282 réponses à ce sujet

[VampireSoap]

I post this thread to remind everyone that whenever an Indoc Theorist is trying to assert that IT is true, you don't have to look for evidence against the theory. The burden of proof is always on the one who's making the claim, and in this case the IT theorists are always the ones who are making that claim. And so far I've seen only speculations.

What is actual evidence?

Samples of actual evidence:
1. Official documents confirming the "theory".
2. A video clip with a Bioware developer saying that IT is correct.

3. A DLC that illustrates the whole story using IT.
     and so on....

I encourage you not to answer the IT theorists anything unless they give actual evidence instead of
speculations. Until they give official evidence instead of far-fetched speculations, none of us should be convinced.


To IT theorists: If you want to post your lists of "reasons" here, please first prove their credibility. What are the sources? Has any Bioware official supported your reason?

Modifié par VampireSoap, 03 mai 2012 - 02:44 .

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

Nitpick: "actual evidence", as you put it, is wider than that. There is more than one category of evidence. Insofar as you've resorted to legal principles and the Roman maxim that proof lies on him who asserts, not on he who denies, then you have to take account of the fact there is more than one form of evidence.

In particular, there is direct evidence, and there is circumstancial evidence.

Direct evidence would cover the three items you mentioned. It's similar to video footage of a murder, or an eyewitness account of that murder.

Circumstancial evidence can support a proposition even if it does not provide direct or positive proof of that proposition. In the case of a murder, for example, the accused's fingerprints found on the murder weapon, when connected with eyewitnesses that saw the accused in the area at the time of the murder -- these are all points of circumstancial evidence, but many cases point out that circumstancial evidence can certainly provide sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt.

For the most part, the evidence offered in support of IT is circumstancial. Which does not remove its validity, although it's not as compelling as direct evidence, and indeed needs to contend with direct evidence to the contrary. And the absence of direct evidence, added to circumstancial evidence, can certainly come out in favour of the proposition which the circumstancial evidence support.  BW has not said IT is invalid, as yet.  That in itself is circumstancial evidence in support of IT.

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 03 mai 2012 - 02:53 .

[Nefla]

I don't think IT is true or what was intended by BioWare. Fans are giving BioWare too much credit as far as the ending goes. I love IT and I think it's clever and if this had been what BioWare had intended for the ending, that would be AMAZING. However it then leaves you with the question "where is the rest of the game?" If IT is true and Shepard wakes up after breaking indoctrination, that means the reapers are still destroying Earth and we never get to see what happens or if it's resolved.

[VampireSoap]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

Nitpick: "actual evidence", as you put it, is wider than that. There is more than one category of evidence. Insofar as you've resorted to legal principles and the Roman maxim that proof lies on him who asserts, not on he who denies, then you have to take account of the fact there is more than one form of evidence.

In particular, there is direct evidence, and there is circumstancial evidence.

Direct evidence would cover the three items you mentioned. It's similar to video footage of a murder, or an eyewitness account of that murder.

Circumstancial evidence can support a proposition even if it does not provide direct or positive proof of that proposition. In the case of a murder, for example, the accused's fingerprints found on the murder weapon, when connected with eyewitnesses that saw the accused in the area at the time of the murder -- these are all points of circumstancial evidence, but many cases point out that circumstancial evidence can certainly provide sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt.

For the most part, the evidence offered in support of IT is circumstancial. Which does not remove its validity, although it's not as compelling as direct evidence, and indeed needs to contend with direct evidence to the contrary. And the absence of direct evidence, added to circumstancial evidence, can certainly come out in favour of the proposition which the circumstancial evidence support.  BW has not said IT is invalid, as yet.  That in itself is circumstancial evidence in support of IT.

I'm glad you acknowledge the fact that there is no direct evidence for IT. But do you also know that it is difficult to convict a person with circumstantial evidence alone? Especially when alternative explanations HAVE NOT BEEN RULED OUT. (and in your case, you've got tons of equally or more plausible explanations, good luck dismissing them all.)

Modifié par VampireSoap, 03 mai 2012 - 03:09 .

[Heinrich843]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?

If they want to believe it- let em- who cares?

[Mars8309]

want proof?
in the dreams shepard has he runs slow. after he gets zapped by harbringer he runs slow to the beam.
When in the Citadel you can shoot at the keeper and it doesn't die or bleed.
Since when does the citadel have parts of the collectors ship and the shadow broker's engines?

want proof play the game.

[wolfstanus]

Op reminds me of that white guy on the boondocks.

This is actually not a good thing.
Nsfw

Modifié par wolfstanus, 03 mai 2012 - 03:26 .

[VampireSoap]

Mars8309 wrote...

want proof?
in the dreams shepard has he runs slow. after he gets zapped by harbringer he runs slow to the beam.
When in the Citadel you can shoot at the keeper and it doesn't die or bleed.
Since when does the citadel have parts of the collectors ship and the shadow broker's engines?

want proof play the game.

