Question on the nature of theories

[David <dfrankiswork@netscape.net>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51773

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Grey Wolf <greywolf1 at j...>" 
<greywolf1 at j...> wrote:

> 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.

Grey Wolf has identified one of the fundamental differences between 
our interpretations of literature and our interpretations of real 
life.  In RL, we usually assume that only one interpretation is 
true, even if with our limited information many are possible.  We 
tend to think that if only we knew a bit more then all the 
possibilities except one would disappear.

In literature there is no guarantee that this is so, and, as Grey 
Wolf says, we have more than one theory that is consistent with the 
text we have.

My question is, if more than one theory is considered *possible*, 
and exhaustive (and exhausting) argumentation has failed to 
eliminate either on logical grounds, is there any way of agreeing 
which theory is *better*?

For example, could you say that in some way one reading is more 
*probable* than another?  And back it up in a way that parallels 
logic, so that there could be a degree of consensus about it?

Or could we find other criteria for 'better'?  More *compelling*, as 
Amanda suggested (for herself on behalf of Tom, not universally, I 
hasten to add)?

Undoubtedly, there is the commonly cited view that a reading or 
theory is more *satisfying* - is it a fundamental mistake to 
generalise from the individual on this?

Or is the whole idea misconceived, even divisive, encouraging people 
to rank readings (and thus themselves) on an illusory scale of 
ability to 'read aright'?

David