282 réponses à ce sujet

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

VampireSoap wrote...

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

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?

Naughty, naughty, VampireSoap.  Some of us can look up dictionary.com, too.  And "theory" has more than one definition:


1.  a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.  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. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.  Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.  a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6.  contemplation or speculation: the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture: My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically: In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

OK, so you are saying that IT is a theory that is 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, but not a theory that is a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena like Einstein's theory of relativity?

Good, I was hoping you can find that out yourself because you finally admit that IT has not been proven....And all I want from the very beginning is just simply proofs that can make IT a theory that fits the first definition.

Other people have already responded to you giving what in essence I would say to this post, so I'll say nothing further about that.

Perhaps you'd like to now tell me why, as I asked on the previous page, you are applying the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof to a proposition which does not have to meet that level of certainty?

[dreman9999]

soapmode wrote...

I really don't see how a further set of plot inconsistencies in the finale, such as the infinite ammo in Shepard's gun, the bullet wound in their side, the ground rubble in the 'secret' cutscene etc., can be used to seriously explain away an ending that makes no sense; especially given ME3 is filled with similar minor inconsistencies long before the climax. The IT is a fine attempt to fix a horrible situation, but it fails because its base assumption is that BioWare had this all figured out from the start. A close reading of the plot of ME3 shows they definitely didn't. It's just that, up until the ending, all those minor inconsistencies are completely forgivable.

Look at what I just posted.....That is a much more stable way to show facts supporting the theory.

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

VampireSoap wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But you need something to disprove something that has fact supporting it. That is what  one of the meaning of Theory is, an consept or beleif that has fact supporting it's speculation......Or do you wan to use the method meaning?

What kind of facts? Shepard's blue eyes? Running slow in the dream? Collector ship parts on the citadel? I said it from the beginning, GIVE ME THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

You keep using that word (actual).  Very loudly, actually.  All of those items would amount to circumstancial evidence, and thus fit within the definition of actual evidence.  You do not have direct evidence to the contrary, which would suggest the onus of proof is now back on you to disprove the theory as supported by its circumstancial evidence.

[VampireSoap]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

You've got it all mixed up backwards in your head. IT is an interpretation of fictional work. Proof of this concept existing is the presentation of different themes, elements, and dialogue within the game. Outside interviews with people who wrote the dialogue is not required to outline such a theory. The dialogue that they wrote into the game substitutes nicely for such extraneous materials.

It is you who have the burden of proof to prove that elements of the game clearly hinting that Shepard is becoming indoctrinated were in no way intended by BioWare. That is the stance that would require numerous outside interviews and insider knowledge of the team's intentions. 

The interpretation of IT is simply letting the game and the elements that the developers put into it speak for themselves.

You acknowledge the fact that IT has not bee proven, and yet at the same time you ask me to disprove it? Do I have to burden of proof when you are asserting something without evidence? See Russell's teapot, please.

[dreman9999]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

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?

Naughty, naughty, VampireSoap.  Some of us can look up dictionary.com, too.  And "theory" has more than one definition:


1.  a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.  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. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.  Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.  a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6.  contemplation or speculation: the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture: My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically: In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

OK, so you are saying that IT is a theory that is 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, but not a theory that is a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena like Einstein's theory of relativity?

Good, I was hoping you can find that out yourself because you finally admit that IT has not been proven....And all I want from the very beginning is just simply proofs that can make IT a theory that fits the first definition.

Other people have already responded to you giving what in essence I would say to this post, so I'll say nothing further about that.

Perhaps you'd like to now tell me why, as I asked on the previous page, you are applying the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof to a proposition which does not have to meet that level of certainty?

Let me also add based on the lore that It's been stated and shown their is no way to show indoctrination till it's too late and the theory is that Shepard is still in the process of it.

[AlanC9]

UnstableMongoose wrote...
It is you who have the burden of proof to prove that elements of the game clearly hinting that Shepard is becoming indoctrinated were in no way intended by BioWare. That is the stance that would require numerous outside interviews and insider knowledge of the team's intentions. 

The interpretation of IT is simply letting the game and the elements that the developers put into it speak for themselves.

I'm not really happy with "clearly" there. Most of the evidence advanced for IT has struck me as not being evidence of anything at all, which is why the theory strikes me as ludicrous nonsense.

But yeah, in the absence of someone from Bio saying that the theory is false, it's still a possible interpretation. The fact that a bunch of people who aren't (obviously) insane believe it is proof enough for that.

Of course, after the EC ships......

@VampireSoap: IT certainly does generate testable propositions. We just can't test them without the EC.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 mai 2012 - 04:36 .

[dreman9999]

VampireSoap wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

You've got it all mixed up backwards in your head. IT is an interpretation of fictional work. Proof of this concept existing is the presentation of different themes, elements, and dialogue within the game. Outside interviews with people who wrote the dialogue is not required to outline such a theory. The dialogue that they wrote into the game substitutes nicely for such extraneous materials.

It is you who have the burden of proof to prove that elements of the game clearly hinting that Shepard is becoming indoctrinated were in no way intended by BioWare. That is the stance that would require numerous outside interviews and insider knowledge of the team's intentions. 

