bgroberts wrote...
As I said earlier, research does not prove something infallibly—it suggests. This is something which the Catalyst understands and why he admits that his solutions are and have been imperfect. He is a number crunching machine, however, and his research indicates and suggests that organics will create hostile synthetics with enough certainty that action is warranted. It may not be 100% certainty, he does not need to be a “god” and be omniscient, but he is a machine that has calculated extremely long odds and cannot afford to gamble. He may have been standing up much less firm ground at the very beginning, with only maybe a few thousands of years of experience, but since then he has amassed a very impressive set of case studies.
Which would be fine, if the Catalyst was suggesting that synthetic rebellion was a possible consequence. That it was probable. That it was considerably more likely than not, based on demonstrated evidence.
The Catalyst does no such thing. It gives no evidence. It gives no previous examples, or explains what its conclusion is based on even in the most abbreviated terms. It provides nothing, whilst maintaining that its conclusion is
the only possible conclusion that could ever happen, to the point of it being an inevitability. It contradicts itself, repeatedly, makes absolute assertions and then demands Shepard co-operate with them. And really, what evidence could it have? By its own admission, it purges advanced organic life before synthetics become a problem. Every cycle it reaps adds neither experience nor evidence, because the whole point is to prevent what it has definitvely concluded is going to happen. It could reap a thousand civilisations and gain nothing that supports what it is saying. The only cycles we know about are the current one and the previous, and neither support what it's concluded. If you're asking me to dismiss those inf avour of theoretical examples that are never mentioned but I should apparently assume support its case, uhm. No.
Anyone who conducts and publishes research along those lines should be torn an academic new one, because they have all the integrity of a damp sock. I could devote a lifetime of study towards a particular project, but if all I have to show for it by the end is "well, look, you'll just have to take my word for it",
nobody in their right mind should, and the Catalyst doesn't even manage that much
. That it's - assuming that it even is, since it makes no claim towards such itself that I can remember - basing this on billions of years of research means nothing to me. It has nothing to support what it's saying but platitudes and empty threats.
In short, the Catalyst is that guy that has an extremely awesome thesis paper backed up by years of research, dozens of sources, and a number of statistically reliable studies while you are the slacker with an eight page paper you wrote overnight that sources Wikipedia and a few three page articles. You're paper may not be any less “true”, but your one dubious study that disagrees with the Catalyst's two dozen peer-reviewed and reliable studies does not stake a competent position.
No it doesn't, and no we're not. The Catalyst provides nothing -
nothing - to support what it's asserting. Nothing. In this case, the Catalyst might have an exceptional thesis paper, and it may indeed be backed up by extensive supporting evidence, but neither presents any directly or when requested, whilst completely ignoring contradictory data that completely goes against what it has
absolutely concluded, beyond any doubt, with no alternatives whatsoever.
Sorry, but no. The Catalyst is a day-time TV guest who adamantly predicts the doom of society at the hands of murderous children, fueled by computer games. All hot air and weak, unsubstantiated arguments that reference some study sometime by some guy, that crumble under even the most rudimentary examination.
Modifié par bleetman, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .
...have it your way.
Retour en haut
...he is dead...as is everyone else...well...that went well...
