On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[Grey Wolf]

No: HPFGUIDX 47160

I'm not going to cast this into the bar fight that has been going on in 
TBAY: it takes too long and I'm going to be picking from too many posts 
at once. If you will, just picture the Grey Wolf sitting in his room 
going over all the recordings of the microphones installed in the 
tavern.


On the nature of theories
-------------------------

I'm going to start by pointing out something that should be obvious to 
everyone involved in this list, but lately it seems to be ignored: the 
definition of theory. I've picked my dictionary and looked it up, and 
this is what I came up with:

Theory:
1) Abstract reasoning; speculation: Example: a decision based on 
experience rather than theory. 
2) A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or 
judgment: Example: staked out the house on the theory that criminals 
usually return to the scene of the crime. 
3) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a 
conjecture.

note especially 1 and 3: one is "speculation" the other, "conjecture". 
You see, a theory is not a theorem. They are different things indeed. 
While a theorem is a demonstrated fact, that has been proven beyond 
doubt, a theory is only one possible way of interpreting the facts. For 
example: I'm sure that everyone knows the Pithagoras theorem: the sum 
of the squares of the short sides of a rectangular triangle are equal 
to the square of the long side (fill in with the apropiate english 
technical names). This has been proven beyond doubt and there is no way 
to disprove it, except by scraping the paradigm and moving into curve 
space.

On the other hand, a theory is something that, while acceptably 
coherent with the facts, can still be disporven because it is based on 
certain asumptions that are not tautological. For example, Einstein 
theory of general relativity could be proven if someone managed to 
accelerate a particle to a speed greater than light. Beyond that, there 
is another way to disprove a theory: what in my language is known as 
the better fit: simply find a theory that fits the facts better.

Why am I saying all this? and why haven't I touched canon yet? The 
answer to both questions is: because the detractors of MD have decided 
to move outside canon, and even books, in their attacks. They've gone 
to the meta-theory ground (that is, theories on theories themselves) 
and -what is *much* worse- into personal ground. I'm tackling the 
first, and I'll make a small note on the second at the end. It will all 
be mingled with MD, though, since it's very difficult to separate them 
at this point.


Let me go down the path of memory:
Alla:
> If future books will tell us that Dumbledore did absolutely 
> nothing to actively help Voldemort's resurrection does 
> it mean that MAGIC DISHWASHER would be disproved? This is the 
> cornerstone of your theory, right?

Yes, that is what is known as counter-proof. It is the fastest way of 
disproving any theory.


Abigail:
> "I see."  Says Abigail flatly.  "So what you're saying is that MAGIC 
> DISHWASHER is subject only to a direct contradiction from within 
> canon.  I find that very convenient.  May I ask what makes MD so 
> special?"

Nothing: all theories are true until proven guilty in science (and I 
use the scientific method approach to theories in both real life and 
HP4GUs). Two oposing theories can be true at the same time. If one 
proves more popular than the other, it is adopted as the oficial one, 
but that doesn't mean that it is right (and more importantly, it 
doesn't mean that the other is wrong). Many theories co-exist until 
better fit enhances one to prefered status, generally destroying the 
other one, but that's a property of all theories, not just MD.

Another example, this time from HP4GU: a theory at random, let's say 
Trevor the Toad is Ever so Evil. If Trevor continues to be a toad that 
occasionally scapes from Neville for the rest of the books, it *will 
not* be disproven. After the seventh book, people will still be able to 
discuss in this list wether Trevor was an evil DE in disguise or 
whatever. It already has some semblance of canon defending it, and 
that's all a theory needs.


Abigail:
> And now you claim [MAGIC DISHWASHER] to 
> be canon-proof?  And make no mistake about it, claiming that you 
> don't need verification in canon is just a hop and a skip away from 
> claiming that all canon contradiction is, in fact, a lie or a 
> misdirection. 

We never did claim that. You are putting words in our mouths. As has 
been explained, Safe House is canon-proof, but you're the one hopping 
and skipping into conclusions.

Cindy:
> Can any of the MD adherents tell us what it would take to *disprove* the theory?"

And yet another time the same old question. OK, I'll give another 
example. If Dumbledore says in book 6 that they've just discovered a 
flaw in the potion and that they have been lucky Voldemort used that 
methoed and not any other, then MD would probably have to be scraped. 


Abigail:
> Anyway, you know my feelings - the fact that a theory hasn't been disproven is not proof 
> of its truth."

