739 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
What the point of repeating images?

Plus, it doesn't prove anything. You're appealing to authority here. You don't know what it means, you only know what someone told you it means.

It proves that indoctrination is used in the last scene of the game being that indoctriantion is the reapers main power.

So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

PS: Game files don't really prove anything... they're file names.

File names that read Reaper power, why call it that if he was using ANYTHING else?

You do know why an argument from authority is fallacious, right?

You do understand that an argument has to have a point?

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...


1)The Catalyst home is the Citadel. You are presuming powers of control over the Citadel not evident in the game.
2)Because the Catalyst doesn't have control over the Citadel, Sovereign had to attempt his mission.

It's like beating up a child. It's not fair.

The Citadel is it's "home"? FALSE - "the citadel is a part of me", the citadel is an exention of himself much like the mother board to a processor. This would lead us to believe he does have some control over the citadel. Keeper processing bodies is evidence of this because the keeper only "respond to citadel signals".


Insulting people doesn't help you make a case.


KEEP IT UP EVERYONE, ON THE FRONT PAGE FOR 6 HOURS STRAIGHT! WOOHOO!
 

[jules_vern18]

hoodaticus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

Again - irrelevant.  State the experiment you intend to perform in order to test indoctrination theory.  I don't think there is such an experiment, and therefore testability is irrelevant.

You have posited a theory.

I am requesting only A SINGLE EXAMPLE of conditions under which the theory could be disproven.  If you are unable to provide even one scenario, then you don't have a theory.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

And why is every IT theorist in every IT thread so afraid of answering it?  Even if it were irrelevant - which it's not - why such a steadfast aversion to this question?

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

PS: Game files don't really prove anything... they're file names.

1. Yes.
2. Yes they do. The devs use it to make clear what does what in away every dev on the tema can understate from the code team, image team to sound team.

If game files are the end all, be all, where are the files that prove Indocrination Theory?

In this scene...
 
code is a claberation of a peice...

[CavScout]

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

Then Indoctrination Theory is Faith.

[balance5050]

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

Again - irrelevant.  State the experiment you intend to perform in order to test indoctrination theory.  I don't think there is such an experiment, and therefore testability is irrelevant.

You have posited a theory.

I am requesting only A SINGLE EXAMPLE of conditions under which the theory could be disproven.  If you are unable to provide even one scenario, then you don't have a theory.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

And why is every IT theorist in every IT thread so afraid of answering it?  Even if it were irrelevant - which it's not - why such a steadfast aversion to this question?

The author isn't going to contradict his own story.

[dreman9999]

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

Again - irrelevant.  State the experiment you intend to perform in order to test indoctrination theory.  I don't think there is such an experiment, and therefore testability is irrelevant.

You have posited a theory.

I am requesting only A SINGLE EXAMPLE of conditions under which the theory could be disproven.  If you are unable to provide even one scenario, then you don't have a theory.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

And why is every IT theorist in every IT thread so afraid of answering it?  Even if it were irrelevant - which it's not - why such a steadfast aversion to this question?

But that has nothing to do with the theory. It doesn't prove or disproves it.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

Then Indoctrination Theory is Faith.

Hope, is more like it. A common theme in Mass Effect.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:09 .

[Sisterofshane]

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

There is a way to test IT - it comes from the words of the people who wrote the story, and will come in the implemenation of the extended cut.

The same way that Evolution may be falsified when an animal (alive or dead) is found that does not conform to the "biological tree" of darwinian evolution. It may never happen, but it's there.

Until then, all we have are interpretations of a story.

[Iconoclaste]

Sisterofshane wrote...

I think it would have something to do with Shepard actually visualising his death in the control/synthesis options.  He actaully envisions his body disappating into nothing.  He also manages to accept that the Reapers were right, even though this "admission" was never really necessary (hence why they give him the "destroy" option in the first place).  This is also why the destroy/control option are the only one's available to Shep with low EMS.  They don't really need to spend the time to make an elaborate illusion - they just need to stall you long enough for you to die, so you can no longer interfere.  The Reapers give Shepard the illusion of defeating them in the manner with which he sees fit (otherwise it might break the illusion, because what is the first thing you tell yourself when something in a dream doesn't make any sense? Wake up).  They show the destroy ending, because if shepard doesn't believe that it is real, if he didn't make the choice he felt was adequete in to succeed in his ultimate goal, then he wouldn't just "give in" (and here by "give in", I mean that he wouldn't just die in the rubble, not give in to indoctrination).

