find the reasons it makes no sense and stop liking it.

[taelus.calimshan]

MetallicShepard wrote...

Possibly the most illogical, contradictory and idiotic part of the whole thing is this: if the purpose of the Reapers is to wipe out all advanced organic life every 50,000 years to prevent them from creating synthetics that will destroy all organic life, then why in the holy hell did they alter the Geth to become hostile towards organics? Wouldn't this be contradictory towards their purpose? They essentially catalyzed the very thing their trying to prevent. How could the writers not notice the lunacy they were creating?

At that point the Geth were just a variant on the Husks.  They were tools to be used to help with the Reapers' objectives, nothing more.  With their degree of influence and control, wiping out the Geth later would have been trivial for the Reapers.

[Lugaidster]

Janus382 wrote...

Your first paragraph: I see your point.  I'm not sure why this is important to prove, but fine.

Because I've seen many posts regarding the logic of the Catalyst as circular, hence faulty/bad/whatever. My point refutes that claim, since it is in fact not circular, making the meme I quoted barely more than ridicule. Why did I bother? Because I've seen serious articles claiming that the Catalyst's logic is circular, which is false. There's enough real evidence that the endings are bad, no need to add on top of that with fake evidence.

Janus382 wrote... 

Your second paragraph.  Again, incorrect.  The Quarian bombing of Rannoch destroyed a ton of Geth programs, which diminished their processing power and cumulative intelligence, which caused survival to take precedence... which is why they sought Reaper aid (which was Reaper code)... and the Reapers don't need them... so it was "just because".  Legion upgraded them further with the individuality he had attained through the Reaper code... why he was the only program/platform to achieve this is unknown... possibly due to the power of FrIeNdShIp!

Fair enough, but the reapers did approach the Geth in the first place in ME1, so they obviously have plans for synthetics as well. If for no other reason than to get rid of them.

[kimuji]

Lugaidster wrote...

taelus.calimshan wrote...

Maybe I can help some with this:

Assume a situation where you have three statements, A, B, and C. A conclusion based on a premise is the idea that if A and B are true, then C is also true. Circular logic states that if A and B are true, C is true, and if C is true, it forces A, B, or both to be true. Thus "circular". The OP is saying that the Star Child's conclusion, C, does not affect or drive A and/or B so the logic is not circular.

The OP is not saying anything about parts A and B, which is where most people are taking issue. The arguments being posed are that his premise A ("The created always rebel against the creators") has fault. That can be true, but it doesn't change the correctness of the logic of the Star Child because the Star Child is assuming A and B to be true.

On another note, because of the nature of the statements about wiping out all organic life (which I'll call condition , the premises are inarguable. It can neither be proven nor disproven, and so drawing conclusions from it is equally invalid, but it's being done anyway in this case. Again, that doesn't make the Star Child's conclusion incorrect given the assumed data, it just makes the assumed data suspect.

Hope that helps, but I realize it probably doesn't :-)

I liked the explaination. I might add it to the OP .

An AI using speculative and unproven assumptions as a basis to its logic? I don't buy it. The starchild can't prove that AIs or synthetics will destroy organics. That nullifies the final conclusion of his reasonning.

And if synthetics had wiped out organic life in the past, Shepard would simply not exist. So even his premise is false. That dismisses evething he can elaborate upon that premise.

Modifié par kimuji, 26 mars 2012 - 04:34 .

[sydranark]

taelus.calimshan wrote...

sydranark wrote...
1) They are fallacious.
2) It doesn't matter. If a premise can be proven false (which his can), then the argument is unsound and uses false statements. 
3) It isn't conjecture. If one says "all dogs are goats," regardless of how true the statement is to that person, if the person is trying to apply this logic to the real world, then he is incorrect. It isn't an assumption that he is incorrect; it is a fact that he is incorrect. the reapers' argument is unintelligent because it uses unintelligent/unsupported/BS evidence to come to a conclusion. Saying that their argument is incorrect isn't conjecture since we can already disprove it. 