1. GIVE ME THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
2. Does it have to have an explanation for Shepard's running speed in both scenarios? How about it's just a dream? How about Shepard was injured?
3. The keepers can't die =====>   IT is true?????
4. Have you not seen developers reusing their models? Plus whether there is actually parts of two ships on the citadel is still in debate.


5. Please stop giving spoilers, all I ask is just simple, unambiguous ACTUAL PROOFS.

[AlanC9]

Mars8309 wrote...

want proof?
in the dreams shepard has he runs slow. after he gets zapped by harbringer he runs slow to the beam.
When in the Citadel you can shoot at the keeper and it doesn't die or bleed.
Since when does the citadel have parts of the collectors ship and the shadow broker's engines?

want proof play the game.

When the EC comes out will we be laughing at this guy, or crying for him?

[Lamepro]

The games storyline is fiction.

[Malanek]

You're asking for things to PROVE a theory. You can hypothesise a theory which you are unable to prove. However your thread title does not adhere to the same standards you seem to be demanding from others. You claim this thread has debunked the IT when it has done nothing of the sort.

[Omgzorro]

This thread is ridiculous. That's like saying that you can only accuse someone guilty of a crime if they admit to it. But instead, an entire system of law is build around building evidence to sufficiently support claims, as the IT is doing.

[VampireSoap]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mars8309 wrote...

want proof?
in the dreams shepard has he runs slow. after he gets zapped by harbringer he runs slow to the beam.
When in the Citadel you can shoot at the keeper and it doesn't die or bleed.
Since when does the citadel have parts of the collectors ship and the shadow broker's engines?

want proof play the game.

When the EC comes out will we be laughing at this guy, or crying for him?

I wouldn't laugh at anyone for believing what they believe. It is not my intention. I just want people to believe WITH GOOD REASONS.

[dreman9999]

TC need to know what Theory means...

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 mai 2012 - 03:52 .

[VampireSoap]

Malanek999 wrote...

You're asking for things to PROVE a theory. You can hypothesise a theory which you are unable to prove. However your thread title does not adhere to the same standards you seem to be demanding from others. You claim this thread has debunked the IT when it has done nothing of the sort.

Until someone gives me the actual evidence for IT, I have done exactly what I said.

[MACharlie1]

You'd make the worst juror ever, OP. No prosecutor would ever allow you to serve on the jury. I know this isn't court but in reality, most things aren't really based on a clear piece of evidence that points in the right direction. In reality, there is no "Ah-HA" moment. Just sayin'.

[Omgzorro]

VampireSoap wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You're asking for things to PROVE a theory. You can hypothesise a theory which you are unable to prove. However your thread title does not adhere to the same standards you seem to be demanding from others. You claim this thread has debunked the IT when it has done nothing of the sort.

Until someone gives me the actual evidence for IT, I have done exactly what I said.

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

[VampireSoap]

Omgzorro wrote...

This thread is ridiculous. That's like saying that you can only accuse someone guilty of a crime if they admit to it. But instead, an entire system of law is build around building evidence to sufficiently support claims, as the IT is doing.

The defendant admitting guilty is not the only direct evidence. I don't know which country you are from, but if that is your legal system, I don't want to live there and I'm sorry for your existence. If you want to know more about the legal systems in the western worlds, go to college, read more books, listen to instructors. You don't want to be laughed at for equaling IT to any kind of legal process.

[Kajan451]

Mars8309 wrote...

want proof?
in the dreams shepard has he runs slow. after he gets zapped by harbringer he runs slow to the beam.
When in the Citadel you can shoot at the keeper and it doesn't die or bleed.
Since when does the citadel have parts of the collectors ship and the shadow broker's engines?

want proof play the game.

The slow running after he gets zapped can be explained as their way to try to show shellshock. After being near a massive explosion, everything is dull and dream like. Doesn't mean it has to be a dream.

Not being able to kill the Keeper doesn't mean anything. Actually it would provide prove of the opposite of the IT. If it was an attempt to fool Shepards brain, as the IT suggests, wouldn't they make it as realistic as possible? Would they really create an illusion that is obviously an illusion?  And isn't it just more likely they didn't have the time or budget to include a death animation for keepers? They've only appeared in places where they couldn't be harmed. Which i think means they don't have a model of a keeper that has Ragdoll effect properties.

Which also leads us to the next point.. if we assume they ran out of time and or budget for the end, wouldn't it make sense to recycle older materials? Its quite common. If you don't have enough time and need something done, you take what you have. Its not like Bioware would be above recycling levels.


As much as i like the IT in theory, and actually think it might have been the plan at one point or another, there are enough other explainations for the images you see.

Like the "Shadows" in his dreams, being just that... shadows. A visual way to create some dream state. Using Shadow Shapes does better convey the feeling of being faced by "faceless masses" than generic NPCs with actually faceless bodies.

And later when a certain someone shows up, there we are actually having a real indoctrination effect for a totally different reason.

For every bit of evidence on the IT being true, you can actually present a plausible and simple reason that has nothing todo with the IT.