Shepard never even knew what the Crucible was capable of, no one in the Alliance ever did, in fact. So, there was no use for the Reapers to suggest the "destroy" ending, and if they really expected him to die in any way, the could have easily calculated the risk, and simply let Shepard die instead of showing him something he didn't even knew was possible in the first place! And if they intended to kill him, then Harbinger could have done it easily, instead of missing him on purpose, just to have to do it later.

This is even more tortuous than the actual endings, in my opinion.

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

Then Indoctrination Theory is Faith.

IT uses facts.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
The evidence is that he wakes up amongst concrete rubble after just being in the middle of this:

Some of these pictures were proposed on the "official" IT thread, and put down by some IT supporters because they only show similarities between scenes that have nothing to do with indoctrination, to sum it up. But you still throw them around, because you like to avoid arguments. The explosion you show in the 1st picture has been heavily debated, and each time an alternate explanation comes around you post your pictures again, and the obvious result is the thread moving ahead so no one can use the arguments proposed against your "pictures" since they get buried deep back in the thread.

Sigh. this is still hotly debated even in the IT thread so please take your disingenuous asstertions elsewhere.

If not solid evidence, why post it as such? Why keep posting it only to disavow it when called on it? This isn't the first thread where you've done this.

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You can't support it without first presuming Indoctrination Theory at the outset.

And then you argue points I haven't made, why?

Not arguing IT here, man.  Just that Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

It applies to both interpretations.

Not it doesn't....

[hoodaticus]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

PS: Game files don't really prove anything... they're file names.

1. Yes.
2. Yes they do. The devs use it to make clear what does what in away every dev on the tema can understate from the code team, image team to sound team.

If game files are the end all, be all, where are the files that prove Indocrination Theory?

Probably the ones that named the foliage textures where Normandy crash-landed in the ending "Dream_Foliage".

[Sisterofshane]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

I think it would have something to do with Shepard actually visualising his death in the control/synthesis options.  He actaully envisions his body disappating into nothing.  He also manages to accept that the Reapers were right, even though this "admission" was never really necessary (hence why they give him the "destroy" option in the first place).  This is also why the destroy/control option are the only one's available to Shep with low EMS.  They don't really need to spend the time to make an elaborate illusion - they just need to stall you long enough for you to die, so you can no longer interfere.  The Reapers give Shepard the illusion of defeating them in the manner with which he sees fit (otherwise it might break the illusion, because what is the first thing you tell yourself when something in a dream doesn't make any sense? Wake up).  They show the destroy ending, because if shepard doesn't believe that it is real, if he didn't make the choice he felt was adequete in to succeed in his ultimate goal, then he wouldn't just "give in" (and here by "give in", I mean that he wouldn't just die in the rubble, not give in to indoctrination).

Shepard never even knew what the Crucible was capable of, no one in the Alliance ever did, in fact. So, there was no use for the Reapers to suggest the "destroy" ending, and if they really expected him to die in any way, the could have easily calculated the risk, and simply let Shepard die instead of showing him something he didn't even knew was possible in the first place! And if they intended to kill him, then Harbinger could have done it easily, instead of missing him on purpose, just to have to do it later.

This is even more tortuous than the actual endings, in my opinion.

LOL, metaphors tend to be very tedious, I admit.  Typically we (as in the reader) only like them in one or two instances, not to make up a whole friggin' ending sequence.

No matter which way you spell it, the ending was poorly written.

[CavScout]

hoodaticus wrote...

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...
The fact that no pro-ender has the ability to defeat this argument does not excuse their claiming that we have not disproved the ending.

Jesus... this is so freaking easy. Why do nubs continue to post it like it hard?

1)The Catalyst home is the Citadel. You are presuming powers of control over the Citadel not evident in the game.
2)Because the Catalyst doesn't have control over the Citadel, Sovereign had to attempt his mission.

It's like beating up a child. It's not fair.

This is what is known in the academic world as an "epic fail". 

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.
Catalyst: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Please put down the bong and return to argue once sober.

And where in there do you see "I control all the functions of the Citadel"? Heck, the AI/VI can't even choose a solution to the Reaper problem. It has to have Shep do it....

