Somewhere in 40k an ARM commander builds a metal extractor

[NecronLord]

I have provided my source, including a helpful link to the original. You have not disproven it, you have simply sat there and declared it non-canon based on your own flawed understanding of what's changed in necron background, the source is canon until you get me an authentic quote from a senior GW staffer, or a new source that directly contradicts it: new necrons can be made, provide this, or concede.

The source is canon only in so far as it is an in-universe report. I don't doubt the Elysians made such a report. Whether they are accurate as to what the nature of the facility was or the nature of their attackers is more debateable, because as I have stated, all in-universe sources are potentially fallible and unreliable. It is an anecdotal report of what happened to them.

Bollocks. Frankly, Bollocks.

Where the fuck is the contradiction of my evidence? I have shown evidence; now you must disprove that evidence. Do so or concede.

If you are talking about the original "work in progress list" by Rick Priestley, I am aware of what it says there. Yes in that list it does mention the Necrons being the result of minds being moved into metallic bodies. That list came out in 1999 before the Chapter Approved 2001 list (there are differences and there is a lack of wargear). For your information such article is listed here:

Yes, I know. Normally I would delete that link from your post and add a little reminder of PR2, while no longer current, that is still directly linking to an illegal copy of copyrighted material, but as I'm actually your opponent here I will refrain from doing so. I ask that you do not post direct links to such material again.

But as of the writing of the Skopios Incident, during the 3rd War for Armageddon, these themes had not entirely disappeared, hence the description of an industrial production line of metal warriors. At the time of that writing, there had yet to be any mention of energy to matter construction of any Necron related technology.

Except that's not what you said:

[...]little more than Terminator style manufactured robots, rather than Necrontyr downloaded into metal bodies. The old background has been contradicted by the newer background and therefore is retconned

You based an argument on your idea that the necrons at the time of publishing were not envisioned to be necrontyr downloaded into metal bodies. I hope you now admit that does not actually fit the necron fluff at the time, which was then (and was in fact, originally) that they were aliens who had transferred their minds to machines.

[Iracundus]

Bollocks. Frankly, Bollocks.

I have explained my reasoning already. It is canon in so far as it was an in-universe report by the Elysians about their experiences. Does it necessarily mean their conclusions about the nature of what happened are correct? No. It means their account occurred but the veracity of their interpretations is debateable.

It is no different from the Tech-Priests' reports on gauss weaponry. The report occurred within the universe. It is canon in the sense that there was a report. Does it mean their conclusions about gauss weaponry are necessarily right? No.

The rationale is the same as applied to both these pieces. So in other words, the sources are canon in that they occurred and were written within the 40K universe, but their conclusions are suspect and cannot be taken as a given to be accurate.

Are you understanding this concept of the unreliable narrator or unreliable in-universe source? The canonicity of the existence of the source or the narrator is not the issue so much as the reliability of their in-universe conclusions. In-universe characters because they are limited by their in-universe knowledge limitations and biases do not have the omniscient God's eye viewpoint of the narrator that states "This is the way something is." At best in-universe characters and sources can say "I THINK this is the way things are." They may be right. They may be wrong. But unless there is such God's eye information elsewhere either backing up or showing the opposite, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the character's account is unreliable and their account is a statement of "maybe".

You based an argument on your idea that the necrons at the time of publishing were not envisioned to be necrontyr downloaded into metal bodies. I hope you now admit that does not actually fit the necron fluff at the time, which was then (and was in fact, originally) that they were aliens who had transferred their minds to machines.

Read my previous posts. I have clarified at greater length what I meant when I said they were like Terminators.

Now the only older sources is the original White Dwarf 216/217 but my copy of that is in deep storage and not readily accessible. If you wish to pore over that and debate that wording then someone will need to be able to find the relevant parts about whether or not there was any transfer of consciousness mentioned.

