![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
yeah, no
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
Inference isn't faith. The book being right about one thing because it would be ridiculous for it to be wrong about that thing isn't holding that it has 100% accuracy about everything. Assuming that Calliope didn't interpret something incorrectly when there was little reason for it to be ambiguous, and when she's generally less certain about her theoretical interpretations than the things she knows as facts, isn't taking it on faith. I mean, yeah, it's taking it on faith in that we don't actually know as for a definite fact that these are the case, but, there are reasonable allotments for inference. Tangent about that
Also, uh, "abilities Light hasn't shown in the comic".
Okay, okay, let's see.
Fortune? Nobody's disputing that.
Relevance? Insert everything Vriska has ever done, a lot of what Aranea's done; this one's a bit more difficult to demonstrate with powers, but probably what Aranea was trying to do with the doomed timeline; that said, it's screamingly obvious from character actions and dialogue.
Information? Insert the picture of Vriska gazing into the Cueball. Not buying that as a Light power? Insert the picture of Rose gazing into the Cueball. In case anybody's forgotten, the symbol in her eye, and shape that she sees the answer through, is the Light symbol. View, also, basically every other thing Rose has done up until going grimdark.
See, also, inferences from Void- Oh wait I'm sorry that's supporting a theory with itself, which, is apparently bad form somehow.
Even if you don't buy that Rose could use her Seer of Light powers to gather information, Rose could gather the information with, uh... Maybe the kinds of things she was gathering information with during most of her Session? In-game literature found on the Meteor, and in the dreambubbles?
Also, I mean, there's also all those other things that I brought up that make not believing that the book was accurate the more unreasonable conclusion, which is the exact opposite of expecting you to take it on faith, but hey whatever.
Also, uh, this. You need a reason to doubt something, just as you need a reason to believe something. That a generally reliable character in a piece of fiction says something, that is never challenged, and has no obvious reason to be false, is a reason to believe it. Other reasons to believe it: All that evidence I keep bringing up. So far, the reasons to disbelieve it that you've mentioned have been... That it could be wrong? That's not how it works.
I say SBURB like, well, sburb. Like spurb, except the p is a b.
:/
Addendum: Fixed a few typos, omissions, the [[labelnote]][[/note]] thing; what can I say, I'm tired.
edited 29th May '16 9:46:33 PM by RaichuKFM
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Also, 'Horrorterror influence' is an insufficient explanation because Alpha Rose had the same Voidy blackout thing going on- all pictures of her came out as just black, which annoyed paparazzi to no end.
edited 29th May '16 9:41:02 PM by Gilphon
New account is voidify
what raichu said. his opinion is pretty much exactly my opinion. except the [[labelnote]][[/note]] markup fail.
Did I miss a page? i don't remember that being said. Also Rose was perfectly viewable until grimdark happened
edited 29th May '16 9:40:34 PM by SmartGirl333
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
I am become shame.
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Speaking of people who pronounce it as Spurb (and are wrong), there's a new Let Me Tell You About Homestuck
. In this one they laugh a lot at Rose and Mom's ridiculous passive-aggressive oneupmanship, and go on many silly tangents.
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
Also, SmartGirl, the Alpha Rose that Gilphon mentions is B2 Rose, Roxy's mom. Roxy herself mentions the blacking out effect, and we see ourselves that she blacks out the screen on the appearifier in Roxy's basement, which is permaset to her.
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Avatar by Leafsnake
I thought Rose had affinity with the Horror Terrors because she sought them out. Feferi is the only other character to do that, but her interactions are different.
I need to discuss something that I think is at the root of our disagreement here.
I subscribe to the scientific method and various forms of skepticism, so the only reason you need to doubt a claim is "it has been made". Once the evidence has been provided you can upgrade that to "it is plausible".
So far the evidence I've been provided has been heavily unconvincing from that perspective: hearsay statements from unreliable characters, who got them out of sources we can't verify.
So no, I don't find it convincing.
edited 29th May '16 10:10:47 PM by CountDorku
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
You're being overly skeptical of the given evidence, but I'll drop that for a second.
I want to take a moment, to address something, about skepticism, about the scientific perspective on claims, and about logic itself.
You see, there's a crux here. And that crux is that, for every claim A, there is a claim !A.
The burden of proof is bullshit.
You need reason to believe something, yes; but you need reason to disbelieve something. That follows from the former. Believing A is disbelieving Not A.
What do you do if there isn't any evidence? You're right, you don't believe the claim.
But you don't disbelieve it either.
You simply don't believe it, just as you simply don't disbelieve it.
To disbelieve it, you need a reason to do so. You have provided none.
Your entire argument is that there are only weak reasons to believe that it's a thing; nevermind that this is arrived at by largely ignoring all the reasons we keep giving you that the evidence isn't that weak, and outright ignoring repeated other claims; but you've given no reason whatsoever why it should not be a thing, only reasons why it isn't definitely a thing.
Do you know what position that lends itself to? The position that it's probably a thing, but not by much.
I'm tired by people repeatedly getting this wrong.
The default stance isn't disbelieving a claim; it isn't believing it either; it's having no opinion whatsoever. Only evidence should influence that opinion. If there is only weak evidence for inversion and no evidence against, then the scales are tipped in the direction that it is a thing; only slightly so, but indeed so.
Again, I'm going to go back to the point about the only absolute certainty being cogito ergo sum. This applies to real life science. You see, it isn't correct science to only accept a theory when it's been completely proven. It's when it's better than the previous theory. You have to accept something that's wrong, because it's less wrong, and you can work with that one and other things to arrive at things in the future that aren't so wrong.
I'm sorry the fact is that science doesn't lend itself to such outright total skepticism as people want it to, but it doesn't. That would cripple it, as a method, and it would be logically inconsistent besides.
So, that said, do you have a reason to actually disbelieve inversion, or do you just want to keep devaluing the evidence for more than you should because of your skeptical confirmation bias?
edited 29th May '16 10:22:27 PM by RaichuKFM
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
So, Dorku, do you also not believe Dirk's account of how the world ended? Because the sources are a lot shakier on that front- he even admits to being unsure how accurate his information is at several points.
Well remember the story of how civilization collapsed is maybe the most patently ridiculous thing in the comic, which means it is practically guaranteed to be true.
My approach is that belief starts at 0 (total disbelief) and evidence is used to push it to 100 (utter proof). Parsimony is also used to modify it; complexity is fine if there's proof it's necessary, but in a vacuum, default to the simpler explanation. To be accepted, it needs to do better than the previous explanation. If I start from the claim that, to take a wild example, "Blood players can always fart the national anthem on cue", I don't see a reason to start at 50; I start with the assumption that this statement is useless, and if we see Karkat on screen farting the national anthem, we can move it up. If we see another couple of Blood players doing the same, that's going to push it a lot closer.
Your evidence has not moved me off 0. At most you have convinced me that it could explain the same things that my preexisting "just the horrorterrors" explanation does, but you haven't established that it's a better explanation. Let's look at the two chief pieces of evidence you've presented: altRose and Calliope's statements.
AltRose is actually not evidence in favour of either, because the horrorterror explanation applies just as effectively. We can see a pattern that post-Scratch ancestors tend to master what their pre-Scratch player selves did: altJohn made it big as a comedian, altDave made millions off SBAHJ, altKankri started his own religion. Now remember that eldritch lore is pretty explicitly tied to the horrorterrors, and that was one of Rose's main hobbies. So that one's a Null: could fit either, meaning that the more parsimonious explanation is generally more useful. And the most parsimonious explanation is the one that relies entirely on things we actually see exist in the comic: the horrorterrors.
Now to Calliope. Let's observe the path of Calliope's evidence, shall we?
We start with Rose. Her powers were so reliable in telling her the truth rather than indicating the optimal course of action with no context that her plan to destroy the Green Sun had an outcome that, while necessary, was exactly the opposite of her intention. I can accept that Light gives a form of heightened perception, as evidenced by her ability to see into the Cue Ball, but I'd stop short at accepting the claim that it permits foolproof fact-checking.
Now, on the Meteor, we have some books she can study. What's in those books? Are they reliable? Is there, in fact, any way to check their accuracy at all?
There are also experiments she could do in dreambubbles. Bear in mind we have no proof she did any of these experiments.
Now she writes her findings in a book, which falls into the hands of Gamzee, who edits it. We have no idea what these edits entailed.
So in other words, we have a claim based on a source that was of at best dubious reliability even before it was adulterated by a murderous clown.
Yeah, this is not influencing me away from my starting hypothesis of "no". Noticing that the evidence isn't valuable isn't the same thing as devaluing it.
edited 29th May '16 11:33:58 PM by CountDorku
We know exactly what Gamzee's edits of the book entailed. They entailed blocking out every mention of Lord English and himself. Gamzee wasn't exactly subtle about that. And we've also seen his previous, hilariously obvious and unsubtle attempts at imitating how other people talk, so it's not like he could've done more than that without Calliope noticing.
Alt Rose having dealing with Horror Terrors is unfounded speculation, but it having to do without Inversion is not- Calliope's talk about inversion was a direct attempt to explain why Alt Rose developed powers that seems voidy.
Surely you can understand we must give precedence to explanation the comic makes a point of giving us, rather than ones we just make up because they seem plausible? We're not talking about real world science here, after all. We're talking about a piece of fiction where every bit of exposition we're given exists for a reason, and usually the reason exposition exists is because it's a way of telling the audience things the author thinks we should know. That's why the burden of proof falls on the side saying the exposition false. It's an 'innocent until proven guilty' scenario.
Hussie has included false or misleading exposition before - Vriska's interpretation of her Aspect, for example. Or Calliope's own statements about Void, which weren't inaccurate, exactly, but they were far from complete.
Like, we have an explanation. It's not a proven explanation; it's simply an explanation, and everyone is going to form their own conclusions based on how reliable they find it. I do not find it very reliable, and that's really all there is to it.
I don't want to say that people can't believe inversion, exactly. Just that I'm sick of them expecting me to believe it.
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
Dorku, you're wrong. Objectively wrong. That doesn't make sense.
Consider the claim A. By your logic, in absence of evidence, you are to totally disbelieve A. Consider the claim B. By your logic, in absence of evidence, you are to totally disbelieve B. Do you disagree?
Now consider that you have a sphere, and a cube; you know that one is heavier than the other,note but you know the weights of neither, and cannot make an informed deduction just from your observations; you can only look at them, and their volume seems roughly equal.
Claim A is that the sphere is heavier. Claim B is that the cube is heavier.
If you totally disbelieve Claim A, that is to say, believe Not A, then you must believe Claim B. But, you mustn't believe Claim B, as you have no evidence it is heavier. So you must totally disbelieve Claim B, that is to say, believe Not B, i.e. Claim A.
This is a paradox.
Your views are logically inconsistent, and unscientific.
You are viewing disbelief incorrectly. It is not the total absence of belief. On your scale, where zero is the default, total disbelief should be -100. Ie., certainty that it is not.
What zero is, is lack of any certainty whatsoever; in both directions. It is total nonbelief, the lack of belief that the claim is true, but the corresponding lack of belief that it is untrue.
People pretend it doesn't work this way, and dress it up with "positive" vs. "negative" claims, but that's a meaningless, arbitrary distinction, a distraction that, frankly, was only made up because skeptics wanted to feel better about their assumptions even though the proper initial assumption in lack of evidence is the agnostic one. This example, where neither can be said to be the positive, and neither the negative, demonstrates the flaw.
Do you get what I'm saying now?
Even if the evidence for inversion only pushes it to 1, that is above zero, and so believing that it probably isn't true, is being a bad skeptic.
You don't start at 50 (in my system, 0), because you already have evidence that that's not what Blood players can due. The statement itself is unlikely. That unlikeliness that's apparent on its face, is evidence against, Dorku. That's what's pushing it below the midpoint, that's why you should disbelieve it, not because there simply isn't any evidence for; but because there's evidence against.
That's why Russel's Teapot should be disbelieved, too, because a teapot in space is a silly idea!
I have given so much more than those over the course of this conversation but I can't even care to debate that, because I'm not going to convince you that the evidence is there, when you don't understand how evidence works.
