739 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

In fact it doesn't.

[balance5050]

Orange Tee wrote...

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.

So does how furiously it's debated. Much like Blade Runner.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

In fact it doesn't.

Yes it does.

[dreman9999]

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?

It does counter or argue the point you were trying to make...You just being condescending.

[jules_vern18]

Sisterofshane 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.

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.

Not necessarily.  I think that even if the EC comes out and invalidates IT, the cultists will continue insisting that it's true and that the final proof is still coming.  I don't think that a single condition exists under which believers in IT could accept that their "theory" is disproved...

...and therefore it's not a logical theory.  It's a belief.

[Wabajakka]

balance5050 wrote...

The evidence is the Earth concrete. 

I actually hate this part of the evidence of the IT, it could also very well be the Citadel considering there are clearly metallic parts.

We should assume the Citadel is crashing into Earth.

[CavScout]

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".

Only if you presume that files were not reused in the game, i.e. foliage from the deam sequences was retextured and used in the ending scene.

[balance5050]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane 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.

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.

Not necessarily.  I think that even if the EC comes out and invalidates IT, the cultists will continue insisting that it's true and that the final proof is still coming.  I don't think that a single condition exists under which believers in IT could accept that their "theory" is disproved...

...and therefore it's not a logical theory.  It's a belief.

I think you actually like the I.T. and you think it's cool.

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

In fact it doesn't.

http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/
Yes it does

[balance5050]

Orange Tee wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

The evidence is the Earth concrete. 

I actually hate this part of the evidence of the IT, it could also very well be the Citadel considering there are clearly metallic parts.

We should assume the Citadel is crashing into Earth.

Nope

[Iconoclaste]

Sisterofshane wrote...

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.

I would like to see a proposal for that little "hole" in the logic of IT, if balance5050 can stop pushing the forum forward with his silly pictures.

[CavScout]

hoodaticus wrote...

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.

If the Catalyst controls the Citadel, why did it need Shep and why did it allow Shep to open the arms?

[Robhuzz]

Scimal wrote...

I think most people who don't agree with IT are more than aware.

Pointing that out doesn't make the theory any less ridiculous. What you're essentially saying is that they made a game without an end. Shepard gets ripped up by Harbinger's beam, and if you want to believe IT, then you choose Red, and you choose to keep fighting.

Then the game stops. You don't keep fighting. You don't win. You don't lose. The game doesn't conclude, because it stops right before it ends.

Then you get some geezer telling his grandkid about Shepard - which the I.T. seems to forget exists. How does that fit into the IT anyways? I'd like to know that instead.

How does the Buzz Aldrin epilogue fit into IT? Is it yet another hallucination?

More wild guessing obviously but even if the IT is true, the real battle against the Reapers has still happened by the time the star gazer dude tells Shepard's story. We just haven't seen it yet. So even if that buzz aldrin epilogue is not a hallucination, it doesn't exactly invalidate the IT.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 13 mai 2012 - 07:19 .

[balance5050]

 

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

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".

Only if you presume that files were not reused in the game, i.e. foliage from the deam sequences was retextured and used in the ending scene.

Matching the foliage from that file to that scen makes it a match. It's all the same

[jules_vern18]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

This is pathetic.  I'm out.

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

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.

If the Catalyst controls the Citadel, why did it need Shep and why did it allow Shep to open the arms?

That's a point towards IT.

[Hadeedak]

Why would Shepard be the only person in the history of the game capable of shaking off Reaper influence?

Why do all 3 endings inform you, the player, directly from the gamemakers, that Shepard became a legend by ending the threat of the Reapers, breaking the fourth wall to do so, if in 2 endings you failed?

Why do the endings have ANY differences, let alone fairly important ones (Citadel not blowing up, relays not exploding) if it's all a dream?

In fact, why do synthesis and control Shepard have a dream about winning if they just lost forever? What's the point of that?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

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:

Because I don't stand with you doesn't mean I don't stand for nothing. But what I stand for, is irrelevant to whether IT has any merit or not.

[Sisterofshane]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane 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.

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.

Not necessarily.  I think that even if the EC comes out and invalidates IT, the cultists will continue insisting that it's true and that the final proof is still coming.  I don't think that a single condition exists under which believers in IT could accept that their "theory" is disproved...

...and therefore it's not a logical theory.  It's a belief.

While there are instances of this happening in everyday life (think of the people who try to predict the end of the world, and then when it doesn't come don't admit they're wrong, rather that it was just a test of their faith), that doesn't mean that the theory as a whole (in our example, the theory that the world may end) is debunked.

There will still be a metaphorical interpretation of the ending (and a pretty good one, at that).  The idea that the ending will "continue" afterwards is what will be debunked.  It doesn't render the rest of the evidence moot.

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 13 mai 2012 - 07:22 .

[balance5050]

 

[hoodaticus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane 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.

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.

Not necessarily.  I think that even if the EC comes out and invalidates IT, the cultists will continue insisting that it's true and that the final proof is still coming.  I don't think that a single condition exists under which believers in IT could accept that their "theory" is disproved...

...and therefore it's not a logical theory.  It's a belief.

You are seriously confused.  Falsifiability is for scientific endeavors - it is not a sine qua non of logic itself.  It has no place in art or literary interpretation.  It is completely unamenable to "totality of the circumstances" analysis, which is based on the relative plausibility of claims being made in light of all the facts.

The fact that you don't see this is evidence that you do not have experience arguing literary interpretation - your experience is in the scientific method.  As the axiom says, "To a man who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

This is not science.  This is art.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 13 mai 2012 - 07:24 .

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

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?

It does counter or argue the point you were trying to make...You just being condescending.

What's your point of arguing for IT then?

[dreman9999]

Orange Tee wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

The evidence is the Earth concrete. 

I actually hate this part of the evidence of the IT, it could also very well be the Citadel considering there are clearly metallic parts.

We should assume the Citadel is crashing into Earth.

I agree. Even I , who is pro IT can see it not really proof. We don't know where Shep is. The other 2 theaories of IT can have Shep on the citadel.

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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?

It does counter or argue the point you were trying to make...You just being condescending.

What's your point of arguing for IT then?

None...I just wanted to call you
condescending.