739 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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.

No it's not. It's a point that the Catalyst doesn't fully control the Citadel...

1. Two theories of IT  Has him not being real.
2.One theory has him being power less and just trying to get Shepard to let him use the crucible.

...
What you said is a point towards IT.

You're presuming Indoctrination as the only answer... you are trapped in a logical fallacy.

Present us with another answer then. cutie:wub:

[Iconoclaste]

dreman9999 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

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?

1.He's not.
2. He is still in the early stages and at the point is can be resisted.

Maybe you should make up your mind. He's been "prepared" for a looong time, object Rho and Reaper tech and such, so the "last attempt" with Harby's laser would "do the trick", yet now he's just at the "beginning stage' yet again Shepard's movements can be controlled remotely, but he still has all of his "willpower" and ideas, yet he's dreaming of a "destroy ending" he just never knew was even possible, etc.

Good nite, dreamers.

[balance5050]

 

[OH-UP-THIS!]

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

You're actually asking us?

FFS we DID NOT write this mess!!!

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

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?

1.He's not.
2. He is still in the early stages and at the point is can be resisted.

Maybe you should make up your mind. He's been "prepared" for a looong time, object Rho and Reaper tech and such, so the "last attempt" with Harby's laser would "do the trick", yet now he's just at the "beginning stage' yet again Shepard's movements can be controlled remotely, but he still has all of his "willpower" and ideas, yet he's dreaming of a "destroy ending" he just never knew was even possible, etc.

Good nite, dreamers.

Goodnight. you hero.

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Not a valid explanation.

Yes it is. Harbinger never kills Shepard for some reason....Andreapers can sense organics.

You're presuming he wants Shep killed. Arrival points that he wants him very much alive. Secondly, you presume he senses Shep on Earth.

[dreman9999]

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

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.

IT is not structured as literary interpretation; it is structured as a hypothesis supported by enumerated "facts." 

And no, falsifiability/refutability is not restricted to science...it is also used as a test for assertions of fact in logical arguments. 

And IT can absolutely be tested - I think an appropriate test would be the content of the EC.  But if believers in IT don't see that as an adequate test, then I would like to know what is.

If you are presenting a theory and are unwilling or unable to set parameters for refutability, then it is not a "theory" in a strictly logical sense... It's more like an argument between an athiest and a devout Christian about the existance of God.

It is a theory on the same level of  infallibility as the theory of relativity.
Your porblem is that it can't be test ed as being wrong....But you missing the fact that there many theories that arethe same way....That what makes it a theory. The theory of evolution can't be tested as well. Being untestable is what stops a theory form being a law till it's proven rong.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Not a valid explanation.

Yes it is. Harbinger never kills Shepard for some reason....Andreapers can sense organics.

You're presuming he wants Shep killed. Arrival points that he wants him very much alive. Secondly, you presume he senses Shep on Earth.

Harbinger kills every one with one hit except Shepard.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:36 .

[CavScout]

[quote]balance5050 wrote...
[quote]CavScout wrote...
So if you aren't trying to prove anything what are you doing? collecting cancer causing bad vibes?
[/quote]
How does this support IT?[/quote]
Because of this link between the dreams, the geth consensus, and the final indoc attempt.
[/quote]

How does attacking me do such a thing?

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Not a valid explanation.

Yes it is. Harbinger never kills Shepard for some reason....And reapers can sense organics.

You're presuming he wants Shep killed. Arrival points that he wants him very much alive. Secondly, you presume he senses Shep on Earth.

...That's my point.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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.

No it's not. It's a point that the Catalyst doesn't fully control the Citadel...

1. Two theories of IT  Has him not being real.
2.One theory has him being power less and just trying to get Shepard to let him use the crucible.

...
What you said is a point towards IT.

You're presuming Indoctrination as the only answer... you are trapped in a logical fallacy.

Present us with another answer then. cutie:wub:

You're quoting my answer. Maybe you should read it.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

How does attacking me do such a thing?

Not attacking just presenting the link between the dreams, the geth consensus, and the final indoc attempt. 

http://desmond.image...pg&res=landing 
 
 

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:37 .

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

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?

1.He's not.
2. He is still in the early stages and at the point is can be resisted.

