Question on the nature of theories

[ggershman77 <ggershman77@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51821

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

There is an excellent book, entitled, "The Structure of Scientific 
Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, which details the process of theory 
discovery and revision used in science.  This process applies to any 
other theory system as well.  All theories are approximations of 
reality, not actual models of it.  The best theory is the one that 
explains the most phenomena successfully.  When a theory has too many 
contradictions, it is deemed invalid, and new one is brought into 
place.  People dont like to work without theories, so often a theory 
with contradictions will be used until it can be refined to 
incorporate disparate data into a unified theory.

It really is an excellent book (and very cheap - something $8 on 
Amazon).  I have tried this approach when analyzing literature and 
has been very helpful in aiding me in revising my theories to be more 
consistent.

And, by the way, if you look closely, Harry Potter is chock full of 
theme lines.

Greg
http://hpprogs.blogspot.com/ - Harry Potter Prognostications

[Mod Note:  Although the posts on this thread have been thought-provoking and interesting, future posts along these lines should make a canon point about the Harry Potter books themselves and should not be off-topic.  Or if you prefer, posters who wish to continue the discussion may do so on our sister list, OT-Chatter.  Thanks!]