282 réponses à ce sujet

[julio77777]

To OP

How about letting people believe whatever the hell they want to believe ? Does that disturb you that much that some people believe something that is not officially announced or even recognized ?

I don't believe in IT but summer is not far along we'll have an definitive answer then. This thread has no point except trying to cause a flame war this is stupid...

Modifié par julio77777, 03 mai 2012 - 11:52 .

[Omgzorro]

VampireSoap wrote...

1. For those of you who like to compare this to a case, I will only say this, an "evidence" that has not been acknowledged by the court is no evidence at all. Circumstantial, direct, or whatever. Just forget it. Until Bioware comes out and confirms your "Shepard's blue eyes leading to indoctrination", those are all just speculations.

Tsk tsk. Not good enough. Ignoring and sidestepping logic doesn't work. I want to see you tell me I'm right. Page 1, if you need help finding it. It makes no sense to say that the only form of good evidence is for BioWare to directly say that the Indoctrination Theory is valid, and then say that our legal system works the same way, when that would mean the only way for someone to be guilty would be for them to admit guilt. I tried using an analogy to simplify my argument so that you might see why the entire premise upon which you built this thread was misguided. But please, let me know if you still don't understand and I'll stop. Though I doubt that will happen, because you'll find yet another out-of-context way to mention that you're a Berkeley student in the hopes of gaining some more arbitrary authority in the conversation.

And of course they are speculations. We have gained empirical evidence to reach a concensus to describe a phenomena. Just like the geth. And then you're that one ****** quarian who's going to be arrogant anyway and not accept the fact that you were wrong (or, more accurately, not accept the fact that you have a narrow understanding of the western legal system and of what makes something valid as evidence.)

EDIT: I just realized I can't directly attack people on here. So I'm sorry I called you a ****** quarian. I love you bro.

Modifié par Omgzorro, 04 mai 2012 - 12:27 .

[Foxhound2121]

Watch out BSN we have a tough guy in here. His speculations are better than your speculations.

[Andromidius]

I'm fed up with threads like this.

Firstly, you begin by strawmanning the IT supporters. You state we believe it all as fact, and then go on about how we have no evidence at all (without actually, you know, showing how our evidence is incorrect). You then say how we have no life at all and need to 'get over it'.

Thus, threads like this are pointless. When I see some good actual debunks, then we can talk. But claiming we have no evidence is laughably weak.

Oh, and here's the actual IT position: Its plausible, fits mostly with previous lore, is logically sound and is better then the actual ending. In no way to we think its intended or certain, even if there's evidence to suggest it may have been an idea that was discarded later on. It is not fact, its conjecture based on inconsistancies in the current ending, foreshadowing in previous lore and a little imagination to fill in the gaps.

If that is hard to understand, then you have my sympathies.

[NewCliche21]

Man, they really need to get the servers up so these threads can stop for a minute or two.

[BiancoAngelo7]

LOL Troll OP is troll

[HOUSE MDD]

The theory was flawed from the start quite simply by the prothean vi on thessia only says " Alert Indocrinated presence detected " when Kai Leng enters and again the 2nd on cerb hq shep never triggers his sensors. so yeah its flawed.

[Savber100]

HOUSE MDD wrote...

The theory was flawed from the start quite simply by the prothean vi on thessia only says " Alert Indocrinated presence detected " when Kai Leng enters and again the 2nd on cerb hq shep never triggers his sensors. so yeah its flawed.

Not really... It said "INDOCTRINATED presence detected" which implies that Kai Leng was fully indoctrinated whereas Shepard was not (instead more in the process). 

In short, I think being in the early beginning of indoctrination could easily have slipped the radar of a VI. Shepard was in the process of being influenced but wasn't fully indoctrinated until his meeting with Harbinger. Had Shepard met the Prothean VI after being blasted by Harbinger, I bet he would have be seen as somewhat indoctrinated. 

[Cadence of the Planes]

Troll harder OP, troll harder - it's not working!

Modifié par Cadence of the Planes, 04 mai 2012 - 03:06 .

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

VampireSoap wrote...

Wow...didn't expect I would get so many replies.