On the contrary, Abigail: just like in law, everyone is inocent until 
proven guilty, all theories are, /per se/ true until proven otherwise. 
You might not want to believe in it (it is your right as a free 
individual, and thus you don't have to use it for your own arguments), 
but a theory *itself* is true while not disproven. That is, as true as 
*any other theory you care to propose*.  In science, there is no 
absolute truth: everything is relative; theory today, gone tomorrow; 
the truths of today are the scorned lies of tomorrow; I could go on and 
on, but let me put an example:

Do you believe in Isaac's Newton Theory of Gravity? (basically, that 
all bodies attract each other in proportion to their mass). If the 
answer is yes, you're wrong: the theory has been replaced by a better 
fit. It is still used in schools to explain the idea, but it is 
nonetheless wrong: Einstein's theory of relativity explains that mass 
distorts time/space, and that bodies *seem* to attract each other 
because they fall into the funnels of distorted time/space created by 
them. However, until 100 years ago, Newton's theory of Gravity was 
accepted as truth... until someone found a better one. And that is the 
basis of science: that all theories are true until someone comes with a 
better one (or someone manages to find the fatal flaw, that is).

Thus, I don't make any claim on MD's perfection. I have a scientific 
mind, and I think that MD is the best theory so far. Which is why I 
defend it. I am waiting for someone to come with a better one, that is 
*not* based on Dumbledore's plans. But I doubt there will be any such 
theory: IMO, Dumbledore is indeed making plans, and even if the nature 
of such plans is modified as new canon is uncovered, I don't really 
think that it will suddenly be said that there are no plans at all.


Abigail:
> "Right now, all these lovely thoeries exist in an uncertain state."  
> Abigail continues, oblivious, "inasmuch as they are all canonically 
> sound, they are all both true and false, and will remain in this 
> dual state until such time as canon directly addresses them - 
> either to proove or refute - or until the series ends and there is 
> no more new canon, in which case the remaining theories will 
> collapse upon themselves as if they never existed.

And we're back to the discussion point: all theories in the Bay are 
inherently true while canon does not demonstrate against them, 
according to the scientific method that Newton himself put forward (and 
*that* was his most important contribution to science, not any of his 
theories, as useful as they are - that a theory is tentatively true 
until proven otherwise).  A theory does not live in a state of 
uncertainty (neither does Schroedinger's cat). Many theories can, in 
fact, be true even if they contradict each other, since you need a 
direct counter example to disprove them, and in many cases of the 
theories of TBAY, that counter example will never happen.


Abigail:
> So you see, I can't accept that MAGIC 
> DISHWASHER will remain 'just a theory' even after book 7 ends - 
> it should either be proven or abandoned."

Very wrong indeed! After book seven is when things will get most 
interesting: if they haven't been disproven by then, all theories will 
remain theories for ever. You see, there are three things that could 
happen to a theory at the end of book seven: 1) it is disproven, in 
which case it disappears 2) it is not confirmed by the books, in which 
case it *will remain a perfectly valid theory until the end of time* 
and 3) it is confirmed by the books (for example, in the last chapter 
when everything is explained: "and that is how the real mastermind 
behind everything that has happened was in reality Filch, the true 
strength behind Dumbledore") in which case, it's not a theory anymore, 
it's a theorem (and probably big fun for anyone who believed in it, 
since him or her gets free "I told you so"s to last a life time).


Pippin:
> "So, you say  that to disprove Dishwasher, we must disprove the 
> arbitrary negative assertion that the books don't prove that 
> Dumbledore didn't help bring about Voldemort's return?

No, I say that to disprove MD we just need a counter-example, like *
with any other theory*

Pippin:
> "Sorry, but proving that Dumbledore *could* have done 
> something doesn't mean you've proved that he *did.* If you want 
> us to accept your assertions, you're going to have to assume the 
> burden of proof.  And once you get past the obvious, that 
> Dumbledore had spies and so did Voldemort, there's very little 
> specific evidence and an awful  lot of generalizing.

