896 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

Sisterofshane wrote...
A scientific theory in a science fiction setting.

The rest of your argument is semantically flawed.  The IT attempts to explains the ending of the game as indoctrination, which we know within the game exists.  We observe the ending, and can apply both literal and metaphorical interpretations to it.

IT attempts to explain what happened in a highly surreal and ambiguous ending.  It is not the only way it can be explained.  Nothing has yet been confirmed nor denied. 

Personally I'm glad we're contributing to his hissy fit. He seems to want to be hissy, so I'm all too happy to oblige and do my part to help him out. In fact, I'm going to dedicate my next clue or piece of evidence in his honor. 

[Seboist]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If you think that  speculation can in any way be compared to a scientific theory, then you should go take some basic science classes.

The IT attempts to explain Shepard's indoctrination, which is not a verifiable fact, not the existence of Indoctrination in the Mass Effect universe, which is a verifiable fact.

The theory of evolution explains the observable fact that life changes over time.

A scientific theory in a science fiction setting.

The rest of your argument is semantically flawed.  The IT attempts to explains the ending of the game as indoctrination, which we know within the game exists.  We observe the ending, and can apply both literal and metaphorical interpretations to it.

IT attempts to explain what happened in a highly surreal and ambiguous ending.  It is not the only way it can be explained.  Nothing has yet been confirmed nor denied. 

Mass Effect has proven it's not science fiction but bottom of the barrel pulp schlock.

Look no further than the Lazarus plot from ME2 that's used as a cheap plot device to fast forward two years and nothing else. Where's the crisis of mortality? The exploration of other themes such as what may happen after death or the impact of such a medical breakthrough on society?

For that matter why isn't the theme of Shepard becoming a Cyborg explored either?

Any science fiction writer worth his salt would flat out laugh in the face of Walters and co for passing this off as "Sci-fi".

Modifié par Seboist, 16 juin 2012 - 04:14 .

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...



There is no evidence for it. Until anyone provides some, then it will be regarded as false.

Until any evidence to the contrary is provided, then their beilef in IT is valid.

Why is IT false?

If there is evidence against it, then you should have no trouble answering the question.

That's the most ridiculous thing you've said all night. 

That still isn't an answer to the question.

If IT is definitely false, absolutely incorrect, and certainly not true, you should have no trouble answering the question. If you can start a thread about how something is BS, then you should at least be able to back it up.

[KevShep]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

 The IT can not, nor ever will, be able to be compared to a scientific theory.

Nether will "bad writing" be compared to an ending with "speculations".

If its bad writing then they would not be screaming at the top of there lungs..."speculations"! Thats proof that the ending not bad writing but something else.

[UrgentArchengel]

Still haven't answered my question Cat. Why's that? Can't explain it?

[Catamantaloedis]

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...



There is no evidence for it. Until anyone provides some, then it will be regarded as false.

Until any evidence to the contrary is provided, then their beilef in IT is valid.

Why is IT false?

If there is evidence against it, then you should have no trouble answering the question.

That's the most ridiculous thing you've said all night. 

That still isn't an answer to the question.

If IT is definitely false, absolutely incorrect, and certainly not true, you should have no trouble answering the question. If you can start a thread about how something is BS, then you should at least be able to back it up.

The fact that there is no evidence is all the proof I need.

Or do people not need evidence when they make statements anymore?

[Iconoclaste]

KevShep wrote...
This so called evidence has wight. Remember that they wanted speculations...that means that there is something hidden or unclear about the ending other wise there is no reason for speculations. The only specilation that holds any truth is IT, because the "Its bad writing speculation" is just stupid.  In a span of 10 minutes of so called "bad writing" just happends to start in a dream like wake up scene with shepard. 

There has been lots of speculation on the different choices given in the end, and it finally calmed down, except for the IT which pursued ghosts and glitches in a strange mixture of self-blinding and auto congratulation. It's fun to see the pride put in the small discoveries of various botched elements of the game, but the same has been done over and over again when the first waves of players finished the game. They came here to discuss about genuine sci-fi questions regarding value of synthesis, destruction and control, and many had great ideas that held together somewhat elegantly. IT has gone beyond that point, lingering on the BSN for too long to be credited by the majority of players, who just resolved to calm waiting. Maybe they took some pride and pleasure in exposing their ideas, but not to the point seen on the IT thread, where most seem to enjoy reading their own posts. It has become narcissism to the point they cannot step back and look at themselves rationally, especially at that time of day when most reasonable people has gone to bed.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 16 juin 2012 - 04:19 .