[Iracundus]

Another example of potential unreliable source re: the Necrons is within the Battlefleet Gothic, BFG, background wherein some Orks claim to have encountered a vast Necron ship, bigger even than the standard battleship sized Necron tomb ship. It is canon that some Orks claim this. Whether or not it actually happened or whether the ship was truly as big as they claim or whether this was exaggerated in the telling is not known. The Ork accounts would therefore also be classed as unreliable sources. Is the existence of such a vast ship confirmed by any other sources? No. Can we therefore conclude the Necrons necessarily must have this huge vast ship bigger than a battleship? No.

[NecronLord]

I have explained my reasoning already. It is canon in so far as it was an in-universe report by the Elysians about their experiences. Does it necessarily mean their conclusions about the nature of what happened are correct? No. It means their account occurred but the veracity of their interpretations is debateable.

It is no different from the Tech-Priests' reports on gauss weaponry. The report occurred within the universe. It is canon in the sense that there was a report. Does it mean their conclusions about gauss weaponry are necessarily right? No.

The rationale is the same as applied to both these pieces. So in other words, the sources are canon in that they occurred and were written within the 40K universe, but their conclusions are suspect and cannot be taken as a given to be accurate.

Are you understanding this concept of the unreliable narrator or unreliable in-universe source? The canonicity of the existence of the source or the narrator is not the issue so much as the reliability of their in-universe conclusions.

I am understanding. But your idea that you can dismiss a source you don't like because the narrator is unreliable is sophistic at best, dishonest at worst. In that manner, entire books can be dismissed wholesale, I have sitting on my desk "Imperial Armour 11, The Doom of Mymeara" which is presented as an in universe inquisitorial report; despite being highly expansive, with detailed pictures, diagrams, maps, charts, timescales, and about seventy pages of report, you would have it entirely dismissible (or retainable, as no doubt you would also keep sources that you like) at your leisure by sophistic-ally questioning the competence of the fictional writer. I demand something better, I demand evidence of this supposed retcon, not merely your say so.

Where the fuck is the contradiction of my evidence? I have shown evidence; now you must disprove that evidence. Do so or concede.

[NecronLord]

Another example of potential unreliable source re: the Necrons is within the Battlefleet Gothic, BFG, background wherein some Orks claim to have encountered a vast Necron ship, bigger even than the standard battleship sized Necron tomb ship. It is canon that some Orks claim this. Whether or not it actually happened or whether the ship was truly as big as they claim or whether this was exaggerated in the telling is not known. The Ork accounts would therefore also be classed as unreliable sources. Is the existence of such a vast ship confirmed by any other sources? No. Can we therefore conclude the Necrons necessarily must have this huge vast ship bigger than a battleship? No.

There is a difference between something said in the source to be unreliable, and something presented as a reliable (multiple accounts!) in-universe source.

In point of fact the orks may indeed have been correct. We now know of planet sized Necron "ships" (world engines).

[Iracundus]

I am understanding. But your idea that you can dismiss a source you don't like because the narrator is unreliable is sophistic at best, dishonest at worst. In that manner, entire books can be dismissed wholesale, I have sitting on my desk "Imperial Armour 11, The Doom of Mymeara" which is presented as an in universe inquisitorial report; despite being highly expansive, with detailed pictures, diagrams, maps, charts, timescales, and about seventy pages of report, you would have it entirely dismissible (or retainable, as no doubt you would also keep sources that you like) at your leisure by sophistic-ally questioning the competence of the fictional writer. I demand something better, I demand evidence of this supposed retcon, not merely your say so.

I said the source is unreliable. I did not dismiss it out of hand.