Here are the things that I want to say:

1. For those of you who like to compare this to a case, I will only say this, an "evidence" that has not been acknowledged by the court is no evidence at all. Circumstantial, direct, or whatever. Just forget it. Until Bioware comes out and confirms your "Shepard's blue eyes leading to indoctrination", those are all just speculations.

2. As for the people who are still asking me to provide evidence. You need to know only two things: Russell's teapot and Occam's Razor

1.  It's not a comparison.  Once again, and since you have yet to answer me after me asking you four times in the thread: what is the standard of proof you are applying, where does the onus of proof lie, and why are you so selecting it? I refer to legal definitions of onus and standard of proof mainly because you are mixing yours freely around to best suit your agenda, which as demonstrated by your agreement to some of the responses above is not to validly test a proposition but to destroy that proposition.

Once again:
- Indoctrination theory is not propounded as a mathematical or scientific law, therefore a mathematical or scientific level of proof need not apply to it.
- It is not propounded as proof of a criminal charge against Bioware or any of its developers, therefore the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply either.

^^^^
These are the two standards of proof you have variously shifted between in demanding "actual evidence" of indoctrination theory.  It is understandable you would mix the two either because of your own agenda or because you are a science student, not a competent jurist or a competent philosopher.

I have repeatedly said to you that is not a fair standard to demand of IT since Bioware itself could never have that level of proof demanded of it at any stage, since it could never be asked to prove any of its claims beyond a reasonable doubt.  IT will never be tested in a criminal court, therefore it is disingenuous at least and self-serving at worst to demand that standard of proof from the theory.

The standard of proof that arguably does apply is the civil standard, which is to say that IT need only be established as more likely than not.  And note that in a civil court there is no presumption either way, whether for the correctness of a party's case or against it.

That is the standard that Bioware would have to meet to back up its claims if it were ever sued in a civil court, and as such it is appropriately the standard of proof that applies here.

As to the issue of evidence, and in particular your statement as above--

I will only say this, an "evidence" that has not been acknowledged by
the court is no evidence at all. Circumstantial, direct, or whatever.
Just forget it.

That would be in error, mostly because the process for testing a court case is not "acknowledgment by the court".  What you are mixing together is the admissibility of evidence and whether a judge or jury prefers that evidence after hearing all of the evidence put forward by both camps -- i.e. the final judgment.  Circumstancial evidence is entirely admissible, as I've tried to point out to you and which you've variously ignored or not responded to because you don't want to look like you're conceding an error.  Whether in the final judgment it convinces the judge or jury -- after all of the evidence is in -- is another matter entirely.

I would suggest you are making a judgment before all of the evidence is in.  And you are holding a presumption which no civil court or legal system in the Western world would countenance in cases of this kind.

2.  See above. Ockham's Razor and Russell's teapot apply to metaphysical and philosophical questions.  No judge would ever direct a jury that when in doubt it should resort to the Razor.  We are not in a philosophical debate.

[From Tuchanka with Love]

 I don't really mind, but I don't think the Indoc Theory is not very much better than the endings we already have.

Modifié par From Tuchanka with Love, 04 mai 2012 - 05:12 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

So I can say this thread is stupid unless it has proven with ACTUAL EVIDENCE that it isn't?

[VampireSoap]

I just want to give a quick reply here to let people know that I'm not abandoning the thread. Still kicking, just don't have the time yet. Some of us got more important things to do. And thanks KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, for reading everything I said carefully. Even though you and I have different opinions, but it seems you are one of the few people who never spammed the thread intentionally. And sorry if I don't have the time to read everything you posted (not so fair, right? I know) But I'll come back, you always pick a bad time.

Modifié par VampireSoap, 04 mai 2012 - 05:16 .

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

Sorry, can't do much about the position of the Sun in relation to the Earth.

[Shadow Shep]

I don't necessarily agree with the IT, but I don't so much agree with this approach of dismissing it. Also, just thought I would throw this in:

Evidence:

ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
verb (used with object)
4.
to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5.
to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.

Dictionary.com

Modifié par DJCubed, 04 mai 2012 - 05:33 .

[snackrat]

Ahhh... see, this is what they call the "Burden of Proof" fallacy. For some reason, there are people that believe their opposition should give 'real' proof for why their beliefs are valid, but that their own side will be automatically considered 'right' should no proof be provided (most apparent in religious/spiritual/agnostic debates for example).

