On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[abigailnus]

No: HPFGUIDX 47249

Note: Once again Internet connection issues have delayed this post by
several hours (I *must* get a new ISP) and I see a few new posts on
the subject.  So, once again, I apologise if I seem behind the 
discussion.

Amanda has suggested that the TBAY environment is blurring the 
lines between theorist and theory, and contributing to ill-feeling in 
this discussion.  I also don't really feel like writing a TBAY post right 
now.  I've therefore decided to respond to Grey Wolf off-TBAY.

Grey Wolf divided the discussion going on between myself, Melody, 
Pippin, Pip!Squeak and, on one memorable occasion, Cindy, into two
 distinct subjects which I am allowing myself to paraphrase as:

1. The nature of theories in general and of MAGIC DISHWASHER in 
particular
2. My canon objections to MD

I will try to address each subject in turn.

The Nature of Theories
--------------------------------

Grey Wolf offered an interesting scientific definition of what a 
theory is, and said:

>all theories are true until proven guilty in science (and I use the s
cientific method approach to theories in both real life and HP4GUs). 
Two opposing theories can be true at the same time. If one proves 
more popular than the other, it is adopted as the official one, but 
that doesn't mean that it is right (and more importantly, it doesn't 
mean that the other is wrong). Many theories coexist until better 
fit enhances one to preferred status, generally destroying the other 
one, but that's a property of all theories, not just MD.>

I'm a little uncomfortable with using the rules governing scientific 
theories to discuss literary theories.  A scientific theory is the result 
of empirically observing and recording facts and formulating a 
hypothesis to explain them.  So far that does describe the theories 
in HPfGU - we observe empirical facts - canon - and formulate 
hypotheses to explain them.  These hypotheses have to be borne 
out by future measurements - new books - and if those new facts 
contradict them then new hypotheses are formulated to replace 
the old ones.  So far I agree with Grey Wolf, but then he says:

>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.>

I don't think that's quite accurate.  Once the series is complete, 
all  the "scientific" theories based on canon facts becomes literary 
theories - in other words, interpretations of the text.  And as we 
all know it is impossible to "wrongly" interpret a text - most 
literary scholars don't even think much of authorial intent once 
the work has been handed to the readers.  In other words, if MD is 
never addressed by the books and I go to see JKR and ask her 
whether she had any MD-like thoughts in the back of her mind 
when she wrote the text and she gives me a strange look and 
tells me that I'm crazy, that *still* won't invalidate MAGIC 
DISHWASHER as an interpretation of the text.  However, it is also 
impossible for a literary interpretation to be right - once the work 
is complete it all becomes a matter of personal preference.

So if MD is to be proven or disproven, it has to happen by the 
end of book 7.  Otherwise it will always be a valid *interpretation*, 
but as a theory it won't be anything.  What seems to me to be 
happening is that MD supporters are already treating their theory 
as an interpretation - it's something that they believe is happening 
in the background, and they don't require canon validation to 
believe that it is true.  So good for them, but the rest of us are 
treating MD as if it were still a theory - something that has to be 
addressed by canon in order to be true.  Hence this argument.

Personally, I feel that treating MD as if it were merely an 
interpretation and hence completely impossible to disprove is no 
fun at all.  Part of all scientific speculation is constantly testing 
your theory - subjecting it to the most rigorous analysis, doing 
your best to find way to disprove it.  I think that's what HPfGU is 
about - we take each other's wild notions for test drives and see 
how well they take those tricky curves and last-second stops.  
MAGIC DISHWASHER seems to have taken itself out of the game, 
which is a pity.

Canon Objections to MAGIC DISHWASHER
------------------------------------------------------------

>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.>

Which suggests that Dumbledore was going to orchestrate Sirius's 
escape - how? How could he guess that Sirius would still be loyal to 
Voldemort when none of Voldy's most loyal supporters had tried to 
find him in the intervening years?  Even Peter didn't attempt it until 
he had no choice.  How could Dumbledore had been certain that 
Sirius would be sane enough to carry out his part of the plan?  He 
didn't know that Sirius was innocent and he didn't know that he was 
an Animagus (and if he did know that last part then he endangered 
his own plan by allowing Sirius a means of getting into Hogwarts 
undetected by Dementors).  Finally, how exactly was Sirius to incur 
a life-debt to Harry?  The only conceivable person who might try to 
kill Sirius who Harry might be able to stop is Snape (and even he 
wasn't going to kill Sirius himself or in fact cause him any physical 
harm) - and according to MD he was in on the plan, so a life-debt 
wouldn't be created by Harry's saving Sirius from him.  For that 
matter, why would Dumbledore believe that, having gained his 
freedom, Sirius would choose to have anything to do with Harry 
and not go into hiding or go directly to Voldemort?