And yes for the Doom of Mymeara book, all of the in-universe reports are unreliable, without exception. I do not cherry pick. Any and all in-universe reports are unreliable unless confirmed by out of universe narrator sources. If you know the 40K Imperium's background, you should be aware that records are re-written, redacted, or censored as suits the needs of the Imperium's various organizations. The Imperial Armour books on the aftermath of the Astral Claws' rebellion is a case in point:

On returning to Holy Terra, and with his last act before he discharged his legatine authority, Inquisitor Jarndyce Frain ordered an Edict of Obliteration to be carried out under the auspices of the Adeptus Terra in regards to the Astral Claws, the Tiger Claws, and their master Lugft Huron. The task therefore began of wiping their accursed name and their sins from the pages of Imperial history. Sanitised and altered versions of the events of the war began to enter the official record, distorting nomenclature and reference as the first stage of eventual total purgation, while an Inquisition enforced data-pogrom to unmake extraneous or morally unworthy facts concerning the Badab War was conducted.
p. 52, Imperial Armour Ten

In such a universe, with such a practice, ALL in-universe sources without exception are unreliable except where backed up by existing background or narratives given from an omniscient narrator.

I am consistent in this approach. Your unreliable source is no different from all these other unreliable sources in that regard.

There is a difference between something said in the source to be unreliable, and something presented as a reliable (multiple accounts!) in-universe source.

In point of fact the orks may indeed have been correct. We now know of planet sized Necron "ships" (world engines).

Multiple in-universe accounts do not necessarily make something true any more than for example having a lot of people believe in a flat Earth makes the Earth flat. The number of people that believe something has no bearing on whether it is true or false. That is the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity or belief.

If the Orks had seen a World Engine as the basis of their account, and the existence of World Engines is backed up (which it is through the SM Codex narrator POV), then the Orks' account would be true. However this is on the basis of the third person eye of God narrator provided evidence.

[NecronLord]

In such a universe, with such a practice, ALL in-universe sources without exception are unreliable except where backed up by existing background or narratives given from an omniscient narrator.

I am consistent in this approach. Your unreliable source is no different from all these other unreliable sources in that regard.

Good. Then the source is as good as many others.

Where the fuck is the contradiction of my evidence? I have shown evidence; now you must disprove that evidence. Do so or concede.

[Iracundus]

Good. Then the source is as good as many others.

Correction: The source is as unreliable as many others, in the absence of third party Eye of God narrator evidence.

You are failing to apply the same standards as applied to all these other in-universe sources.

The Elysians claiming to have seen certain things is equivalent to those Orks claiming to have seen huge Necron ships. The Ork account is backed up by 3rd party narrator evidence. The Elysian account isn't.

[NecronLord]

Good. Then the source is as good as many others.

Correction: The source is as unreliable as many others, in the absence of third party Eye of God narrator evidence.

And where is the Omniscient Narrator piece that contradicts this?

Unless you claim to be able to rule any in-universe source inadmissible on no evidence based on being Iracundus, you must have one, right? Or are you saying that anything written in-universe is completely inadmissible evidence? (Edit: Don't bother answering this; show me the omniscient narrator piece)

[Iracundus]

And where is the Omniscient Narrator piece that contradicts this?

Fallacy of requesting negative proof there.

Or are you saying that anything written in-universe is completely inadmissible evidence?

That is correct, unless such in-universe evidence is backed up by Eye of God 3rd party narrator POV showing that this is the true state of affairs in that universe. The Ork claim is backed up by narrator evidence in another source so is admissible. As I stated before, I am consistent. ALL in-universe sources are unreliable unless backed up by an 3rd party narrator's account or evidence. In other words, the need for positive proof backing up the claim. Where there is such supporting evidence, then of course the in-universe account can then be accepted except for any parts that contradict the omniscient narrator evidence (since in-universe sources can be partially right about a topic).

[NecronLord]

And where is the Omniscient Narrator piece that contradicts this?

Fallacy of requesting negative proof there.

Requesting a disproof is not demanding a proof of negative.

I have shown my proof, it is the Skopios incident piece.

Now to advance a theory that contradicts the evidence of the Skopios piece you must disprove it.

Provide your disproof.

Negative proof is where one makes an unsupported claim ("All orks are in fact very cultured, articulate and intelligent, they just act like barbarians for fun") and demand that the opponent prove otherwise. This source will be helpful in understanding the fallacy; see the section entitled: "When proof is presented." I have shown my source. Now you must show your counter-evidence.

[Iracundus]

Requesting a disproof is not demanding a proof of negative.