The interpretation of IT is simply letting the game and the elements that the developers put into it speak for themselves.

You acknowledge the fact that IT has not bee proven, and yet at the same time you ask me to disprove it? Do I have to burden of proof when you are asserting something without evidence? See Russell's teapot, please.

That's the thing about indoctrination...Their is no proof till it's too late..... 
0:52

[VampireSoap]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But you need something to disprove something that has fact supporting it. That is what  one of the meaning of Theory is, an consept or beleif that has fact supporting it's speculation......Or do you wan to use the method meaning?

What kind of facts? Shepard's blue eyes? Running slow in the dream? Collector ship parts on the citadel? I said it from the beginning, GIVE ME THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

You keep using that word (actual).  Very loudly, actually.  All of those items would amount to circumstancial evidence, and thus fit within the definition of actual evidence.  You do not have direct evidence to the contrary, which would suggest the onus of proof is now back on you to disprove the theory as supported by its circumstancial evidence.

I'm sorry, but have you read my response? To reiterate,

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.

[Cordoroy17]

I thought this thread was going to make a good point based on the title, alas

discussion is good, posters can submit arguments for the indoctrination theory, you can debate the merits of their arguments. you are completely correct that burden of proof is in IT supporters...

BUT.... lots of the IT threads are full of posters who decide they want to textwall you on their arguments on why the IT theory is not true, this is totally pointless, debate the IT don't present your new theory where you believe things were as they seemed, what a weak argument and waste of time....

i saw a post that was 2 pages long that could be summarised as 'the star child told me this and I believe it, the star child didn't tell me about your idea so I don't believe it' the net may be infinite but stfu and stop filling it with junk..

[CARL_DF90]

People, people, please. Let's wait and see what happens with the EC before we argue the point of the I.T. any more. Bioware will be the ones to debunk it or not when the EC lands in the summer of this year. It's a fun topic in the story section of the forum but nothing has been comfirmed or denied yet so let's wait and see.

[soapmode]

dreman9999 wrote...

Look at what I just posted.....That is a much more stable way to show facts supporting the theory.

Yeah, you posted whilst I was typing. You provide a lot of compelling ideas there, and frankly I'd love for the IT to turn out to be true. Again though, I have to question BioWare's methodology here. Offering a false ending and then expressing disappointment regarding the reaction of the fanbase and (grudgingly) offering to create an extended cut (not a retcon, which is what the IT essentially is) is pretty a bizarre marketing model.

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

VampireSoap wrote...

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But you need something to disprove something that has fact supporting it. That is what  one of the meaning of Theory is, an consept or beleif that has fact supporting it's speculation......Or do you wan to use the method meaning?

What kind of facts? Shepard's blue eyes? Running slow in the dream? Collector ship parts on the citadel? I said it from the beginning, GIVE ME THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

You keep using that word (actual).  Very loudly, actually.  All of those items would amount to circumstancial evidence, and thus fit within the definition of actual evidence.  You do not have direct evidence to the contrary, which would suggest the onus of proof is now back on you to disprove the theory as supported by its circumstancial evidence.

I'm sorry, but have you read my response? To reiterate,

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 have read you response.  And responded to it.  You haven't made any inroads on my proposition.

Once again, for roughly the third time: cricumstancial evidence can be just as valid as direct evidence.  And alternative circumstancial explanations must only be ruled out in criminal proceedings where the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.  That is not the standard that this proposition is or ever would be required to meet, so why are you resorting to it? 

Neither would the proposition ever have to meet the standard you appear to be driving at, which is certainty to the point of a mathematical formula or law.  And even that has uncertainties attached to it: if not, then as a science student, would you mind observing simultaneously the position and momentum of an electron within the atom at a given point in time?

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 03 mai 2012 - 04:45 .

[VampireSoap]

Sorry to those of you who would like to discuss this topic more, but I'm just not gonna be here for another 12 hours or so, but I'll come back...assuming the thread is still here.

[CARL_DF90]

magnetite wrote...

The ending was intended not to be spelled out, but rather to have us come up with our own interpretation for it. Some may believe it was space magic; others believe it was sloppy writing or rushed. It wasn't Bioware's plan to spell out every single detail for the story and fill in every plot hole.

Some of the best stories leave some to the imagination, where they don't really tell us everything. Although I will say that the evidence to the indoctrination theory are spread throughout the course of the series. For those who are actually saying there isn't any evidence.

I'd bet one of my paychecks that the ending had no grand plan behind it. It was a rushed nonsensical ending, period. It can be attributed to poor management and lack of planning.

Modifié par CARL_DF90, 03 mai 2012 - 04:54 .

[VampireSoap]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

I have read you response.  And responded to it.  You haven't made any inroads on my proposition.

Once again, for roughly the third time: cricumstancial evidence can be just as valid as direct evidence.  And alternative circumstancial explanations must only be ruled out in criminal proceedings where the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.  That is not the standard that this proposition is or ever would be required to meet, so why are you resorting to it? 

Neither would the proposition ever have to meet the standard you appear to be driving at, which is certainty to the point of a mathematical formula or law.  And even that has uncertainties attached to it: if not, then as a science student, would you mind observing simultaneously the position and momentum of an electron within the atom at a given point in time?