I refer to the definitions I provided before: anything that fits the 
canon is a theory. Which means that if Dumbledore *could* have done 
something, it is enough to build a theory around it. And in Scientific 
analysis, the fact that it could is enough to think that it did. There 
are certain tautologies in the scientific paradigm that will stop 
certain arguments (for example, that there is no purpose to the 
universe: everything is random particle movements or cause and effect), 
and you are free to choose your own tautologies for theories in HP, but 
that wont give you ground to attack a theory built on other 
tautologies. For example, if you decide that, no metter what, Hermione 
will remain a spinster, you won't believe shipping theories, but you 
won't be able to attack ship thoeries on that base (I myself have a 
very close one: HARD SHIPWRECK, which states that both Harry and Ron 
will die, so why bother shipping them? But I cannot use that agaisnt 
ships, since it's *my* assumption). 


On MAGIC DISHWASHER itself
--------------------------------------

Abigail:
> I've yet to see a coherent form of that plan emerge from MAGIC 
> DISHWASHER, and without it MD reads more like rationalizing the 
> past.  In which case you're all right, of course - there's no point 
> in predicting the future - you can just make the facts fit the theory 
> after they happen."

You've got it all wrong. A theory does, indeed, base itself on the past 
to build itself. That is, from fragmented facts, you build something 
that fits all the facts and explains rationally the spots where there 
are no facts at all. Which is why MD does not predict the future, only 
explins the past: there are huge gaps in the books (gaps that MD 
detractors seem unwilling to fill, or maybe they are simply unable to 
see). However, We DO NOT make the facts fit the theory, but the other 
way round: the theory will accomodate the facts. In the next book, a 
whole new cartload of facts will come around. Maybe one of them will 
disprove the theory, I don't know, but most of them will simply modify 
it, making it more close to what really is going on


Abigail:
> If we argue that the theory puts Dumbledore 
> at the center of the books, you cry 'Metathinking!', even though 
> many of us find the idea of treating the books as if they took 
> place in the real world just as problematic.

The fact is that metathinking is unnecesary in this case, since the 
theory is based in internal evidence, not in literary conventions 
(which are highly irregular anyway, and I could disprove almost all of 
them with just three authors: Shakespeare, Cervantes and Tolkien). 

And of course, MD is all about the people who really are in charge. You 
can give a try at explaining evcerything that is going on in the books 
placing Harry in the centre of it all, but I doubt you will get far. 
Harry is just a boy, and he's probably important, but he is not the 
centre of the war -or at least, he hasn't been it for now. You might as 
well place Dudley, in fact .


Alla:
> I don't think that this is the only alternative Dumbledore has. 
> Nobody expects him to sit around and just wait and see whether 
> Voldemort will resurrect or not. He can make any plans and 
> preparations in case resurrection will happen. He can and should take 
> this possibility into account, but not FORCE Voldemort to come back 
> if there is even a tiny possibility that he would not be able to do 
> it. Of course, I think that Dumbledore did not cross that line and it 
> does not make him less capable leader of WW.

No, that is exactly what he cannot do. The very basis of MD is that 
there are several ways Voldemort could've come back, and only a few of 
them would leave him open to a counter attack. If he is given time 
instead of goading him into using the flawed potion, then he might as 
well re-discover the PS. And then, what? I'll tell you: he wins, 
everything goes down the drain, and then Dumbledore the pure white 
would have to see eveything he loves and cares for destroyed.

Pippin:
> one ought to admit that defeat is at least as much 
> a possibility under Dishwasher as it is without it. 

No it is not. Under MD, we asume that, if Dumbledore sits down and does 
nothing, Voldemort wins for sure, while if he works hard and baits him, 
Dumbledore's side has at least a possibility of winning. There is no 
other theory apart from MD anyway, so there is no "without it" to 
compare it to. People who are against MD have yet to come up with a 
theory that explains what is Dumbledore doing about Voldemort that does 
not include "sit and hope it all comes out for the best". 


Pippin:
> Dumbledore is, after all, not "doing nothing" . He is training the 
> next generation to resist evil, he is working tirelessly to 
> encourage people to unite and to forgive their differences and he 
> is doing everything in his power to alert people to the danger, 
> including sending his spy out to discover what Voldemort plans 
> to do next.
> 
> Pippin

Yes, he is educating the next generation, true, but Voldemort is not a 
problem of the next generation: it is a problem that got out of hand of 
the previous one, and Dumbledore is too efficient to allow Voldemort's 
problem to carry on to the next generation. Especially since there 
might not be time for the next generation to grow anyway, or he might 
as well be the last powerful enough to stop Voldemort before he wins.