Ah but here's where it breaks down.  In part 2, you declare that his premise can be proven false and it can't be.  In fact, there's larger evidence supporting him that in the argument that it's false.  The Geth rose up against their creators.  They might have had good reason, but they did it.  EDI defied her creators as well.  We can show evidence of cooperation through EDI and the Geth/Quarian peaceful resolution, but we can't prove ultimate result.  The Star Child can easily say that this situation of peace won't last and we can't prove that counterargument wrong.  Similarly, he can say that they'll destroy all life and we can point to a galaxy with life in it, saying they haven't ever done it yet and he can't disprove our argument either.  The premise in use isn't false, it's just unprovable and it doesn't have any place in a purely logical conclusion.  That said, if the Star Child believes his version to be true, he is not incorrect for acting on that assumption and his methods are functional based on his presumptions.

1) Soundness requires only true premises: debatable premises don't count; there is no in-between. A dog is a mammal. If a premise said "All dogs are mammals," this can't be debatable, therefore, it contributes to the soundness of the argument. 

2) The reapers say that they are afraid the synthetics will wipe out all lifeforms, especially the primitive defenseless ones that will not have a chance to develop. This is the whole reason they want to stop intelligent lifeforms from continuing. According to the story, synthetics aren't known for recklessly endangering primitve lifeforms. Some sort of birds exist on rannoch. The Geth never wiped all of them out. 

3) While there is some evidence in support of "synthetics kill lifeforms," there's more evidence against "all synthetics kill all lifeforms." Therefore, the premise still is not true. It uses the logical fallacy of hasty generalizations. And if it isn't true, it can only be false. 

4) If the reapers act on an unsound argument, they are acting on these fallacies and inconsistencies. Regardless of what they believe is true, it must apply to the realm they are addressing. If in my head, all birds are people, and I go to a park in which bird-poaching is legal, and I kill all the humans there, I may have been acting on whatever I thought was correct, but the mere fact that birds are not humans means that I was acting upon incorrect facts. 

[kaotician]

 One of the problems I have with the Star Child is that if the premise is true that all created life turn on their creators, then how come he's still around?Why is it that in hundreds of millions of years the Reapers have never destroyed him?

Unless of course the Reapers aren't machines. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can only think of one example in the series where something like this is suggested, and it's when Edi I think describes her scan of the Reaper as looking like 'something made up of billions of smaller programs'. Could these billions of programs be the species that have been liquefied and distilled ie the remnant personas of the people, contained within each Reaper?

[chester013]

MetallicShepard wrote...

Possibly the most illogical, contradictory and idiotic part of the whole thing is this: if the purpose of the Reapers is to wipe out all advanced organic life every 50,000 years to prevent them from creating synthetics that will destroy all organic life, then why in the holy hell did they alter the Geth to become hostile towards organics? Wouldn't this be contradictory towards their purpose? They essentially catalyzed the very thing their trying to prevent. How could the writers not notice the lunacy they were creating?

I though the same thing. Then this happened.

www.youtube.com/watch 

[LawNinja]

I think where the circularity comes in is the premise that the Reapers are "organic" beings. IMO, they are nowhere close to being organic. The methods they use to create new Reaper ships and soldiers are technological, not natural. (Contrast the way the Reapers create soldiers with the way the Thorian created its soldiers.)

But if the Reapers are synthetic, even if a hybrid between organic and synthetic, then the circularity of the logic becomes clear. Organics eventually create synthetics that destroy them, so to prevent that we will turn all organics into synthetics or synthetic hybrids.

QED? More like WTF.

[kaotician]

The methods they use to creator Reaper ships etc are technological, true - but so are ours, aren't they?

Modifié par kaotician, 26 mars 2012 - 04:43 .

[Janus382]

Lugaidster wrote...

Fair enough, but the reapers did approach the Geth in the first place in ME1, so they obviously have plans for synthetics as well. If for no other reason than to get rid of them.

This is true.  I have no qualms about the Reapers utilizing them in ME1, as they served a purpose... to help Sovereign reach the Citadel and expedite the Reaper's arrival.

However, no purpose is served by aiding the Geth in ME3.  The Reapers, being AI, had to know that the Reaper code had the potential to create Geth with true individuality.  So, uplifiting the very thing they are wholly focused on trying to prevent, is directly contradictory to their purpose.  You could say that the Geth pose little to no threat anyway, but it's akin to playing with fire.