I have shown my proof, it is the Skopios incident piece.

And I have explained the reasoning that all in-universe accounts are taken as unreliable until proven otherwise. That is what has not been proven. You have done the equivalent of providing the Ork claim of seeing big ships, but have not shown evidence that their claim is anything more than wild misreporting. Can you provide the equivalent of the narrator evidence showing the existence of World Engines? That is when the in-universe account becomes admissible evidence.

It seems you are taking the exact opposite approach of assuming all in-universe accounts as reliable unless proven unreliable. The flaws in such a methodology especially in the 40K universe where in-universe institutions re-write histories and reports I showed in the reference to Imperial Armour Ten.

[NecronLord]

It seems you are taking the exact opposite approach of assuming all in-universe accounts as reliable unless proven unreliable.

I am assuming they are admissable evidence until contradicted

There is a world of difference between "unreliable" (open to dispute) and what you seem to be using it to mean, which as near as I can tell is "unreliable" (just plain wrong) by your standard all of IA11 is just plain wrong until proven otherwise by another source.

[Iracundus]

I am assuming they are admissable evidence until contradicted

There is a world of difference between "unreliable" (open to dispute) and what you seem to be using it to mean, which as near as I can tell is "unreliable" (just plain wrong) by your standard all of IA11 is just plain wrong until proven otherwise by another source.

And that is where our fundamental positions differ. I explained my systematic approach already: that since all in-universe sources are unreliable, they are inadmissable as evidence unless supported by other out of universe evidence, such as an omniscient narrator POV.

Unreliable doesn't mean "wrong" but it means "maybe right, maybe wrong" and a "maybe" is not usable as evidence to support another point. Evidence needs to be more than just a "maybe".

I showed above that given the nature of the 40K universe, where institutions routinely re-write records entirely, assuming in-universe sources as admissable evidence as a default can lead to errors.

[NecronLord]

And that is where our fundamental positions differ. I explained my systematic approach already: that since all in-universe sources are unreliable, they are inadmissable as evidence unless supported by other out of universe evidence, such as an omniscient narrator POV.

Unreliable doesn't mean "wrong" but it means "maybe right, maybe wrong" and a "maybe" is not usable as evidence to support another point. Evidence needs to be more than just a "maybe".

To use your court metaphor, this is like saying that because the possibility of a witness lying exists, a court should not permit witnesses to take the stand.

[Iracundus]

And that is where our fundamental positions differ. I explained my systematic approach already: that since all in-universe sources are unreliable, they are inadmissable as evidence unless supported by other out of universe evidence, such as an omniscient narrator POV.

Unreliable doesn't mean "wrong" but it means "maybe right, maybe wrong" and a "maybe" is not usable as evidence to support another point. Evidence needs to be more than just a "maybe".

To use your court metaphor, this is like saying that because the possibility of a witness lying exists, a court should not permit witnesses to take the stand.

That wouldn't be an accurate metaphor.

A more appropriate analogy would be since the possibility of a witness being unreliable exists, there should be the backing of other evidence that supports the witness accounts before convicting someone. Without supporting evidence, the witness can give their testimony but it would be insufficient to convict (insufficient to act as evidence for a point). One for example does not convict someone on conspiracy to commit murder just based on one witness testimony.

[NecronLord]

That wouldn't be an accurate metaphor.

A more appropriate analogy would be since the possibility of a witness being unreliable exists, there should be the backing of other evidence that supports the witness accounts before convicting someone. Without supporting evidence, the witness can give their testimony but it would be insufficient to convict (insufficient to act as evidence for a point). One for example does not convict someone on conspiracy to commit murder just based on one witness testimony.

My source mentions "multiple accounts." There are multiple in-universe witnesses to the murder of your argument, not just one.

[Iracundus]

My source mentions "multiple accounts." There are multiple in-universe witnesses to the murder of your argument, not just one.

The number of believers in a theory doesn't make something more true. The majority of the world can believe they see the moon as neon green. It still wouldn't be so.