Also, information about the enemy movements is useless if you don't do 
anything without it. Let me put it this way: Dumbledore discovers that 
Voldemort is going to come back because there are any number of ways 
for him to recorporate. Now what? Sits and waits? Allows him to choose 
the battlefield and the weapons and hope that when the time comes he 
will be powerful enough? Or some other option, that takes advantage of 
Voldemort's position. This is where MD kicks in, of course: he plans 
the best possible way to win him, baits the trap, and attracts him. And 
everything that has happened in the books so far falls into place.


Abigail:
> My problem is, what was his original plan [for the SS]?  
> MAGIC DISHWASHER talks a lot about Plan B, and even C and D 
> eventually, but what about Plan A?  What was Dumbledore's 
> original game plan before Sirius went and ruined everything?  I 
> said that at this point, no such plan emerges from MD, and as 
> result the theory looks more like shoving the past into a 
> convenient mold.

Plan A was: get a Voldemort a follower with life-debt to Harry. Sirius 
did not went in and ruined anything; he was as good for the plan as 
Peter, and probably Dumbledore was originally planning to use Sirius 
anyway, since he might not have known Peter was there already. 

On this line, I think Abigail herself mentioned a while back that 
everything was happening too soon and that Dumbledore should have 
waited. I answered at the time that Dumbledore isn't getting any 
younger and that he was fighting against time as much as against 
Voldemort. I have realised, however, that there is yet another reason I 
forgot to mention at the time: Dumbledore did not plan Sirius scape in 
my version of MD (in any of the versions, I think, but will tell you 
when -if- I do the unifying post). Events were thrust upon him and, 
once they were in motion, he could only go along. Which is yet another 
reason for White!MD!Dumbledore: if he had sit on his back, Peter 
would've escaped anyway, and then we'd be back to the version of 
"Voldemort resurrects with his prefered method instead of 
Dumbledore's". 


 Abigail:
> I  just don't get why you think this argument at all contradicts my 
> assertion that D!D would accept Karkarof's death as a necessary evil."

Dumbledore has not planned for anyone's death: Cedric and Harry 
shouldn't have been portkeyd, Bertha got lost because of a memory 
charmed placed onto her by Crouch Sr. and we have no reason to believe 
Dumbledore knew about Bryce at all before he made it to the newspapers. 
You might want to blame Dumbledore for their deaths, but I certainly do 
not: Voldemort killed them, and would've killed them anyway if 
Dumbledore had done nothing. Or if he had another plan completely: 
Frank was bound to investigate, and Voldemort would probably have gone 
to his father's house even if he had returned on his own. If Peter 
hadn't found Bertha, Voldemort might have, and might have returned to 
England in a newly possesed body. And I certainly don't find any blame 
for Cedric's death. SO, in my views of Dumbledore, he wouldn't order 
Karkaroff's assasination.


Abigail:
> "This harkens right back to early PS - Harry's first meeting with 
> Hagrid to be exact.  I don't have the exact canon in front of me, 
> but I'm sure you can all remember the line - Dumbledore was 
> offered the position of Minister of Magic and turned it down to stay 
> at Hogwarts, so Fudge got it instead.  Now,"  Abigail continues, 
> her eyes glittering, "If Dumbledore has indeed been planning for 
> Voldemort's return since the end of VWI, why would he turn that 
> position down?  He could have instituted the changes that he 
> now has to beg a bungler like Fudge to carry out.  He could have 
> removed the Dementors from Azkaban, given all the prisoners 
> there a fair trial, not shoved Moody out of the Ministry like an old 
> handbag, sent envoys to the giants.  He could have been actively 
> preparing the Wizarding World for Voldemort's return for the past 
> 15 years, but instead he's been teaching.  Does that not suggest 
> that his mind was not constantly bent on Voldemort and ways to 
> defeat him?"

Let's hear *your* version for why Dumbledore didn't accept the post - 
you'll probably discover that it fits MD. Mine is that it would mean 
too much paper-shuffling, and to put Dumbledore somewhere where he is 
unprotected (and make no mistake, Dumbledore need's Hogwarts protection 
as much as Harry does, IMO). It is in the school where he is strong and 
where he controls everything that goes on. In the MoM there are (were) 
still many DEs that could spy on him, and that is a risk Dumbledore is 
not willing to go through, I should think (never mind all those 
possible stray AKs). Besides, preparing Harry and the other students *
is* a part of MD. Dumbledore set his plans into motion over 13 years 
ago, and appart from the occasional fine-tuning, most of those plans 
probably lie dormant until needed, or their active arrangements are in 
charge of members of the old gang. Dumbledore itself is the spymaster, 
which means sitting somewhere quiet making sense of what the reports 
tell him.  Besides, he is also a teacher, so that place is where he can 
make most of his spare time: the school, preparing others just as he 
was prepared in the past. If it worked for him, he can only hope it 
will serve for others.

