Question on the nature of theories

[Grey Wolf <greywolf1@jazzfree.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51793

David wrote:
><snip my own part>
> 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.

Errr... my point was not that, exactly. I supose that, since I am a
pessimist, and have a scientific mind, I know that we will never reach
the single solution. In fact, Science depends on it. Heisenbergs's
uncertainty principle says that, in any given paradigm, there are
things that cannot be explained - and that we cannot know, a priori,
what those things are. But nevermind - it's close enough to your idea:
in a book series like HP, we will never have all the data - that would
require entire dictionries of nothing but data, which no-one would
ever read, but never mind, since they are not going to happen.

> 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.

(I have to point out that the same thing happens in RL sciences,
except the purely theorical ones like maths, and even those have
certain theories that cannot be proved - due to Heisenberg's principle
which I've mentioned above. For example, can any of our resident
mathematics demonstrate that any even number is sum of two primes? No
- no-one can, for now, and possibly noone will ever be able to, in the
present maths paradigm).

> 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*?

The short answer is: no. At that point, Occam's Razor is normally
invoked, but as I said, Occam's Razor doesn't work in books - and
neither it does in Science, when you get right down to it. Quoting
Terry Pratchett:

"Einstein published Special Relativity in 1905 ... the conclusion was
that the universe is a lot weirder than common sense tells us,
although they probably didn't use that actual word."

Some of the conclussions of Einsteins Theory of Relativity are
flagrant breaches of "common sense" (on which Occam's Razor is based),
like time being distorted by mass, and Time starting a few moments
*after* the Big Bang (I still don't get that one myself).

> 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)?

There is no official method to decide what theory is better than
another one, except by careful statistical studies (i.e. which is less
wrong). Generally, however, the correct theory when several are
present is the one most people believe in. Which, however, doesn't
make it right - but it is a democratical approach. There have been
times in history when two theories have coexisted for a long time
before one was tuned into more correctness, at which point the other
is normally discarded.
 
> 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

I think that the method of choosing is neither right nor wrong myself
- I select theories because they make sense in my mind, but others use
other methods. Why people choose or reject theories is not somehing
that bothers me - they can do so (I do so on ocassions, rejecting
theories even while defending them). The bottom line is that each
person likes or not a theory for reasons of its own. However, the fact
that they don't like a theory is not a good reason to believe it is
wrong  - the only way to prove a theoory wrong is to find canon
against it.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, rushing to class.