[jules_vern18]

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

Again - irrelevant.  State the experiment you intend to perform in order to test indoctrination theory.  I don't think there is such an experiment, and therefore testability is irrelevant.

You have posited a theory.

I am requesting only A SINGLE EXAMPLE of conditions under which the theory could be disproven.  If you are unable to provide even one scenario, then you don't have a theory.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

And why is every IT theorist in every IT thread so afraid of answering it?  Even if it were irrelevant - which it's not - why such a steadfast aversion to this question?

But that has nothing to do with the theory. It doesn't prove or disproves it.

I'm not trying to be condescending here, but you don't understand the concept. 

If there is no way to disprove something, it's not a valid theory in the first place.  

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You can't support it without first presuming Indoctrination Theory at the outset.

And then you argue points I haven't made, why?

Not arguing IT here, man.  Just that Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

It applies to both interpretations.

Not it doesn't....

Why, yes, yes it does.

[hoodaticus]

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...
The fact that no pro-ender has the ability to defeat this argument does not excuse their claiming that we have not disproved the ending.

Jesus... this is so freaking easy. Why do nubs continue to post it like it hard?

1)The Catalyst home is the Citadel. You are presuming powers of control over the Citadel not evident in the game.
2)Because the Catalyst doesn't have control over the Citadel, Sovereign had to attempt his mission.

It's like beating up a child. It's not fair.

This is what is known in the academic world as an "epic fail". 

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.
Catalyst: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Please put down the bong and return to argue once sober.

And where in there do you see "I control all the functions of the Citadel"? Heck, the AI/VI can't even choose a solution to the Reaper problem. It has to have Shep do it....

Plain meaning of the text, dude.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
The evidence is that he wakes up amongst concrete rubble after just being in the middle of this:

Some of these pictures were proposed on the "official" IT thread, and put down by some IT supporters because they only show similarities between scenes that have nothing to do with indoctrination, to sum it up. But you still throw them around, because you like to avoid arguments. The explosion you show in the 1st picture has been heavily debated, and each time an alternate explanation comes around you post your pictures again, and the obvious result is the thread moving ahead so no one can use the arguments proposed against your "pictures" since they get buried deep back in the thread.

Sigh. this is still hotly debated even in the IT thread so please take your disingenuous asstertions elsewhere.

If not solid evidence, why post it as such? Why keep posting it only to disavow it when called on it? This isn't the first thread where you've done this.

The evidence is the Earth concrete.

 
 

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...You do know why an argument from authority is fallacious, right?

You do understand that an argument has to have a point?

Does it?

[Wabajakka]

anorling wrote...

Yepp, thats pretty much it. People would rather have a game with no ending at all (and hope for ME4/expansion) then accept the ending BioWare is trying to show us.

Couldn't agree more with this.

It's sad and says a lot about what the ending is.

[dreman9999]

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

Again - irrelevant.  State the experiment you intend to perform in order to test indoctrination theory.  I don't think there is such an experiment, and therefore testability is irrelevant.

You have posited a theory.

I am requesting only A SINGLE EXAMPLE of conditions under which the theory could be disproven.  If you are unable to provide even one scenario, then you don't have a theory.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

And why is every IT theorist in every IT thread so afraid of answering it?  Even if it were irrelevant - which it's not - why such a steadfast aversion to this question?

But that has nothing to do with the theory. It doesn't prove or disproves it.

I'm not trying to be condescending here, but you don't understand the concept. 

If there is no way to disprove something, it's not a valid theory in the first place.  

Bu the awnser doesn't dispove anything one way or the other.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...You do know why an argument from authority is fallacious, right?

You do understand that an argument has to have a point?

Does it?

You stand for nothing, no wonder you were indoctrinated so easily:devil:

[Iconoclaste]

hoodaticus wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

PS: Game files don't really prove anything... they're file names.

1. Yes.
2. Yes they do. The devs use it to make clear what does what in away every dev on the tema can understate from the code team, image team to sound team.

If game files are the end all, be all, where are the files that prove Indocrination Theory?

Probably the ones that named the foliage textures where Normandy crash-landed in the ending "Dream_Foliage".

"Dream" is not "Indoctrination". These "leaves" are parts of sets with trees and rocks used on the end planet, in the scene with Stargazer and in the 3 "dream" sequences where Shepard encounters the kid.