Also, you overestimate what Dumbledore would've been able to accomplish 
while in the office: a politician in a democracy (and I assume that the 
MoM is not an absolutist, since he is elected) has to do what the 
people want him to do, or else he will be overruled. We are told that 
half the WW want the Dementors at Azkaban - that is a close call, and 
Fudge is probably popular because of that measure. Other things that 
have been required changing at the MoM Dumbledore could've influenced 
Fudge into doing as much as he could've done it himself. In my view of 
the WW, Fudge represents the majority of the wizards (i.e. he's the 
archetypical wizard: they just want tomorrow to be like today, they 
don't want to think Voldemort will come back, etc.). And, if you've 
read through the MD posts, you'll know that I believe that Dumbledore 
has a hand in the MoM anyway: through allies and friends like Arthur 
and other old gang members, he can pass laws that interest him, within 
reason. 


On the personal attacks on MD defenders
---------------------------------------

I have been to several lists before joining HP4GUs and I have watched 
many flame wars brew and explode. And, unfortunately, some of the 
coments in recent posts have all the marks of things that could quickly 
get out of hand. This is the first and last time I'll answer this 
comments on a post. If they want to call me things, I ancourage them to 
do so by e-mail, which won't drag other people into it. What am I 
talking about? This sort of comments:

Abigail:
> You have left me, and other MD objectors, with no means of 
> arguing against the theory.  If we claim that Dishwasher is out of 
> character for, say, Dumbledore, you pull out the fireman analogy 
> - which I came up with, by the way - and leave us looking like 
> sentimental fools.

I have no control over what you look, Abigail. What you feel about 
yourself is not my doing. I hope you *do* recognise the fact that, if 
you argue against our theory, we are entitled to fight back. Or you 
thought that you just had to say something aginst us and we'd lie down 
and play dead?


Abigail:
> "It is not when you have yet to offer convincing proof of the 
> existence of Dumbledore's over-reaching master plan."  Abigail 
> insists.  "So far, MAGIC DISHWASHER reads like Dumbledore is 
> constantly rolling with the punches.

There is a easy way out of this, Abigail: if you are unconvinced, you 
can simply state so and stop posting aginst the theory. The canon in 
favour of planning!Dumbledore is right in the open, and has always been 
there: we have been told that he started preparing for Voldemort's come 
back as soon as he disapeared. If this doesn't convince you that there 
are, in fact, such plans, then MD is not for you. But then it's a 
matter of your personal belief in the theory: just as I don't believe 
shipping theories, you don't have to believe MD. But I don't go posting 
"LOLLIPOPS is a horrible theory because no matter what I do, someone 
will always twist canon to find a reason to suport it". There are 
multiple theories in HP4GUs that are inherently contradictory with each 
other, and sometimes with themselves, to the eyes of the beholder. That 
is no reason, however, to personally attack the people who do the 
theory or their ideas.


> Alla,
> who would like very much for MD to be proven wrong.

This is the worst form of bad manners in my own country, and a very 
easy way of getting shouted at. I'm going to give the benfit of the 
doubt once again, but saying that you hope for some other person's 
theory to be proven wrong is not nice, unless you are pretty sure that 
person would like it to be disproved too (as in a pessimistic theory).

Abigail:
> "You know, I don't think you DISHWASHER people are as morally 
> relativist as you like to think.  And, boy, do you ever have a 
> persecution complex!"

I do not consider myself a moral relativist. And I don't have a 
persecution complex: you can see from this small selection of attacks 
on the people behind the MD that the only theory that is regularly 
painted to be the reincarnation of the devil is MD. I haven't ever seen 
as many personal attacks in any of the other theories, no matter how 
realistic or unrealistic they are.  The closest thing was the attacks 
between H/H and R/H ships, and those could be understood becuase they 
where oposite theories. As Pip said the other day: when did MD grow a 
forked tail?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who knows this post is extremelly short to the unifying 
post, and wonders if he will have time in one christmas to write it.