[Omgzorro]

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

This thread is ridiculous. That's like saying that you can only accuse someone guilty of a crime if they admit to it. But instead, an entire system of law is build around building evidence to sufficiently support claims, as the IT is doing.

The defendant admitting guilty is not the only direct evidence. I don't know which country you are from, but if that is your legal system, I don't want to live there and I'm sorry for your existence. If you want to know more about the legal systems in the western worlds, go to college, read more books, listen to instructors. You don't want to be laughed at for equaling IT to any kind of legal process.

I live in the USA, and I am perfectly understanding of our legal system, thank you. I'm going to dissect this for you, alright? You seem to be having some trouble.

1) You said in your original post that the three main examples of proof all had to stem directly from BioWare, the company in question.
2) In my legal example, the party in question would be the defendent, and by applying the same principles as you have applied here, the only way he could be proven guilty was if he admitted his guilt.

Get it now?

[Malanek]

VampireSoap wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You're asking for things to PROVE a theory. You can hypothesise a theory which you are unable to prove. However your thread title does not adhere to the same standards you seem to be demanding from others. You claim this thread has debunked the IT when it has done nothing of the sort.

Until someone gives me the actual evidence for IT, I have done exactly what I said.

You've obviously never done mathematics to any reasonable level. To disprove a theory you need to offer a single example of why the theory CANNOT BE TRUE. Simply claiming no one has been able to prove it does not do this. Even your latest reply shows a shudderingly bad understanding of what you are talking about. You say  "Until someone gives me the actual evidence..." is in your own words acknowledging the fact you haven't disproved it.

The fact of the matter is that this is a story and until the EC comes out or bioware definitively confirm or deny it, no one is going to be able to PROVE anything, because the fundamentals are not solid enough to build a proof even without the possibility of plotholes. For the record, I thought the IT was highly likely after just viewing all the clues in the game. But after what Bioware devs have come out and said since that time I now find it highly unlikely, unless they were deliberately misleading us.

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

VampireSoap wrote...

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

Nitpick: "actual evidence", as you put it, is wider than that. There is more than one category of evidence. Insofar as you've resorted to legal principles and the Roman maxim that proof lies on him who asserts, not on he who denies, then you have to take account of the fact there is more than one form of evidence.

In particular, there is direct evidence, and there is circumstancial evidence.

Direct evidence would cover the three items you mentioned. It's similar to video footage of a murder, or an eyewitness account of that murder.

Circumstancial evidence can support a proposition even if it does not provide direct or positive proof of that proposition. In the case of a murder, for example, the accused's fingerprints found on the murder weapon, when connected with eyewitnesses that saw the accused in the area at the time of the murder -- these are all points of circumstancial evidence, but many cases point out that circumstancial evidence can certainly provide sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt.

For the most part, the evidence offered in support of IT is circumstancial. Which does not remove its validity, although it's not as compelling as direct evidence, and indeed needs to contend with direct evidence to the contrary. And the absence of direct evidence, added to circumstancial evidence, can certainly come out in favour of the proposition which the circumstancial evidence support.  BW has not said IT is invalid, as yet.  That in itself is circumstancial evidence in support of IT.

I'm glad you acknowledge the fact that there is no direct evidence for IT. But do you also know that it is difficult to convict a person with circumstantial evidence alone? Especially when alternative explanations HAVE NOT BEEN RULED OUT. (and in your case, you've got tons of equally or more plausible explanations, good luck dismissing them all.)

I do know how difficult it is to convict a person on circumstancial evidence alone.  Mostly because I've prevented it being done to some of my clients.

However, what you are doing right now is imposing a different burden of proof on people in favour of IT than is warranted by debate.  The only scenario in which you must rule out every other alternative explanation is in a criminal proceeding, where the prosecution bears the onus of proof and must prove its theory beyond a reasonable doubt to the exception of all other reasonable explanations (not all possible explanations).  Indeed ruling out all other reasonable explanations implicitly is to conclude something beyond reasonable doubt.
 
But criminal prosecutions are the only type of proceeding where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.

In every other form of law, proof on the balance of probabilities is all that is required to prove one's case.  That is, one only has to be 51% sure, or be convinced that it's "more likely than not" that a certain set of facts indicates a given conclusion.

I'm not sure why you're applying the criminal standard to what is not a criminal debate.  I would guess you're doing that to make the standard too high for a few random keyboard jockeys to meet, which is rather disingenuous since even Bioware itself would not have the benefit of a presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt were it sued in a civil court for its "lies".  Proof beyond reasonable doubt is an artificially high standard of proof because as a society we generally want close to or absolute certainty before we start locking people up in jail.

I don't know if there is direct evidence for IT.  I haven't reviewed all the material.  But there is a lot of circumstancial evidence for it, and no direct evidence against it.  I'd suggest to you in any court bar a criminal court, that would in most cases be enough to prove one's case.

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 03 mai 2012 - 03:53 .

[VampireSoap]

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

[dreman9999]

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

There's also ....

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/theory 
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 

For the defination of theory as well.

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 mai 2012 - 03:55 .