On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[clicketykeys]

No: HPFGUIDX 47730

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> clicketykeys wrote:
> > I find it curious that we're not supposed to use metathinking in 
> > dealing with Pip's MD theory, when waaay back in post 39662 the first 
> > point made after the claim that the Voldemort-Potter war is a modern 
> > war fought undercover style:
> > 
> > > Non-British readers may be largely unaware that the 'United'  
> > > Kingdom was embroiled in a low-scale civil war for over 20 years of > > my and  JKR's life (1970's to 1990's). It's not surprising that her 
> > > fictional  civil war resembles the one she will have seen on the 
> > > news every day.
> > 
> > Now, unless someone is going to claim that Voldemort has been keeping 
> > an eye on mundane politics for the past however long and is basing 
> > his actions on what he learned there, this is an example of outside 
> > information being used to support MD, back at the very beginning. I 
> > am not claiming that this is a central pillar of support or anything, 
> > merely citing it as an example.
> > 

> Interestingly, your example is just that: *an* example. Pip used it to 
> help the readers get into position. She does not claim that Voldemort 
> is involved with the IRA, nor that their goals are similar, nor any 
> other similarity. Only that JKR might have drawn from her own 
> experience to create that war, instead of the traditional armies style 
> warfare.

Right. This is the first point made in support of the assumption that 
the V/P war is that type of war. MD is /founded/ on that assumption.


> IIRC, no other mention is made of that similarity, and the 
> theory is in no way based upon that fact, except that most of our 
> propositions on how to fight that kind of war probably come from the 
> same place, or very similar ones.

Okay... I thought that MD was based on the idea that the Voldemort war 
is an undercover/terrorist war, and that based on /that/ we can draw 
conclusions about the reasons for actions taken by the characters 
involved in the war. That's certainly the way it's presented in Pip's 
original post.

> 
> Also, I'd like to make clear that it is not metathinking. Metathinking 
> would involve introducing the idea of a terrorist war with a purpose 
> above the reality of the characters in the book - that is, if JKR was 
> trying to make a point with it, for example, that IRA methods are 
> wrong. Which we have never stated in any way, because it has nothing to 
> do with the theory: our reality does not influence what is going on 
> inside the books - or at least it shouldn't.
> 

Um. No.

Metathinking is giving an out-of-book reason for in-book events. It 
would involve saying that we can conclude that the Voldemort war (in-
book event) is a terrorist war based on the entirely out-of-book idea 
that Rowling is familiar with that type of political interplay. 

So, yes, this is metathinking. Mind you, I have no /problem/ with 
that, because I look at MD as a 'perspective' rather than a 'theory' 
that can be proven or disproven. MD is a conundrum - a way of asking, 
can we deduce the motivations for the actions of the characters in the 
books based /solely/ on information gleaned from the books?

If I try to do otherwise, I get confused. ;)

CK
clicketykeys