Maybe you should make up your mind. He's been "prepared" for a looong time, object Rho and Reaper tech and such, so the "last attempt" with Harby's laser would "do the trick", yet now he's just at the "beginning stage' yet again Shepard's movements can be controlled remotely, but he still has all of his "willpower" and ideas, yet he's dreaming of a "destroy ending" he just never knew was even possible, etc.

Good nite, dreamers.

....You do know the theory always has him in the process of indoctriantion?

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...IT is not structured as literary interpretation; it is structured as a hypothesis supported by enumerated "facts." 

And no, falsifiability/refutability is not restricted to science...it is also used as a test for assertions of fact in logical arguments. 

And IT can absolutely be tested - I think an appropriate test would be the content of the EC.  But if believers in IT don't see that as an adequate test, then I would like to know what is.

If you are presenting a theory and are unwilling or unable to set parameters for refutability, then it is not a "theory" in a strictly logical sense... It's more like an argument between an athiest and a devout Christian about the existance of God.

It is a theory on the same level of  infallibility as the theory of relativity.
Your porblem is that it can't be test ed as being wrong....But you missing the fact that there many theories that arethe same way....That what makes it a theory. The theory of evolution can't be tested as well. Being untestable is what stops a theory form being a law till it's proven rong.

No.. no you didn't just elevate Indoctrination Theory to the level of the Theory of Relativity... no...no...

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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.

No it's not. It's a point that the Catalyst doesn't fully control the Citadel...

1. Two theories of IT  Has him not being real.
2.One theory has him being power less and just trying to get Shepard to let him use the crucible.

...
What you said is a point towards IT.

You're presuming Indoctrination as the only answer... you are trapped in a logical fallacy.

Present us with another answer then. cutie:wub:

You're quoting my answer. Maybe you should read it.

That was not another awnser for the ending...

[hoodaticus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

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.

IT is not structured as literary interpretation; it is structured as a hypothesis supported by enumerated "facts." 

And no, falsifiability/refutability is not restricted to science...it is also used as a test for assertions of fact in logical arguments. 

And IT can absolutely be tested - I think an appropriate test would be the content of the EC.  But if believers in IT don't see that as an adequate test, then I would like to know what is.

If you are presenting a theory and are unwilling or unable to set parameters for refutability, then it is not a "theory" in a strictly logical sense... It's more like an argument between an athiest and a devout Christian about the existance of God.

IT states that the ending we have did not really happen because it is logically impossible.  The content of the EC has nothing to do with it.

Again you try to make everything about falsifiability, as if this is a scientific debate.  It is not.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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.

No it's not. It's a point that the Catalyst doesn't fully control the Citadel...

1. Two theories of IT  Has him not being real.
2.One theory has him being power less and just trying to get Shepard to let him use the crucible.

...
What you said is a point towards IT.

You're presuming Indoctrination as the only answer... you are trapped in a logical fallacy.

Present us with another answer then. cutie:wub:

You're quoting my answer. Maybe you should read it.

"You're presuming Indoctrination as the only answer."

Tell me more.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Not a valid explanation.

Yes it is. Harbinger never kills Shepard for some reason....Andreapers can sense organics.

You're presuming he wants Shep killed. Arrival points that he wants him very much alive. Secondly, you presume he senses Shep on Earth.

Harbinger kills every one with one hit except Shepard.

Except for those who are retreating....

[Hadeedak]

Even early stages like Rana in ME1... You don't break free. At best, if you're very strong willed, you commit suicide. If Shepard's indoctrinated, then he'd be the first person to actually be able to fight back against the Reapers. If he's influenced by them enough to be having visions, he's indoctrinated. If that's the case... Well, critical mission failure. And Shepard doesn't become a legend by ending the reaper threat.

Unless this is some form of special, unique indoctrination we've never seen or heard about before. That treats the subject with much more care and gives them more freedom then ever.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Not a valid explanation.

Yes it is. Harbinger never kills Shepard for some reason....Andreapers can sense organics.

You're presuming he wants Shep killed. Arrival points that he wants him very much alive. Secondly, you presume he senses Shep on Earth.

Harbinger kills every one with one hit except Shepard.

Except for those who are retreating....

