On the nature of theories (Was: Objections to Magic Dishwasher - Shrieking Shack

[Grey Wolf <greywolf1@jazzfree.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51742

Tom Wall  wrote: 
> I reply:
> All of this assumes MD before a reading of the text. It
> starts with MD and works backwards to the actual text. I 
> don't see why the logic 'doesn't have to be' a logical
> sequence. It is. I don't see how it proves anything that
> Dumbledore offered to be the secret keeper - what would
> matter is if they asked him to be. These aren't based on 
> anything. They're all entirely off-canon.

We are not trying to "prove" anything, Tom. We are creating a
*THEORY*. You seem to have a very distortioned view on what a theory
*is*. I've been through this already (as you should now, if you had
read -as you say- all of Magic Diswasher posts, but it is glaringly
obvious you haven't).

A theory in this context can mean:

   1.  Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
rather than theory.
   2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists
comprehension or judgment: 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.

My personal favourite is number 3, but the the other two are quite
good too. You see, all of your abjections to Magic Dishwasher are
variations of the general theme "I can read the books in a way that
doesn't allow Magic Dishwasher". I.e. that, from a certain
interpretation of the reading, there is no Magic Dishwasher at all. So
be it, you are free to do so, but *that doesn't constitute a reason to
attack the theory*. A theory exists as long as events can be
interpreted to support it, even if those same events can be
interpreted to mean it doesn't.

Because *all* canon can be (and has to be) interpreted. Take a look at
the SHIP wars to see how the exact same piece of canon can be
interpreted to mean that Hermione loves Harry and thinks Ron as "just
a friend" AND the other way round. And inference *can be* and *must
be* done from canon to obtain working principles, and that is the rule
here in TBAY: you can propose whatever theory you want, no matter how
outlandish, if you can interpret canon that supports it. Check the
archives for the TOADKEEPER theory, or the LOLLIPOPS theory, which are
*prefectly valid theories* no matter how little canon they have behind
them.

Let me give you another example, one I've used not only in this list
but in the outer world: Why does an object dropped in mid air plunge
towards the floor at an acceleration rate of 9.8 m/s^2? Think about it

I'm serious - don't continue until you have your answer.

Hopefully, you're taking this seriously and *have* though of an
answer. I'm going to make a stretch here and assume that you've though
up the answer of the majority: that, according to Newtons theory of
Universal gravitation, objects attract each other with a strenght in
relation to their masses, and in Earth's case that strenght can be
described as 9.8 N (i.e. 9.8 m/s^2). At least, that is what most
people seem to answer me to that question. It's wrong, though. As any
theory, it was subject to reality check and was discarded some 50
years back. Now, all the rage is Einstein's relativity theory, that
says that objects distort space/time, forming funnels of space/time
into which other objects fall. And Newton would've been glad to know
about this - because he laid down the rules for science, and he stated
that a theory is not the truth: *it is only an interpretation of the
available data that fits that data as closely as possible* and always
subject to change if a better theory is found.

What is my point? That if you don't want to follow our reasoning in
the SS for MD, you don't have to, but if you want to fight against it,
you better come up with something different from "the canon can be
interpreted in some other way". That's not the point, since that is
always the case. The point is that the canon, as interpreted by us,
fits MD principles, and thus makes it a *valid theory* - subject like
all theories to reinterpretation and advancement, but which is
perfectly valid as long as it fits the facts and *doesn't contradict
them*.

You know, you seem to have a fixation with needing to have eveything
backed-up by *explicit canon*. I hope you don't actually go through
life with that sort of expectations, because I don't know how you can
use a computer, then. Take it from me, there are many things that
no-one understands on how a computer works. Clarke (Arthur C.) once
said: ",Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from
Magic". That is true, including with some of the tech we already have.
The thing works, and there are a few theories that attempt to explain
why, but none of them actually fit all the data. The closest approach
to fitting all the data right now is quantic theory, which no-one
really understands (yet - maybe someday someone will).

The same can be said about the books, and even take it one step
further. In MD we are trying to piece toghether what is going on
behind the scenes, and we have little or no canon about it (which is
why it's called "behind the scenes"). What little we have, we
interpret it in view of our theory. Which doesn't mean it's not
perfectly interpretable from half a dozen other theories. The last
time this issue came up, I suggested someone could give a try at
creating a non-MD theory for the Safe House. Well enough, someone did,
and it was perfectly reasonable theory, albeit somewhat small, that
took the same canon and interpret it differently. No-one actually
follows that theory, to my knowledge (I can't even remember its
details), but that wasn't its purpose. It demonstrated that two
theories can co-exist without destroying each other (unlike
Harry/Hermioine/Ron, which are based on one existing without the other).