In reality, for healthy debate and discussion, BOTH sides should be able to provide reasons as to why they believe what they do.

Think IT is true? Why? Tell us. Give us your reasons. YOUR reasons, don't regurgitate someone else's, automatically accepting them as true.
Think IT can't be true? Why? TELL US. Don't just say "Bioware says what they mean, and mean what they say". Why do you believe this?

Don't assume that either IT supporters, or 'apparent-ending supporters' (for lack of a better description) are automatically 'right'. Give reasons why you think your side is 'right'.

[Ravenmyste]

i love how people come out a call the Op A TROLLyet you give no proof to back up the story or try to show you evidence, so yes to the ones calling the OP a troll i think youre the troll that cant stand when your "proof" has no merit

[KosakNZ]

Ravenmyste wrote...

i love how people come out a call the Op A TROLLyet you give no proof to back up the story or try to show you evidence, so yes to the ones calling the OP a troll i think youre the troll that cant stand when your "proof" has no merit

He may or may not be a troll. However this thread is largely pointless, I'm not aware anyone has asserted that IT must be the correct interpretation of the ending, which seems to be what he is calling out.

People have stated that it could be true, or that it is the best explanation they've seen for all the inconsistencies in ending. But that isn't the same as saying it must be true.

Given the bar he has provided for something to be considered evidence then IT has at least as much support as any other ending theory, including the "everything is as it seems" interpretation.

[RyuujinZERO]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

You claim that the ending is meaningless because of this ambiguity. This is equivalent to claiming that a particle has no quantuum state because it spends its time distributed between two.

Except even a quantum state has to drop into one form or the other upon investigation. By contrast the endings of ME3 have no defined state. They delibratly left them dissapointingly ambiguous with no canon interpretation to work from.


...gahds, why do people use these retarded comparrisons. Quantum mechanics is not space magic.

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 04 mai 2012 - 10:10 .

[Tymvir]

I don't believe in the IT, but the OP is trying to take the easy way out by demanding a certainty that is impossible with what we know today. IT theorists can't claim knowledge, and neither can sceptics. There are many scientific theories that don't have mathematical certainty because that's not always possible to achieve. That's not proof that the IT is false, just that IT theorists can't claim to know that they are right.

Modifié par Tymvir, 04 mai 2012 - 10:38 .

[UnstableMongoose]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

You claim that the ending is meaningless because of this ambiguity. This is equivalent to claiming that a particle has no quantuum state because it spends its time distributed between two.

Except even a quantum state has to drop into one form or the other upon investigation. By contrast the endings of ME3 have no defined state. They delibratly left them dissapointingly ambiguous with no canon interpretation to work from.


...gahds, why do people use these retarded comparrisons. Quantum mechanics is not space magic.

It's an analogy. The analogy fits. You could just as easily say the ending is "Situation A" happening as the ending is "Situation B" happening--they are mutally exclusive states of existence, but both are simulataneously suggested. The ending is more ambivalent than it is ambiguous.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 04 mai 2012 - 03:26 .

[Cruders]

VampireSoap wrote...

KosakNZ wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

1. For those of you who like to compare this to a case, I will only say this, an "evidence" that has not been acknowledged by the court is no evidence at all. Circumstantial, direct, or whatever. Just forget it. Until Bioware comes out and confirms your "Shepard's blue eyes leading to indoctrination", those are all just speculations.

The problem with this is it works both ways. Until Bioware confirms that the face value interpretation of the ending is real, and all the plot holes and things hinting at unreality were unintended, then you cannot say that ending is the correct interpretation either. After all no evidence has been acknowledged by the "court" yet, for any position.

But I am not the one who's making the claim, I am dismissing the claim. And it is not an either/or question. Whether the ending is as it appears to be does not have any impact on the credibility of IT at all. The fact is, there are many, many other interpretations, and that both the ending interpretation and IT can be wrong. Even if the EC shows that the ending is not what it seems to be still doesn't necessary make IT right.

The false dilemma fallacy is one of the most comman types of fallacy.