>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).>

Then who did he plan to send to Voldemort?  All of the other DEs 
in Azkaban had the same problems as Sirius, and none of the ones 
on the outside had tried to reach Voldy in over a decade.

>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:>

I never blamed Dumbledore for Cedric, Frank and Bertha's deaths.  
I stated very explicitly, on more then one occasion, that I didn't 
think he was responsible for them.  What I said was that he was 
complicit in them - which is a very different thing.

>Voldemort killed them, and would've killed them anyway if 
Dumbledore had done nothing.>

Hardly.  All three died because Dumbledore allowed Peter to 
escape in order to return to Voldmort.  If Peter had been 
apprehended or killed Voldemort would have remained a vapor.  
Peter would never have met Bertha and brought her to 
Voldemort to be tortured and killed.  Voldemort and Peter never 
would have moved back to the Riddle House and crossed paths 
with Frank.  And Moody wouldn't have been replaced by Barty Jr., 
and thus the Triwizard cup wouldn't have been transformed into 
a portkey (not to mention that Harry wouldn't have been in the 
tournament in the first place) and Cedric wouldn't have been 
AK'd by Peter.

Once again, I'm not saying that Dumbledore is to blame for these 
deaths and I never did - they are Voldemort's fault.  But 
Dumbledore helped bring them about, and if he really is a moral 
person he has to be aware of that.

>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 possessed body.>

Voldemort wouldn't have been able to come back to England 
without a servant to care for him, and he would have had no 
reason to even if he could - he only came back because of the 
information he got from Bertha.  And while he might have run 
into Bertha himself, he might just as easily have never crossed 
paths with her.  

Not that it matters.  Of course all of these things *could* have 
happened, and those three people might have died without 
Dumbledore's interference, but that's not what actually 
happened, is it?  I can understand making the larger argument 
that 'some people are going to die either way' but I don't think 
you can get away with arguing that these specific people were 
certainly going to die.

>Abigail:
> If Dumbledore has indeed been planning for 
> Voldemort's return since the end of VWI, why would he turn [the MoM]
> 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.> 

Grey Wolf, I don't have to have a version of anything - I'm not the 
person defending a theory.  I presented you with canon which I think 
undermines your theory - the burden is on you to explain it away. 

>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).> 

I somehow doubt that a man gets offered the MoM position if he 
is completely without political allies outside of his own home turf.  
As for needing Hogwarts protection, I've never perceived the 
MoM as being the den of DEs that you seem to think it is.  If 
anything it seems that the prevailing mood in the Ministry is one 
of apathy (no, I don't think Fudge is Ever So Evil).  Even if there 
were still DEs in the Ministry (and not that I'm suggesting that 
there couldn't be but have we ever had canon evidence that 
there are?) as the guy on top Dumbledore would be in the best 
position to root them out, which is certainly better then leaving 
them to infect the entire Ministry for decades, probably collecting 
new recruits.

>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.>

Big. Evil. Grin.

Of course you're right that Dumbledore could have spent 10 
years at the Ministry tilting at windmills and getting absolutely 
nothing done, but what are his options?  If he sits down and does 
nothing (and it was you who said that "Dumbledore set his plans 
into motion over 13 years ago, and apart 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." so in essence it would be sitting and doing nothing) then 
no change will take place in the Ministry for sure, while if he works 
hard, he at least has a possibility of implementing some changes 
in policy - the smallest of which might give Dumbledore's side an 
advantage when Voldy returns.

Gee, that's a familiar argument, I wonder where I've heard it 
before? :-)

>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.>

There's a significant difference between having some influence 
in the Ministry and actually running it.

Melody offered, on the same subject:
>MoM is too in the spotlight. Can't have a *secret* spy war if 
your  actions are being watched by red tape and cameras. Every 
move MoM!Dumbledore made would be broadcasted and even 
considered public's right to know.>

Of course, because we all know that the last organization that 
might be able to set up a spy network is a *government*.  I 
mean, a school headmaster, that's the guy you go to if you 
want to run a super-secret spy campaign!

Sarcasm aside, I never got the impression that the wizarding 
government is as regulated as you're suggesting here.  For 
example, why wasn't it widely known what it was that Sirius 
was really in Azkaban for?

One of the best things about TBAY is the snappy send-offs, which 
I really can't do here since this is an odds-n-sods post.  I guess 
I can just sign off, but not before echoing Amanda's very wise 
words - I attack theories, not people.  I'm sorry if anyone feels 
otherwise.

Abigail