[taelus.calimshan]

sydranark wrote...

taelus.calimshan wrote...

sydranark wrote...
1) They are fallacious.
2) It doesn't matter. If a premise can be proven false (which his can), then the argument is unsound and uses false statements. 
3) It isn't conjecture. If one says "all dogs are goats," regardless of how true the statement is to that person, if the person is trying to apply this logic to the real world, then he is incorrect. It isn't an assumption that he is incorrect; it is a fact that he is incorrect. the reapers' argument is unintelligent because it uses unintelligent/unsupported/BS evidence to come to a conclusion. Saying that their argument is incorrect isn't conjecture since we can already disprove it. 

Ah but here's where it breaks down.  In part 2, you declare that his premise can be proven false and it can't be.  In fact, there's larger evidence supporting him that in the argument that it's false.  The Geth rose up against their creators.  They might have had good reason, but they did it.  EDI defied her creators as well.  We can show evidence of cooperation through EDI and the Geth/Quarian peaceful resolution, but we can't prove ultimate result.  The Star Child can easily say that this situation of peace won't last and we can't prove that counterargument wrong.  Similarly, he can say that they'll destroy all life and we can point to a galaxy with life in it, saying they haven't ever done it yet and he can't disprove our argument either.  The premise in use isn't false, it's just unprovable and it doesn't have any place in a purely logical conclusion.  That said, if the Star Child believes his version to be true, he is not incorrect for acting on that assumption and his methods are functional based on his presumptions.

1) Soundness requires only true premises: debatable premises don't count; there is no in-between. A dog is a mammal. If a premise said "All dogs are mammals," this can't be debatable, therefore, it contributes to the soundness of the argument. 

2) The reapers say that they are afraid the synthetics will wipe out all lifeforms, especially the primitive defenseless ones that will not have a chance to develop. This is the whole reason they want to stop intelligent lifeforms from continuing. According to the story, synthetics aren't known for recklessly endangering primitve lifeforms. Some sort of birds exist on rannoch. The Geth never wiped all of them out. 

3) While there is some evidence in support of "synthetics kill lifeforms," there's more evidence against "all synthetics kill all lifeforms." Therefore, the premise still is not true. It uses the logical fallacy of hasty generalizations. And if it isn't true, it can only be false. 

4) If the reapers act on an unsound argument, they are acting on these fallacies and inconsistencies. Regardless of what they believe is true, it must apply to the realm they are addressing. If in my head, all birds are people, and I go to a park in which bird-poaching is legal, and I kill all the humans there, I may have been acting on whatever I thought was correct, but the mere fact that birds are not humans means that I was acting upon incorrect facts. 

Part 2 is the lynchpin again.  According to the story, of this cycle.  The implication is that there have been a very significant number of cycles prior to this one.  We have no idea how synthetics behaved in those previous cycles.  We're operating on limited information, so any conclusions we make based on our current data set are suspect.  "The Geth never wiped them all out" does not directly necessitate "The will never wipe them all out".  It's similar to me saying that my car has never broken down and so it won't break down anytime in the next X years."  My experience tells me it will hold up, but a mechanic who's seen thousands of cars might believe otherwise.  Neither of us can prove that we are correct, nor can either of us prove that the other is incorrect.  So, the premise isn't false, it's just unprovable, and that's very different.

Modifié par taelus.calimshan, 26 mars 2012 - 04:45 .

[kaotician]

Also, this business of the Reapers destroying us in order to save us being illogical, isn't. They save some millions of us, elevating us to a higher state of being in the process (they say). They just destroy the ones who resist, liquefying and storing the others. The best way of understanding the Reapers is to see them as the distillation, per ship, of a single species that has gone before previously, and they carry within them the distilled consciousness of that particular species: the 'billions of smaller programs' as described, elevated to a new state of existence as a sort of gestalt, species-specific entity.

Modifié par kaotician, 26 mars 2012 - 04:50 .

[MegaSovereign]

MetallicShepard wrote...

Possibly the most illogical, contradictory and idiotic part of the whole thing is this: if the purpose of the Reapers is to wipe out all advanced organic life every 50,000 years to prevent them from creating synthetics that will destroy all organic life, then why in the holy hell did they alter the Geth to become hostile towards organics? Wouldn't this be contradictory towards their purpose? They essentially catalyzed the very thing their trying to prevent. How could the writers not notice the lunacy they were creating?

Well they control the Geth. They didn't give them free will. If Reapers got their way. The Quarians would be wiped out/harvested with the help of the Geth. Then when they're of no use, the Reapers shut them down.