> I wrote previously:
> He also says that Harry's Patronus was "unusual." 
> If he'd known about Prongs, he wouldn't have thought
> it was unusual at all. 
> 
> Pip replied:
> No? How much do you know about Patroni? Is it common
> for one to take the shape of a parent's animagus 
> form? Or is that remarkable, *unusual*?
> 
> I reply:
> I don't see where you're going with this. Dumbledore
> said he thought the patronus was 'unusual.' So, whatever
> the usual form is, Harry's doesn't have it.

Exactly, so now we are free to interpret what unusual means in this
case. And just because your interpretation of the fact doesn't fit
with MD, it doesn't mean that ours is less valid than yours. You
aren't the centre of the universe, and neither are we. JKR is - and
unless she goes back and explains what she meant, we are free to
interpret it any way we want. Our interpretation fits with MD. Yours
doesn't. If you don't like it, don't buy it, but that gives you no
leverage to dismiss MD as a valid theory.

> But:
> 
> "Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself
> most plainly when you have need of him."
> (PoA, US softcover, Owl Post Again, 428)
> 
> So (re: above) it doesn't seem so odd now that 
> Dumbledore DOES know what Harry's dad was capable of.
> 
> In other words, the Patronus is unusual UNTIL it's 
> understood that James = Prongs.
> 
> So, again, why would Dumbledore have thought it was 
> unusual before the Shrieking Shack, and doesn't seem 
> to after the Shrieking Shack? 
> 
> "You know, Harry, in a way, you did see your father
> last night... You found him inside yourself."
> (PoA, US softcover, Owl Post Again, 428)
> 
> Because now, thanks to his talk with Sirius, he knows
> all about how they became Animagi. And therefore he 
> knows that James = Prongs. And therefore it makes sense.

For example, here you are assuming that Sirius told him about Prongs.
Just as I am assuming that James or Snape told him after James used it
to save Snape from Lupin in the prank (aka trick). Because we *have*
been through this before in some MD post or another, and you're
treading old ground. Snape was close enough to peek at Lupin when he
entered the tunnel. We assume that Lupin was in his wolf form at the
time. Now, a real wolf is between twice and three times as fast as a
human on the run (and werewolves are suposed to be even quicker), so
if the wolf had wanted to catch up with him, Snape wouldn't have had
time to go all the way back the tunnel. And werewolves are driven to
hunt humans (canon, FB). So, Snape was dead. And since James was there
with him, so was he - unless he changed into an animal big enough to
control Lupin - his animagus form. There is no other way for James to
save himself and Snape from a crazed werewolf (no potion in those days).

So Snape knows about James' animagus abilities, and thus so does
Dumbeledore (which I'm pretty sure asked for explainations after the
prank). Once that was out of the bag, Dumbledore might have been
amazed at how the three of them had managed to keep it all quite for
such a long time - if the prank happened in seventh year, two years
keeping the information from Dumbledore in Hogawarts is certainly amazing.

Yes, that is *my* interpretation of canon. Which fits. Yours might,
too. But yours doesn't invalidate MD, while mine helps it.

 
> Pip wrote:
> Second point: there is *no* 'presumption' that Snape
> knew Sirius was an animagi. He did know. Because he 
> was at the very latest told in the Shrieking Shack itself. 
> 
> The door opens by itself (signifying Snape's entrance)
> in PoA Ch. 18, p.258 UK hardback. Later on in that 
> Chapter, Lupin talks about the other three Marauders 
> turning into animagi. He mentions that Sirius was a 
> large animal. By the transformation scene in GoF, Snape 
> absolutely, canonically *knew* Sirius Black was an
> animagi.
> END QUOTE.
> 
> Tom replied:
> Okay. To the contrary: Snape walking in at the opening 
> of the door is one big, massive assumption. Granted, it's 
> convenient, it's what everyone might like to believe. 
> Sure, I think that myself. But I only think it. There's no 
> proof.

There will never be a proof for you, then. It's not a "big, massive
assumption". It's a logical conclusion that could probably be
described with the simple logical rules that Aristotles described. Is
not even a step. There is a small assumption, but certainly nothing
that cannot be taken in stride.
 