That is the fallacy of trying to appeal to popularity:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Also the issue is of multiple "in-universe" accounts. Out of universe, i.e. an omniscient narrator, is what counts. Again in an Imperium that went on to fabricate and re-write the history of an entire war (in Imperial Armour Ten), the existence of multiple in-universe accounts of something is no indication of something's veracity. All of those in-universe accounts could have been re-written, or also simply mistaken in themselves since they are also themselves in-universe sources.

I stated the system I am using:
1. All in-universe sources without exception are unreliable unless backed up by "out of universe"" evidence such as a 3rd party omniscient narrator POV.
2. So long as a source is unreliable, it is inadmissable as evidence in support of or in refutation of anything else.

Using in-universe sources to try and back up other in-universe sources is using unreliable sources as evidence to make reliable other unreliable sources. The very sources trying to be used as evidence have yet to themselves be shown to be reliable.

Simply having lots of witnesses but no other concrete evidence makes for a shaky legal case. If for example, there was murder, there should be some physical objective evidence besides just witness testimony.

[NecronLord]

Again you misuse a logical fallacy. Appeal to popularity doesn't apply to people who gather data (an appeal to the "popularity" of all reputable climate scientists agreeing on climate change is not an appeal to popularity fallacy) in the context of an investigation of this nature, an eye-witness (IE an Elysian guardsman) is the investigator, and their collected observations form a scientific (in this case, historical, not scientific) consensus as to what was happening on Skopios.

[Iracundus]

Again you misuse a logical fallacy. Appeal to popularity doesn't apply to people who gather data (an appeal to the "popularity" of all reputable climate scientists agreeing on climate change is not an appeal to popularity fallacy) in the context of an investigation of this nature, an eye-witness (IE an Elysian guardsman) is the investigator, and their collected observations form a scientific (in this case, historical, not scientific) consensus as to what was happening on Skopios.

Climate researchers would be able to present data, objective evidence which can then be examined by someone else or the study replicated by someone else.

The legal metaphor is a more accurate one because what is being given is multiple laymen accounts (they are soldiers not technical specialists). Legally, simply having many eye witness accounts but not a shred of any other evidence makes for a shaky case.

Even historical accounts of events can be shaky, hence why history backed up by archeology is better than history based on just accounts of witnesses (or passed down recollections from witnesses down the generations). The difference however is that unlike a fictional universe, there is no real life omniscient narrator able to tell us what was the true story and state of affairs, so real life is left to try and piece together and try to reconcile disparate accounts and search for supporting physical evidence.

You didn't address though main point of the previous post:

Something which itself has not been shown to be reliable cannot be used as evidence to show something else is reliable. It is using something unproven to try and prove something else which is also unproven. Having a chain of unreliable accounts pointing to each other does not prove anything since they are themselves unreliable. Can they be shown to be reliable through some 3rd party narrator source? If not then it still boils down to the original case: that of some in-universe accounts that are unreliable in the absence of other supporting evidence.

[NecronLord]

You didn't address though main point of the previous post:

Yes, I'm trimming down your posts, because your posts are invariably bigger than mine, I have limited time, and I want to keep you focussed on the actual dispute. Not that there is a dispute now, there's just you refusing to accept sources. There's a whole interesting tangent about 2nd ed gauss flayers that I didn't mention for example, because I want to keep you on topic.

Something which itself has not been shown to be reliable cannot be used as evidence to show something else is reliable. It is using something unproven to try and prove something else which is also unproven. Having a chain of unreliable accounts pointing to each other does not prove anything since they are themselves unreliable. Can they be shown to be reliable through some 3rd party narrator source? Otherwise,

Otherwise it's like all the witnesses agreeing when the defense has no alibi, no forensic evidence of its own, calls no witnesses, and in fact, makes no case except saying "there was no security camera in the room so all these witnesses prove nothing" over and over again.

[Iracundus]

Otherwise it's like all the witnesses agreeing when the defense has no alibi, no forensic evidence of its own, calls no witnesses, and in fact, makes no case except saying "there was no security camera in the room so all these witnesses prove nothing" over and over again.

Someone posed such a question:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 602AAm4mUt

Now if you really want to pursue the legal matters I think one of the people answer posted a further link to legal stuff.

In short, the answer was: No, the prosecution doesn't have a strong case if they have only witness testimony and no forensic physical evidence of their own. The fallibility of eye witnesses is a known problem within the legal field and there are numerous professional legal and psychological publications and research on the subject if you wish to read further on that issue.

This supports my system:
Simply having lots of in-universe accounts doesn't make something true, when those same in-universe accounts have yet to be supported by any objective out of universe fact, such as that given by a narrator.

Something which is not proven reliable and true cannot be used to prove something else. It is a simple and logical system with which to approach issues. I do not see why you seem to have such issues with it. When something is unreliable, a maybe, the very fact it is unreliable means you cannot arbitrarily assume it to be true. If something is potentially untrue, how can it be used as evidence?

[NecronLord]

Someone posed such a question:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 602AAm4mUt

Now if you really want to pursue the legal matters I think one of the people answer posted a further link to legal stuff.

In short, the answer was: No, the prosecution doesn't have a strong case if they have only witness testimony and no forensic physical evidence of their own. The fallibility of eye witnesses is a known problem within the legal field.

Except of course, it's a fucking metaphor, dipshit. No fucking timeholes are opening to the fictional 41st millennium and spitting out concrete evidence (thankfully) of what necrons can or cannot do. No further investigation is possible. Your argument is that we should dismiss out of hand the only piece of evidence directly addressing your issue because it is "circumstantial" even when the same rule would also throw out multiple key pieces of important fluff like "there were twenty space marine legions."

You're fucking desperate to cling to this aren't you? You've resorted to everything from claiming massive changes in necron fluff to claiming that every single piece of background material written by an in universe source must be thrown out completely.

[Iracundus]

Except of course, it's a fucking metaphor, dipshit. No fucking timeholes are opening to the fictional 41st millennium and spitting out concrete evidence (thankfully) of what necrons can or cannot do. No further investigation is possible. Your argument is that we should dismiss out of hand the only piece of evidence directly addressing your issue because it is "circumstantial" even when the same rule would also throw out multiple key pieces of important fluff like "there were twenty space marine legions."

A metaphor which shows precisely the problem of your claim. You have presented the equivalent of a case of 10 people claiming someone committed murder, in the absence of any physical forensic evidence. Even if the defendant has no specific alibi, the prosecution would not have much of a case.

Further investigation by the reader in the 40K universe is possible: produce evidence of a 3rd party narrator saying stuff that corroborrates and makes reliable these multiple in-universe accounts.

Actually there are omniscient 3rd party sources showing there to have been twenty space marine legions. The identity of 2 of those might not be known, but the existence of 20 is not disputable.

To name just one:

During the Horus Heresy nine of the twenty Space Marine Legions then in existence sided with the Warmaster Horus.
p. 12, 2nd edition Chaos Codex

The narration of the Codex is by a 3rd party omniscient narrator. It is an out of universe viewpoint. All the in-universe parts in the Codex are marked as such and this is not one of them. Hence it supports and validates any in-universe accounts stating the same.

The rule works.

Where there is such evidence I accept then the in-universe account as reliable because it is supported by out of universe evidence. Can the same be shown for your multiple in-universe accounts to make them reliable accounts? I don't think so. If there is such, please produce it.

Also you have never addressed the question of why your approach of taking all in-universe sources as admissable evidence as a default should be used at all, given that it is outright stated that in-universe institutions re-write, censor, and expunge information from their accounts.

[Iracundus]

Oh and this policy I am using is not a new thing for this thread or for any responding poster. I have used this for 40K related debates elsewhere. I have always used such a policy of in-universe sources as unreliable and inadmissable unless backed up by other evidence. Given the 40K universe is a universe of ignorance (and ignorance is praised as a virtue), lies, and re-written truths, such a policy of skepticism has proven best in sorting out wheat from chaff.