Textbook reliablility? RE: Lupin, mon amour was Re: Page-filler Lupin [the_old_crowd]

[Eileen Rebstock]

> Silmariel:
> > In this particular case I can't consider the lack of reliable
sources,
> furbys
> > are wide known for a long period, and being (still) second grade
> citizens, I
> > assume they have been studied, at least for practical/defense
questions,
> that
> > includes how they transform and when - definitely not the case of
> phoenix or
> > those so rare three headed serpents. 

 Pippin:
>I wouldn't count on the textbook being accurate,
> though.
> Opportunities for studying werewolves must be rare, and  it's possible
to
> come up with a great deal of nonsense when studying a subject in
absentia,
> as we should know only too well. Politics plays a part also.  I
wouldn't
> have
> guessed from Fantastic Beasts that there were folks like Fenrir
around.

I agree with Pippin and think this can be taken a bit further,
considering the psychology of the wizarding world. 

Is anyone here familiar with the story of Aristotle and women's teeth?
Despite being married thrice, Aristotle never seems to have thought of
asking his wife to open her mouth so he could count her teeth. Instead,
he wrote down the number of teeth women had according to the information
that had been handed down to him, and others copied him. This went on
for a hundreds of years. It's an extreme example of a larger phenomenon.


It is very difficult in our experimental minded world to understand the
psyche of the world in which science doesn't mean observation and
testing. Where the value of an idea isn't the proofs you can put forward
but the sources you can quote. Where originality and innovation are bad
things. 

Where you may not actually go hunt down the real facts about werewolves,
but instead partially rely on the old stories. Scamander is probably
better than most in this regard, but there's still room for problems.

Certainly Snape has this problem with the Potions textbook, judging by
his notes in the HBP textbook.

Eileen