OK, I don't think you and I understand each other because both of us seem to be making the same point over and over again. I'm sorry I don't have the time for this now, but I'll come back, hope I'll find you here. :happy: And come on, the heisenberg uncertainty principle? I was hoping for something more challenging. You wouldn't want me to give you the equation next?

[UnstableMongoose]

AlanC9 wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...
It is you who have the burden of proof to prove that elements of the game clearly hinting that Shepard is becoming indoctrinated were in no way intended by BioWare. That is the stance that would require numerous outside interviews and insider knowledge of the team's intentions. 

The interpretation of IT is simply letting the game and the elements that the developers put into it speak for themselves.

I'm not really happy with "clearly" there. Most of the evidence advanced for IT has struck me as not being evidence of anything at all, which is why the theory strikes me as ludicrous nonsense.

But yeah, in the absence of someone from Bio saying that the theory is false, it's still a possible interpretation. The fact that a bunch of people who aren't (obviously) insane believe it is proof enough for that.

Of course, after the EC ships......

@VampireSoap: IT certainly does generate testable propositions. We just can't test them without the EC.

The fact that BioWare chose storytelling and dialogue elements that are precise reflections of earlier descriptions of indoctrination would be considered clear intent in my mind. Fewer assumptions are required to arrive at the conclusion that BioWare meant to make those parallels then that all of them happened as independent coincidence. Remember, for IT to not be an angle that BioWare intended to be one of many possible interpretations, every single point raised by IT has to be a complete coincidence. The presence of even one intentional hint at indoctrination immediately vindicates it as an "official" position.

Now, you are perfectly within reason to believe that Shepard is not indoctrinated. Keep in mind that BioWare's statements regarding the game, most notably about fan speculation, indicate that there is not a "true" ending. There are just many possible interpretations of it, all of which are independently supported by different pieces of evidence in the storytelling.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 03 mai 2012 - 04:57 .

[UnstableMongoose]

VampireSoap wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Your premise is false at its core, so by your own argument, I can dismiss your thread without evidence. However, since I'm a nice guy, I'm going to outline reasons why rather than putting myself above everyone else.

Except that I'm not the one who's making the claim. How can you dismiss anything I say without giving any ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT? I'm already in a denial position.

I'm merely pointing out, tongue-in-cheek, that blunt assertions tend to be double-edged swords. A mere change in perspective regarding your argument makes it self-defeating.

[MystEU]

VampireSoap wrote...

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?

Since when did a little creative interpretation hurt anybody? It's not fact, but the speculation is interesting and fun. Enjoy it while it lasts (until the EC most likely disproves it) and save your own energy if it's really not worth your time to talk about. If it pleases somebody else, so what?

[CARL_DF90]

We can only hope.

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

VampireSoap wrote...

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

I have read you response.  And responded to it.  You haven't made any inroads on my proposition.

Once again, for roughly the third time: cricumstancial evidence can be just as valid as direct evidence.  And alternative circumstancial explanations must only be ruled out in criminal proceedings where the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.  That is not the standard that this proposition is or ever would be required to meet, so why are you resorting to it? 

Neither would the proposition ever have to meet the standard you appear to be driving at, which is certainty to the point of a mathematical formula or law.  And even that has uncertainties attached to it: if not, then as a science student, would you mind observing simultaneously the position and momentum of an electron within the atom at a given point in time?

OK, I don't think you and I understand each other because both of us seem to be making the same point over and over again. I'm sorry I don't have the time for this now, but I'll come back, hope I'll find you here. :happy: And come on, the heisenberg uncertainty principle? I was hoping for something more challenging. You wouldn't want me to give you the equation next?

No, but how about resolving the EPR paradox for me, if you're looking for a challenge?

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 03 mai 2012 - 05:31 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

If IT theory is true, BioWare shipped the concluding game to the trilogy with no actual ending. Full stop. Can't be argued against. If IT is true, there's no ending to the game, no ending to the trilogy, no ending to anything - not a "bad" ending as some people rant about the game having now, NO ending.

And this is, somehow, preferable? Really?

[Binary_Helix 1]

Nefla wrote...

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.

Ending the game on a cliffhanger wouldn't be the worst thing in the world but I suspect some type of DLC would emerge to pick up where you left off. Think about it. In ME2 we got DLC that while not offically occuring after the main quest makes the most sense that way. Thiis time it would be offical and to extend the longevity of ME3 as much as possible holding off on the complete ending makes sense to me.

[Nefla]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Nefla wrote...

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.

Ending the game on a cliffhanger wouldn't be the worst thing in the world but I suspect some type of DLC would emerge to pick up where you left off. Think about it. In ME2 we got DLC that while not offically occuring after the main quest makes the most sense that way. Thiis time it would be offical and to extend the longevity of ME3 as much as possible holding off on the complete ending makes sense to me.

But they didn't present it as a cliffhanger ending and if they had, then making a DLC to resolve the cliffhanger would just be odd. Also if IT was true wouldn't BioWare have said so and not let all the ending rage continue?