No, you ARE making the claim. I'll first address this then your analogy with the "I slept with your mom" thing.
You first identified the claim you are dismissing, which is "IT is true." To dismiss this claim would be to say that it isn't 100% true, as in it isn't absolute. You then proceed to claim that it is, in fact, false. This is the claim or assertion you are making. You now bear the burden of proof. I have already said this in a previous post which you either missed or ignored.
To your analogy. Yes you are making a claim. Your claim is that it is 100% false. You are stating an absolute (you didn't). You didn't say "I don't think you did," nor did you say "I don't believe it."


You know what... to be honest, you're the only one, in regards to IT, that's falling to false dilemma fallacy thinking that the IT is either absolutely true or absolutely false.

It's like saying "guns kill people" is either true all the time or false all the time, there's no middle ground, no grey area.

VampireSoap wrote...

Wow...didn't expect I would get so many replies.

Here are the things that I want to say:

1. For those of you who like to compare this to a case, I will only say this, an "evidence" that has not been acknowledged by the court is no evidence at all. Circumstantial, direct, or whatever. Just forget it. Until Bioware comes out and confirms your "Shepard's blue eyes leading to indoctrination", those are all just speculations.

2. As for the people who are still asking me to provide evidence. You need to know only two things: Russell's teapot and Occam's Razor

3. Finally, for those who enjoy mocking me personally, please enjoy yourselves while you can. If it makes you feel better, why not? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie] I've got more information for you to make fun of me. I am an atheist. I like cats. My major is physics and applied mathematics. I dated the most beautiful woman in the world and she dumped me...Well, I can't think of more at the moment, but if you like, just imagine something say, imagine that I kissed a gorilla. I mean, why not? Go ahead and enjoy yourself, I've always appreciated humor.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

 
1. Several people have addressed this. No need to delve any further into this.
2. You have indeed linked 2 arguments against yourself. I believe unstablemongoose has already outlined why your use of Occam's Razor was a poor choice. Your use of Russell's Teapot argument was also a poor choice. "Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." -Bertrand Russell. By making the exact opposite argument, "IT is false" you have screwed yourself over. The exact same situation now applys to you and that demanding that we prove you wrong is foolish.

You also seemed to have ignored the counter arguments to Russell's teapot "Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.[8] He notes that all truth claims bear a burden of proof "

Modifié par Cruders, 04 mai 2012 - 01:55 .

[Scam_poo]

There is no such thing as a discussion about whether we need official evidence. The prove is there for anybody to see; If you are too stuck in your personal vendetta against BioWare or EA to see what was done here at the ending, stop playing their games. It's so obvious at times that it bleeds my eye if I read "I don't think the IT is true".

[Arkitekt]

Scam_poo wrote...

There is no such thing as a discussion about whether we need official evidence. The prove is there for anybody to see; If you are too stuck in your personal vendetta against BioWare or EA to see what was done here at the ending, stop playing their games. It's so obvious at times that it bleeds my eye if I read "I don't think the IT is true".

I think this is the kind of "thinking" (if we even dare call it that way) which spawns these kinds of threads. IT is not "true" in the canon sense. It is mildly compatible with what we have, and we can have "lots of SPECULATIONS!" about it, that was the intent of Mac Walters anyway so why not. It's imaginative and original, and so I don't dislike it at all. However, when people cross the Rubicon from "This is an interesting way of seeing ME3 finale, I ditch it" to "this is absolutely what the canon story is all about and anyone who disagrees is just a blind fool" I just facepalm and get a little more mysanthropic.

[UnstableMongoose]

Arkitekt wrote...


I think this is the kind of "thinking" (if we even dare call it that way) which spawns these kinds of threads. IT is not "true" in the canon sense. It is mildly compatible with what we have, and we can have "lots of SPECULATIONS!" about it, that was the intent of Mac Walters anyway so why not. It's imaginative and original, and so I don't dislike it at all. However, when people cross the Rubicon from "This is an interesting way of seeing ME3 finale, I ditch it" to "this is absolutely what the canon story is all about and anyone who disagrees is just a blind fool" I just facepalm and get a little more mysanthropic.

I strongly agree with you, despite being a believer in IT. Anyone going around saying it's the only possible interpretation when it has practically been stated outright by BioWare that there are multiple legitimate interpretations is just being a ****.