Re: This shall be Salman Rushdie´s words (Spoiler????)!?

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 156539

> wynnleaf
> I'm afraid, Neri, that you've set up a very common fallacy.  One of
> Rushdie's comments was basically, "[if] Snape is a villian, [then]
> Dumbledore's killed." That's a very obvious conclusion and
> practically no one has ever argued against that.  If Snape is evil, he
> definitely killed DD.  But that being true, does not make the converse
> true.  In other words, the above being true does not in any way imply
> that if Dumbledore is really dead, Snape must be evil.  To consider
> that to be true is to fall for a very common fallacy, the Latin name
> of which I can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction is:
>   If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.
> 
> Rushdie's comments don't even come close to saying that if Dumbledore
> is dead, Snape must be evil.  Therefore JKR's comment doesn't even
> approach validating that notion.
> 


Neri:
Well, I wasn't present in the reading so actually I wasn't presuming
to fill in the blanks, and so I never referred to the sentence "[if]
Snape is a villian, [then] Dumbledore's killed". I was referring to
Rushdie's words "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy.
We propose that Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is
a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off
his guard". From these words I think it is fair to sum up Rushdie's
argument as "if our theory is correct and Snape is good, then
Dumbledore can't really be dead".

To this JKR's answer was: " Your opinion, I would say, is right.
However, I see I am going to have to be more explicit and say
Dumbledore is definitely dead". My interpretation to JKR's words is
"Rushdie's argument is valid, but unfortunately Dumbledore *is* dead.

The logical question whether this inevitably implies that Snape is
evil depends on the precise formulation of Rushdie's argument, the way
JKR understood it. Unfortunately he didn't formulate it very
precisely, and even if he would have we wouldn't have a proof that JKR
understood it that way. However, *if* JKR understood Rushdie's
argument as "if Snape is good, then Dumbledore can't be dead" then the
fact that Dumbledore *is* dead would logically imply that Snape at the
very least isn't good.


(If you really really insist on the logical proof, then:

A = Snape is good

B = Dumbledore is dead

The four logical options are: 

1. A and B
2. (Not A) and B
3. A and (Not B)
4. (Not A) and (Not B)

Rushdie's argument: If A then Not B

Since JKR acknowledges Rushdie's argument as true, this means option 1
is false. 

However, JKR adds that B must exist and therefore options 3 and 4 are
false too. This leaves as valid only option 2: Snape isn't good and
Dumbledore is dead.

Q.E.D.)


Of course, one might object here that "not good" does not necessarily
implies "evil". That is, it could be some form of Gray!Snape. And of
course, if JKR didn't understand Rushdie's argument as precisely "if
Snape is good, then Dumbledore can't be dead", or if her logic wasn't
operating very well, then this leaves Good!Snape some wriggle room,
but not much more than that. I certainly wouldn't describe it as "a
huge boost".


Neri