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

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 156613

 
> wynnleaf:
> As I read it, Rushdie was setting up a series of statements akin -- as
> far as construction goes -- to the following:
> 
> It is winter, and there is snow on the ground.
> 

Neri:
Well, it was more like "our theory is that it's winter. We propose
that there must be snow on the ground. That there was in fact a ruse,
cooked between winter and snow, to ensure that there is snow on the
ground. So is it winter or not? It's plain to see that everything
follows from this"

I'd say words like "there must be", "there was in fact a ruse" and
"follows from" clearly paint this as an if/then statement.


> wynnleaf:
> The two are certainly related, but clearly either can be true without
> the other being true.  If on the other hand I interpret this statement
> to be "If it is winter, then there is snow on the ground," I have set
> up an if/then statement in which there *must* always be snow in
> winter.  But even then we are not bound to consider it winter, just
> because snow is on the ground.  That is, we can't say, "If snow is on
> the ground, it is winter."

Neri:
You are certainly correct that the opposite of a true if/then
statement is not necessarily also true. However, this "fallacy" is
simply irrelevant to our discussion. That is, I quite agree that if
the statement "if Snape is good, then Dumbledore must be alive" is
true, this does not mean that the opposite statement: "if Dumbledore
is alive, then Snape must be good" is also true. But I have never made
such an opposite statement, so I beg to be acquitted from using this
fallacy. 


> wynnleaf:
But with the first statement, "It is
> winter, and there is snow on the ground," I could easily affirm the
> first part and deny the second, or affirm the second and deny the
> first.  "It is winter, but snow is not on the ground," or vice versa.
> 
> Similarly, Rushdie can basically say, "Snape is good, and DD is
> alive." Even thought the two are related, they are not dependent on
> each other. JKR can affirm the opinion that Snape is good -- even that
> he and DD worked together on a plan -- yet deny that DD is alive.  
> 
> However, I personally don't think she was affirming anything about
> Snape's loyalties.  I can't believe she'd give so much away.  I prefer
> to think her comment about Rushdie's opinion being correct was related
> to Rushdie's last comment that the tower events hinge on Snape's
loyalty.

Neri:
To be precise, Rushdie's last comment (according to the transcript
upthread, anyway) was: 

"So, is Snape good or bad? It's plain to see, everything follows from
this."

The words "follows from this" support the view of Rushdie's argument
as an if/then statement. I assume here that in "everything" he also
includes Dumbledore being alive or dead.

Note that Rushdie doesn't mention any other reasons for Dumbledore
being alive, and still he concludes that "Dumbledore can't really be
dead". I don't see from what he can conclude that other than from his
previous sentence "Snape is in fact still a good guy".


Neri