Stand there for hours and no one retreats. Strange cowardice mindset you have.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:40 .

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...IT is not structured as literary interpretation; it is structured as a hypothesis supported by enumerated "facts." 

And no, falsifiability/refutability is not restricted to science...it is also used as a test for assertions of fact in logical arguments. 

And IT can absolutely be tested - I think an appropriate test would be the content of the EC.  But if believers in IT don't see that as an adequate test, then I would like to know what is.

If you are presenting a theory and are unwilling or unable to set parameters for refutability, then it is not a "theory" in a strictly logical sense... It's more like an argument between an athiest and a devout Christian about the existance of God.

It is a theory on the same level of  infallibility as the theory of relativity.
Your porblem is that it can't be test ed as being wrong....But you missing the fact that there many theories that arethe same way....That what makes it a theory. The theory of evolution can't be tested as well. Being untestable is what stops a theory form being a law till it's proven rong.

No.. no you didn't just elevate Indoctrination Theory to the level of the Theory of Relativity... no...no...

I said  in  infallibility. That means we can't test it. I can't  really build a rocket that moves at the speed of light.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...IT is not structured as literary interpretation; it is structured as a hypothesis supported by enumerated "facts." 

And no, falsifiability/refutability is not restricted to science...it is also used as a test for assertions of fact in logical arguments. 

And IT can absolutely be tested - I think an appropriate test would be the content of the EC.  But if believers in IT don't see that as an adequate test, then I would like to know what is.

If you are presenting a theory and are unwilling or unable to set parameters for refutability, then it is not a "theory" in a strictly logical sense... It's more like an argument between an athiest and a devout Christian about the existance of God.

It is a theory on the same level of  infallibility as the theory of relativity.
Your porblem is that it can't be test ed as being wrong....But you missing the fact that there many theories that arethe same way....That what makes it a theory. The theory of evolution can't be tested as well. Being untestable is what stops a theory form being a law till it's proven rong.

No.. no you didn't just elevate Indoctrination Theory to the level of the Theory of Relativity... no...no...

He said it's untestable you charaka.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:42 .

[Hadeedak]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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.

So if you aren't trying to prove anything what are you doing? collecting cancer causing bad vibes?

How does this support IT?

Because of this link between the dreams, the geth consensus, and the final indoc attempt.


http://desmond.image...pg&res=landing 
 
 

What am I supposed to be seeing here?

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...IT is not structured as literary interpretation; it is structured as a hypothesis supported by enumerated "facts." 

And no, falsifiability/refutability is not restricted to science...it is also used as a test for assertions of fact in logical arguments. 

And IT can absolutely be tested - I think an appropriate test would be the content of the EC.  But if believers in IT don't see that as an adequate test, then I would like to know what is.

If you are presenting a theory and are unwilling or unable to set parameters for refutability, then it is not a "theory" in a strictly logical sense... It's more like an argument between an athiest and a devout Christian about the existance of God.

It is a theory on the same level of  infallibility as the theory of relativity.
Your porblem is that it can't be test ed as being wrong....But you missing the fact that there many theories that arethe same way....That what makes it a theory. The theory of evolution can't be tested as well. Being untestable is what stops a theory form being a law till it's proven rong.

No.. no you didn't just elevate Indoctrination Theory to the level of the Theory of Relativity... no...no...

I said  in  infallibility. That means we can't test it. I can't  really build a rocket that moves at the speed of light.

Does not make it better!

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Not a valid explanation.

Yes it is. Harbinger never kills Shepard for some reason....Andreapers can sense organics.

You're presuming he wants Shep killed. Arrival points that he wants him very much alive. Secondly, you presume he senses Shep on Earth.

Harbinger kills every one with one hit except Shepard.

Except for those who are retreating....

In the literal interpretation we are never shown anybody in the initial push to the beam "retreating".

We see people dying around us, and here Major Coates call the order to retreatt, but only after he says that the hammer forces have been "decimated".

I saw this as everyone who was running to the beam was killed (or assumed to be killed by Coates), and the subsequent "waves" of people then retreated.

So the theory still stands that Harbinger killed everyone that was headed towards the beam except for Shep (and apparently Anderson, which still makes no sense).