How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?)

[Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 48283

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sasha Special <voldemort at t...>
wrote:
> Greetings!
> 
> > Steve wrote:
> 
> Sbyc> BBOY_MN: We only know OF five boys who were sorted
> Sbyc> into Gryffindor.
> 
> ...etc...etc...etc...
> 

Alexander Replied:
>
>   Well, let me just state that we don't know there is ONLY
> one Harry and ONLY one Dumbledore. Of course, Hermione said
> "Who is the one wizard You-Know-Who was always afraid of?",
> but maybe she ONLY knew ONE Dumbledore and didn't know
> others?
> 
>   Any fact can be "refuted" in such a way. Even your own
> existence. :)
-end this part-

bboy_mn responds:

There is a difference between rational and rationalize. Most of us,
when trying to resolve the many inconsistencies, tend to fall more
toward rationalizing.

We know OF 5 boys sorted into Gryffindor, but we do NOT know that ONLY
5 boys were sorted into Gryffindor. That is a fact. Five are
documented but the Sorting scene is not one continuous uninterupted
primary foreground scene. It is one part of what Harry sees and thinks
as he is sitting in the Great Hall. It is very very likely that not
every student who was sorted into any house was accounted for by name.
There are gaps in the Sorting Hat timeline and we don't know what
happened in those gaps.

Back to rationalizing, we DON'T know that there is only one Harry and
one Dumbledore. We can rationalize any sequence of fact and assumption
or 'picked nits' to establish that there IS more that one. But
rationally, we know for the intent and purpose of the story, there is
one. 

Just as we know rationally, that we don't necessarily know that we had
a 100% account of the Sorting Cerimony.

Think of any TV show or movie that takes place in a high school, there
are many students in the background who are in the same grade and in
the same classrooms as the primary and secondary characters, yet those
background characters are never named, or spoken about, nor do they
speak, but none the less, they are there.

We have the same thing in these books, we have hundreds of characters
in the background who are never seen, who are never spoken about, who
are never named, and who never speak, yet we know with certainty they
are there. If I recall (random guess) there have probably only been 6
each Ravenclaw and Hufflepuffs named (approx, whatever it is, it's
smaller that the true number of students), yet we do not use that data
to conclude that there are only 6 of each. The general impression left
by the story itself, tells us that that conclusion is false. Yet, the
data supports it. Admittedly, other data more clearly established the
Hufflepuff number, but it doesn't establish it with absolute certainty. 

That's why I say that your impression as you read the story is the
truest account, because that is the impression the author intended and
succeeded in giving you. Again, JKR is only responsible for making the
story consistent enough to be believable. To do that her research and
calculations of size must be accurate enough so as to not create
glaring inconsistencies that distract from the story. But she has no
actual obligation to make every single bit of data add up. The
impression she conveys is her true intent, not a mathmatical accounting.
-end this part-

ALexander continues:
> 
>   Let's return to the facts, good, solid facts:
> 
>   General theories are as follows:
> 
> 1) 280 students. Based on Harry's class size. ...
> 
> 2) 800 students. Based on number of people who watch
> Quidditch games in Hogwarts. ...
> 
> 3) 1000 students. Based on JKR's interview. ...
> 
>   So far the "280" theory seems to have the most number of
> documentary evidence. Any historian will tell you what it
> means: "This theory must be assumed true until proven
> otherwise or until other theories collect comparable amount
> of evidence". Classic Occam's Razor.
-end this part-

bboy_mn also continues:
"Let's return to the facts, good, solid facts:"

'Let's return to the assumptions that are based on our interpretation
of the available information', would be a more accurate statement.
-end this part-



> bboy_mn originally said:
> ... ... ... The story itself and not the data is the truest 
> indicator.

> Alexander responds: 
>   Beauty of the world created by author does not make it
> illegal to explore and investigate and research this world.
> "Forget the numbers and stick to your impressions" is nice
> for regular reader, but absolutely not enough for someone
> who is interested not only in storyline. This includes
> nearly all fanfic writers, BTW - they *must* know the world
> to write their stories, and frankly speaking, WW is not the
> friendliest world to a researcher.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Alexander Lomski,

bboy concludes:
"The story itself and not the data is the truest indicator." ...and it
is. It is also the author only true responsibility, but that statement
in no way implies that data can not or should not be analysed. But in
doing your analysis, at some point, you have to accept that somethings
can not be resolved through data, and can therefore only be resolve
through imagination. But that's fun, really fun. Filling in the blanks
with imagination is a lot more fun than calculating the data. Of
course, to find out where the 'blanks' are, you have to calculate the
data.

The only valid conclusion that we can reach from the data we have is
that we can't reach any valid conclusion. But we can have a great time
imagining how all these inconsistencies can be resolved. Well... I'm
having a great time anyway. 

And theories that are counter to my own will either sway me to a more
solid theory or force me to dig deeper to reenforce my existint
theory. But we have to accept that without more data, we can never
have more than theories.

Just a few thoughts.

bboy_mn