[Sisterofshane]

And you can't prove me wrong without resorting to belittling and ad hominem.

[Catamantaloedis]

KevShep wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

 The IT can not, nor ever will, be able to be compared to a scientific theory.

Nether will "bad writing" be compared to an ending with "speculations".

If its bad writing then they would not be screaming at the top of there lungs..."speculations"! Thats proof that the ending not bad writing but something else.

If I wrote and ending as bad as ME3's and everyone thought it was the most brilliant thing ever because of some theory which I never intended, especially when money is involved, you can be sure that I will do everything to encourage such thought and attention on my product, even if it is as far from the truth as possible.

[Flashflame58]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The fact that there is no evidence is all the proof I need.

There is no evidence for or against IT.

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...



There is no evidence for it. Until anyone provides some, then it will be regarded as false.

Until any evidence to the contrary is provided, then their beilef in IT is valid.

Why is IT false?

If there is evidence against it, then you should have no trouble answering the question.

That's the most ridiculous thing you've said all night. 

That still isn't an answer to the question.

If IT is definitely false, absolutely incorrect, and certainly not true, you should have no trouble answering the question. If you can start a thread about how something is BS, then you should at least be able to back it up.

The fact that there is no evidence is all the proof I need.

Or do people not need evidence when they make statements anymore?

You have not provided any evidence, yet you state that their theory is false.

Or do you not hold yourself to the same standard as other people?

[Sisterofshane]

Seboist wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If you think that  speculation can in any way be compared to a scientific theory, then you should go take some basic science classes.

The IT attempts to explain Shepard's indoctrination, which is not a verifiable fact, not the existence of Indoctrination in the Mass Effect universe, which is a verifiable fact.

The theory of evolution explains the observable fact that life changes over time.

A scientific theory in a science fiction setting.

The rest of your argument is semantically flawed.  The IT attempts to explains the ending of the game as indoctrination, which we know within the game exists.  We observe the ending, and can apply both literal and metaphorical interpretations to it.

IT attempts to explain what happened in a highly surreal and ambiguous ending.  It is not the only way it can be explained.  Nothing has yet been confirmed nor denied. 

Mass Effect has proven it's not science fiction but bottom of the barrel pulp schlock.

Look no further than the Lazarus plot from ME2 that's used as a cheap plot device to fast forward two years and nothing else. Where's the crisis of mortality? The exploration of other themes such as what may happen after death or the impact of such a medical breakthrough on society?

For that matter why isn't the theme of Shepard becoming a Cyborg explored either?

Any science fiction writer worth his salt would flat out laugh in the face of Walters and co for passing this off as "Sci-fi".

I didn't say it was good science fiction, but it is nonetheless.
Hatred of the writers does not prove that IT is false.

[Catamantaloedis]

Flashflame58 wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The fact that there is no evidence is all the proof I need.

There is no evidence for or against IT.

If there is no evidence for it, then you can only assume that it does not exist.

Or can I assume that I am descended from Zeus? There is no evidence for it or against it.

[alec1898]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

They will tell you that the gun Shepard uses is proof of Indoctrination. Or the fact that Shepard is wearing different armor in the breath scene is proof of indoctrination.

You clearly dont know the evidence of IT if thats the kind of proof that you think we are looking at.

I read all of this so called "evidence". I'm simply pointing out some of the most ridiculous ones presented by your compatriots. 

So The Catalyst goes corporeal, and gain the correct colors of that kid from the beginning when being hit by the blast wave during control, while your gun changes for no apperantly reason in destroy when the explosion first hits you is for no reason other then it's a technical hiccup?  Explain please.

How is does (Damn spelling) "Your gun changes in the midst of an explosion" directly relate to indoctination at all?

Modifié par alec1898, 16 juin 2012 - 04:22 .

[wsandista]

laecraft wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Why is the IT false? If it is false then prove it false.

There is a planet in this galaxy which is made entirely of cheese. If this claim is false, then prove it false.

I have a better theory than IT. The entire series is a dream Shepard's watching while in coma after being hit by the Prothean beacon in ME1. This would explain all the plot an character inconsistences across the series, like Liara personality switch in ME2, Udina changing course in ME2, VS on Horizon, Shepard death and miraculous revival, characters behaving odd in ME3, deus ex in ME3, et cetera. If it's false, then prove it false.

I do not attempt to prove your theroy false. Cameltrollitis is trying to prove a theroy false.

[RADIUMEYEZ]

wsandista wrote...

RADIUMEYEZ wrote...

wsandista wrote...

I totally understand.