The content of his edits has to do with himself. Why would he ever alter the bits about inversion? What line could he tactfully censor that led Calliope to the conclusion that she did, from what we can only presume would have been a book where nothing implying inversion came up?
Why is Rose being played by Doc Scratch evidence that her Seer powers failed her, when never was she lied to, simply misled? And when largely she didn't use Seer powers on him, as far as we can tell?
Why should we imagine that the books in SBURB, meant to teach the players about how the game works, should lie?
All your doubts are unreasonable! Parsimony with no other actual evidence against when there is evidence for, is not a decent argument! But you also don't have parsimony anyways, because your argument assumes that a bunch of things have to be wrong, when it's ridiculous that they should be wrong, whereas my argument just assumes Calliope was fucking correct when she said a system exists, when that system existing is the apparent crime against parsimony.
Whatever, I give up. I'm not arguing with you anymore. I said it was a fool's errand on the onset and guess what, it was.
I can also guarantee you won't agree with me about how evidence works, even though I gave a sound paradox, because it's never worked on people saying what you're saying before, and I can't imagine it's going to start working now.
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Vriska's interpretation of her aspect is pretty dead on- unless you're trying to argue that she doesn't have luck powers and steal the spotlight a bunch, or that those aren't Light things. Calliope also made it very clear that she didn't fully understand Void, and that she was intentionally with holding some things so as to not 'spoil the surprise' for Roxy.
I'm not saying you have to believe it, I'm saying the burden of proof is on you. If you have something that can actually prove the exposition is false, go ahead, I'm all ears, but you do kind of need that to be persuasive here.
edited 30th May '16 12:09:45 AM by Gilphon
Yeah, I don't care about this discussion any more. It's gone on long past the point of being interesting or entertaining, and the arguments have just degenerated into repeating the same points over and over again.
You guys go on believing it, I'll go on disbelieving it, and I'll try and avoid starting any fights about it again. If that's not acceptable to you guys, well, nothing forces me to engage you or respond.
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
Hey, at least I got a better formulation of my paradox out of it.
Silver lining!
But yeah jokes aside I guess that's fair. I won't attempt to force you into a discussion on it in the future, either. Not like there's hard feelings or anything, that would be silly.
edited 30th May '16 12:47:14 AM by RaichuKFM
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
New account is voidify
The definition of Light includes fortune which includes luck. Vriska wasn't wrong (Do not Quote Mine me on this. This is something I would never say under any other circumstances); she simply had a narrow view of what Light is. Light includes luck, information, and plot relevance. Vriska just mostly ignored the "information" part. It's not a paradox for an aspect to include more than one concept.
/sighs at the fact that everyone else had already developed entrenched opinions on this stuff his before he entered the fandom, so discussions like this end up being kind of futile.
...
You know, after a while these discussions kind of just start to blend together into a huge mess. I'm already confused and i've read through, what, three pages?
Is this stuff worth knowing? Do i dare ask for some clarification as to what this is about? Or is it better to leave it for now?
Also, have you lads had this conversation before? I feel like i have seen this discussion before.
I tend to not get into these debates, especially regarding theories, what is true and the like, which i guess is kind of weird considering that's the most of what you'll find on forums such as these...
Doesn't matter! Anyway, so what's the thing with classpects and inversion?
◥▶◀◤
hah, this guy. as soon as the storm of wordiness and excessive repetition calms down he asks for clarification.
in a nutshell, the Thread is degenerating to the point of endlessly rambling in the same stuff that has already been explained and proven at length, and people keep taking said stuff apart and interpreting it wrongly for the sake of being contrarian. wake me up when we'll talk about anime or something.
...
Anime, eh? So, how about that ACT 7?
Funny but not helpful
It would be weird if Calliope was wrong about inversion because it never substantially comes up again so she'd be wrong about a thing for no reason and leading to no repercussions.
Like its weird how much fighting there is over inversion considering what a non-entity it is.
Its a thing that happens sometimes and at one point Hussie devoted some exposition time to explicitly say its a thing that happens sometimes but then the story continued on as it had before.
Forever liveblogging the Avengers