On the nature of evidence (WAS objections to Magic Dishwasher

[longawayy <longawayy@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51870

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak <pipdowns at e...>" 
<pipdowns at e...> wrote:
> On the nature of Evidence
> 
> Tom's comments that MD makes assumptions (which, as Grey Wolf 
points 
> out, all theories do) made me wonder.  I wondered which points 
that 
> we now *know* to be canon had no direct canon proof by the end of 
> particular books.
> 
> After all, we are only at the end of Book Four in a seven book 
> series. There must be some future canon, which presently is in a 
> state of `no direct canon proof'.
> 
> [Kitchen appliances? Me? No, I was thinking of LOLLIPOPS. 
Honestly. ]
> 
> 
*********************************************************************

*****Examples Snipped For Brevity*****

*********************************************************************
> 
> So, the case for wild theories inferred without direct canon proof 
> is actually pretty strong.  And theories based on what *isn't* 
said? 
> No problem.


Now Me:
 
 You make a very interesting points, but I think that your 
assumption is partially flawed.  Theories without direct canon proof 
_cannot_ stand on their own; They must be coupled with some other 
basis, such as.......logic.  Every one of your examples, while using 
negative evidence, also has some sort of basis in logic.  Your 
example of Harry as a Parseltongue, for instance, shows that there 
is no direct proof (as of Book 1)that it is a rare ability, but the 
fact that no one else is shown talking to _any_ sort of animal, much 
less a snake, does lend itself to the _logical_ conclusion that the 
ability is rare.

 Moving out of the realm of the Potterverse reality, for a moment, 
since JKR is the one defining the logic of the world, she is the 
only one who can ignore it.  The rest of us have to work within the 
stated canon, negative evidence, and a combination of real world and 
Potterverse logic.  That said, back to Pip!squeak

> 
> So what will happen in Book Five?
> 
> Well, there is always my favourite whacky theory.
> 
> ::long pause::
> 
> Kitchen Appliance? No. I have another theory about what will 
happen 
> in Book Five. Based on the following:
> 
> **At the end of Book Two:**
> 
> **Theory: Harry will turn out to have a Godfather he never knew 
> about. This person hasn't taken him from the Dursley's because 
he's 
> been unjustly accused of the murder of Harry's parents. He escapes 
> from Azkaban to find the real murderer.
> 
> Evidence:
> 
> Hey! What left field did *that* one come out of?
> 
> 
> Pip!Squeak
> 

Me again:

 I think I know where you're going with this.  The left field that 
came out of is probably the same left field I've been wandering 
around in lately.  You know, the one that finds it curious that 
Harry has a Godfather, but no mention of a Godmother.

 Not only do I think that Harry has a Godmother that we'll be 
introduced to sometime in the next three books, but I think it's 
someone we've been talking about quite a bit.  Arabella Figg.

 Now, logically speaking, if James and Lily went to the trouble 
(little as it may be) of choosing a God father, why wouldn't they 
also choose a Godmother?  I'm going to make the assumption (yes, I 
know how dangerous that can be) that the reason James and Lily went 
the route of Godparents at all was because of the severe possibility 
that any of them could die at Voldemort's hands at any time.  Thus, 
it would only make sense that they would choose both a Godfather and 
a Godmother, so that Harry would have more options of someone to 
take care of him if the unthinkable happened.

 Okay, so why Arabella Figg?  Well, Sirius was mentioned well before 
he was introduced, so there is valid reasoning for assuming that 
whomever turns out to be the Godmother would also have been 
previously mentioned.  Ms. Figg has been mentioned enough to make 
her seem like a potentially important character.  But important 
enough to be Harry's Godmother?

 But she's too old, isn't she?  Enough people in this discussion 
group alone have posited the idea that dear, old Ms. Figg is using 
some sort of magic to either age herself, or appear to be aged, that 
it would absolutely shock me to be otherwise.  We all know that 
Dumbledore included Arabella in his brief listing of "the old 
crowd".  The question, of course, is what he meant by "the old 
crowd".  The possibilities are a) A grouping of Dumbledore's 
contemporaries, b) A grouping of Sirius' contemporaries, or c) A 
grouping of contemporaries and friends (including ex-students) of 
Dumbledore's.  If "the old crowd" is meant to be answer A, than 
Arabellea is likely to be much too old to be Harry's Godmother, and 
this entire theory falls apart.  On the other hand, both B and C 
would allow Arabella to be in the correct age range, with answer B 
making it almost definite that she would be of the correct age.  The 
question of age is only important since most parents choose friends 
of a similar age to be Godparents.

 Alright, by now I'm sure you're looking for every possible argument 
against this idea.  I mean, a relative newbie popping up with a post 
like this!  And the first question is probably along the lines 
of, "Well then, if Harry has a Godmother, why wouldn't Dumbledore 
place Harry with her instead of the Dursley's?  A Godparent is 
considered to be family, after all."  Well, we all know that 
Dumbledore has not given a definitive answer as to why the Dursley's 
were to be Harry's guardians, but has made mention of a few of the, 
presumably minor, reasons, and Voldemort himself knows that Harry is 
protected by magic of Dumbledore's devising while with the 
Dursleys.  While a Godparent is considered to be part of a family, 
technically they are not. (Unless, of course they were part of the 
family to begin with.) Any Godparent worth the name would do 
whatever was best for their Godchild, and in this case it would be 
letting him go live with the Dursleys in order to assure his safety.

 At this pointI have no idea if you're thinking this to be a true 
possibility or not, but another argument you've probably come up 
with is this: Why would Arabella Figg, Harry's Godmother or not, 
disguise herself as an old woman, for years on end, in order to keep 
an eye on Harry?  The Dursley's are very stodgy, somewhat old 
fashioned people.  There is no way that they would even associate 
with, much less trust, a young single woman who lived alone.  Even 
though they could care less about Harry, a young Arabella Figg would 
probably be considered a a brazen hussy by them.  So old woman she 
must be.  And she's good at it too!  Think of the few desciptions 
we've had of her home....isn't it a complete stereotype?  The 
cabbage and cats, old cake and miss-matched furniture.  Stereotypes 
exist for a reason, and it seems Arabella has played it to the hilt.

Thank you for reading this and putting up with my barely coherent 
ramblings.  If one of you nice people who know the way to Theory Bay 
would like to put this one to the test to check it's sea worthiness, 
I'd be much obliged.