Isn’t that a rather convenient outcome, though? Why should we think that?
Because if that weren’t the case, we might expect aurors to wear armor, and they don’t. A hypothesis that suggests that armor isn’t useful for adult wizards predicts our observations better than one that suggests that it is.
Because if that weren’t the case, we might expect aurors to wear armor, and they don’t.
One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens; we can use the observed lack in canon to argue for Eliezer conflicting with canon or we can use it to argue canon invisibly agrees with Eliezer.
OK. So to use an earlier Yudkowsky example, what possibility about arbitrage should we assume holds true in canon? That there’s some clever witchery which makes it impossible or that Rowling simply made a mistake and didn’t think about the economics?
If we assume perfection on the part of the author, doesn’t that lead to an odd and desperate kind of rabbinical midrash?
I assume both: Rowling never thought of it, but if it were brought to her attention (and she considered it worth bothering about), she would probably declare that the Goblins had some clever witchery (or goblinery) that makes it impossible. So I proactively make that assumption for her, while still doubting that she ever thought of it.
More plausible explanation if you need a fanboy defense: Nothing in the text ever says the coins are pure gold and silver. They could work just like Muggle money and when people refer to them as silver and gold it isn’t any more meaningful than calling US pennies copper.
The fact that coins are stored in large vaults and apparently aren’t earning interest does indicate that there are aspects of the system that don’t work as the modern muggle system does, but there’s not a strong argument that the coins are pure metal.
One could assume that wizards never thought of it.
I’ll grant that sometimes author’s do just not think of things. However, if there is a perfectly good explanation then I see no reason to throw away my enjoyment of the story by ignoring it.
Ah, but I don’t come to the MoR discussion threads just to enjoy it. That’s what reading it is for. I come to the MoR discussion threads to nitpick and tear it apart!
Because if that weren’t the case, we might expect aurors to wear armor, and they don’t. A hypothesis that suggests that armor isn’t useful for adult wizards predicts our observations better than one that suggests that it is.
One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens; we can use the observed lack in canon to argue for Eliezer conflicting with canon or we can use it to argue canon invisibly agrees with Eliezer.
General rule of fiction. If there are two possibilities, neither of which is confirmed or denied in text, assume the one that makes sense.
OK. So to use an earlier Yudkowsky example, what possibility about arbitrage should we assume holds true in canon? That there’s some clever witchery which makes it impossible or that Rowling simply made a mistake and didn’t think about the economics?
If we assume perfection on the part of the author, doesn’t that lead to an odd and desperate kind of rabbinical midrash?
I assume both: Rowling never thought of it, but if it were brought to her attention (and she considered it worth bothering about), she would probably declare that the Goblins had some clever witchery (or goblinery) that makes it impossible. So I proactively make that assumption for her, while still doubting that she ever thought of it.
More plausible explanation if you need a fanboy defense: Nothing in the text ever says the coins are pure gold and silver. They could work just like Muggle money and when people refer to them as silver and gold it isn’t any more meaningful than calling US pennies copper.
The fact that coins are stored in large vaults and apparently aren’t earning interest does indicate that there are aspects of the system that don’t work as the modern muggle system does, but there’s not a strong argument that the coins are pure metal.
Both possibilities (protective spells, not real gold) are suggested at the Wikia.
One could assume that wizards never thought of it.
I’ll grant that sometimes author’s do just not think of things. However, if there is a perfectly good explanation then I see no reason to throw away my enjoyment of the story by ignoring it.
Ah, but I don’t come to the MoR discussion threads just to enjoy it. That’s what reading it is for. I come to the MoR discussion threads to nitpick and tear it apart!