I got banned for this last time around.

OMG that is hilarious!

Yeah, definitely worth the ban.

Mine wasn't mine was for a stupid spiderman meme pic.

[Flashflame58]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Flashflame58 wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The fact that there is no evidence is all the proof I need.

There is no evidence for or against IT.

If there is no evidence for it, then you can only assume that it does not exist.

Or can I assume that I am descended from Zeus? There is no evidence for it or against it.

There are lots of things that "don't exist" that people believe in, with or without proof.

But if there is no proof to disprove something, then that means it isn't officially disproven.

Come back with some proof next time.

[HellishFiend]

wsandista wrote...

I do not attempt to prove your theroy false. Cameltrollitis is trying to prove a theroy false.

Theroy? As in Theroy Jenkins? :lol:

Best typo ever. 

Indoctrination Theory - the Theroy Jenkins of BSN!

[KevShep]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

 The IT can not, nor ever will, be able to be compared to a scientific theory.

Nether will "bad writing" be compared to an ending with "speculations".

If its bad writing then they would not be screaming at the top of there lungs..."speculations"! Thats proof that the ending not bad writing but something else.

If I wrote and ending as bad as ME3's and everyone thought it was the most brilliant thing ever because of some theory which I never intended, especially when money is involved, you can be sure that I will do everything to encourage such thought and attention on my product, even if it is as far from the truth as possible.

you got to remember that they wanted speculation WELL before release date.

 

[Iconoclaste]

First step is to prove, or try to prove, next one to disprove, or try to disprove. If first step is not completed adequatly, no need to go to step 2. Disproving of IT has been done along with each new "discovery", denial of rebuttal does not reinforce the so-called "facts" or "evidence" for IT.

[Sisterofshane]

laecraft wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Why is the IT false? If it is false then prove it false.

There is a planet in this galaxy which is made entirely of cheese. If this claim is false, then prove it false.

I have a better theory than IT. The entire series is a dream Shepard's watching while in coma after being hit by the Prothean beacon in ME1. This would explain all the plot and character inconsistences across the series, like Liara personality switch in ME2, Udina changing course in ME2, VS on Horizon, Shepard death and miraculous revival, characters, species, and Reapers behaving odd in ME3, deus ex in ME3, et cetera. If it's false, then prove it false.

The whole point of a theory is to base it upon some sort of observation, and come up with a hypothesis to explain said observation.  Then, using the scientific method, to either prove said theory either true or false.

An example of this was when people used to believe that Maggots were born of rotten food.  This was thought to be true until someone proved that the maggots came first from the flies that layed eggs in the rotten food.

The problem with IT is that the only way to prove it false will be the writers explicity stating that it is not what they intended.  Simply not liking it does not make it false.

[wsandista]

RADIUMEYEZ wrote...

wsandista wrote...

RADIUMEYEZ wrote...

wsandista wrote...

I totally understand.

I got banned for this last time around.

OMG that is hilarious!

Yeah, definitely worth the ban.

Mine wasn't mine was for a stupid spiderman meme pic.

Damn Spiderman!

[Catamantaloedis]

Sisterofshane wrote...

laecraft wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Why is the IT false? If it is false then prove it false.

There is a planet in this galaxy which is made entirely of cheese. If this claim is false, then prove it false.

I have a better theory than IT. The entire series is a dream Shepard's watching while in coma after being hit by the Prothean beacon in ME1. This would explain all the plot and character inconsistences across the series, like Liara personality switch in ME2, Udina changing course in ME2, VS on Horizon, Shepard death and miraculous revival, characters, species, and Reapers behaving odd in ME3, deus ex in ME3, et cetera. If it's false, then prove it false.

The whole point of a theory is to base it upon some sort of observation, and come up with a hypothesis to explain said observation.  Then, using the scientific method, to either prove said theory either true or false.

An example of this was when people used to believe that Maggots were born of rotten food.  This was thought to be true until someone proved that the maggots came first from the flies that layed eggs in the rotten food.

The problem with IT is that the only way to prove it false will be the writers explicity stating that it is not what they intended.  Simply not liking it does not make it false.

Not having any evidence for it proves it is wrong.

[KevShep]

Iconoclaste wrote...

First step is to prove, or try to prove, next one to disprove, or try to disprove. If first step is not completed adequatly, no need to go to step 2. Disproving of IT has been done along with each new "discovery", denial of rebuttal does not reinforce the so-called "facts" or "evidence" for IT.

most evidence has... NOT been disproven. Its the opposite. Infact I see more and more people going the direction of IT.