> And your interpretation of canon only indicates that 
> Snape "might know," not that he does. And of course, 
> the purpose of your interpretation of canon is to 
> prove, for the time being at least, that your 
> theory is representative of the events in canon.
> 
> After all, the more you look for something, the 
> more you find it. And if you're really looking for
> something, you'll find it everywhere.

That is certainly not true. No matter how much you look for, you won't
be able to support a theory that states that "all spiders have six
legs". Because it only takes a statistical study of spiders to realise
most have 8. Given the facts, you interpret them, but no amount of
looking will turn a fact around. You can try defend, for example, that
Snape never entered at all. But no amount of looking will prove you true.

> Tom replied:
> We *don't* know that he didn't talk to Fudge straight away.
> You're filling in the blanks again.

That is what a *theory* is all about. If you didn't have any blacks to
fill, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a theorem. Like Pithagora's
theorem. A theory fills the blacks in a way that doesn't contradict
itself. You can fill the blancks in other ways, of course, but you
cannot tell us that our way is worse than yours, since you are
guessing as much as we do. If you don't like our way, tough, but that
doesn't make or theory less valid.

Tom replied: 
> Point taken. On that note, no need to be quite so
> harsh later, was there? A slip of canon - not so bad.
> The rest of my "slips" are just differences of 
> interpretation between us, if you notice.

The difference is that you attack and attempt to invalidate our theory
based on your different interpretation - and using shaky canon to boot.

> Tom replied:
> So, in happy reply, I think a better knowledge of the 
> distinction between "quoting canon" and "filling in 
> blanks in canon" would be in order.

Starting by you, I think. We have been saying that MD is a theory from
day one. Since theories fill the gaps, we assumed you realized that.
However, since you seem to expect a step-by-step descrition of the
books, you have lost us from day one. The bottom line is that we have
a *theory* that you have attacked on the basis that you interpret
things differently. And certainly, we had to answer. Any
missunderstanding on what "theory" means and what it implies (filling
the blancks with our interpretation) has been yours to make - we
certainly have no power over what you believe, nor we intend to.

> To reiterate:
> 
> -The assumption that the opening door is 
> Snape entering is only an assumption, not fact.

To reitarate: theories are constructed on assusmptions that fit the
facts (the canon, in this case)

> -If Snape didn't know that Sirius was a
> dog, that's because Dumbledore didn't tell him, which
> is weird, because if he didn't know Sirius was a dog, 
> then why would he know Pettigrew's a rat?

Sirius was roaming the castle in form of a dog. Dumbledore needed him
to have more or less free reign, so Harry could have a chance to save
his life. If he had been captured, the entire thing suddenly looses
one of the three traitors that Dumbledore was playing with and
counting on. On the other hand, considering Peter is already in form
of a rat -but noone is looking for it- it is information Snape needs
NOT to hear publicly.

> Pip wrote:
> OK, Tom, you asked for it when you remarked in post 51378 
> that "Magic Dishwasher is very interesting, although I'm not sure 
> it's entirely thorough in its reading of the text," [Big, evil 
> grin].
> 
> Tom replied:
> Well, I might add that I said that when someone used MD to explain a 
> question I had about PS/SS. Please forgive me if I don't accept MD  
> as canon when it's used. It's a good theory. It's not *that* good.

Now, I wait patiently to point me out a theory that is totally based
on canon, no interpretation whatsoever, and that cannot be taken down
by your methods of non-interpretation. Maybe you'll find one in maths.
The closest you get in the TBAY is the Safe House and the Big Bang,
and they are both based at least at some point in interpretation. The
only things that are NOT based on interpretation (for example, Snape
entered the shack) are not theories, they are facts. Which is not the
same.
 

> But it's all from the 'canon doesn't say so' school of thought, 
> which, like I said before, could be used to prove that orange is 
> blue 'because the dictionary doesn't say it isn't.'

That's the best example you can come up with? It's wrong - again. And
then you dare attack *our* examples. Here is what orange means (in the
colour sense, not the fruit/tree):

   3.  The hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between
red and yellow, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with
wavelengths of approximately 590 to 630 nanometers; any of a group of
colors between red and yellow in hue, of medium lightness and moderate
saturation.

Blue is not within those two wavelenghts, thus orange cannot be blue. 

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf