Downvoted for the attitude. People in LessWrong generally understand the difference between “evidence” and “indisputable proof”.
When you say that “we should let this idea die already”, are you actually claiming that the similarity of the H&C and Quirrell statements in regards to Slytherin’s monster is exactly zero evidence towards H&C and Quirrel having some connection between them? Are you really saying that the author is exactly as likely to have H&C and Quirrel use the exact same phrase in regards to Slytherin’s monster, if they were the same character, and if they were completely unrelated characters?
If you’re not saying that, then all you’re saying is that you feel it should be weighed as less significant evidence than how some people are weighing it—but a mere disagreement on how it should be weighed doesn’t justify your tone or the way you say “please let this idea die already”.
Well, it’s a historical fact that when I first saw this term-use-implies-identity idea, I rolled my eyes at it. What I think happens here is this:
The first appearance of H&C does indeed seem to imply Quirrell is H&C. He walks off after Zabini, Zabini’s lie benefited him, and so forth. And however shakily, the common use of a term could support this as well.
But. Later we find evidence that it is indeed simply a technical term—as quoted above, (but it seems to be ignored, because the first H&C incident already implies a Q=H&C—at least I think this is what people feel), and then, in Ch76 we see something more important, a strong contrast between Quirrell reading the possibly-perfect-Occlumens Snape vs. H&C failing to read Hermione to such a degree that he needs to be told how suspicious he is. It points to them not beeing the same (which seems to be also ignored, because shared term-use already implies Q=H&C).
Rather than examining the evidences independently, they all seem to be lumped into an unassailable whole.
Downvoted for the attitude. People in LessWrong generally understand the difference between “evidence” and “indisputable proof”.
When you say that “we should let this idea die already”, are you actually claiming that the similarity of the H&C and Quirrell statements in regards to Slytherin’s monster is exactly zero evidence towards H&C and Quirrel having some connection between them? Are you really saying that the author is exactly as likely to have H&C and Quirrel use the exact same phrase in regards to Slytherin’s monster, if they were the same character, and if they were completely unrelated characters?
If you’re not saying that, then all you’re saying is that you feel it should be weighed as less significant evidence than how some people are weighing it—but a mere disagreement on how it should be weighed doesn’t justify your tone or the way you say “please let this idea die already”.
Well, it’s a historical fact that when I first saw this term-use-implies-identity idea, I rolled my eyes at it. What I think happens here is this:
The first appearance of H&C does indeed seem to imply Quirrell is H&C. He walks off after Zabini, Zabini’s lie benefited him, and so forth. And however shakily, the common use of a term could support this as well.
But. Later we find evidence that it is indeed simply a technical term—as quoted above, (but it seems to be ignored, because the first H&C incident already implies a Q=H&C—at least I think this is what people feel), and then, in Ch76 we see something more important, a strong contrast between Quirrell reading the possibly-perfect-Occlumens Snape vs. H&C failing to read Hermione to such a degree that he needs to be told how suspicious he is. It points to them not beeing the same (which seems to be also ignored, because shared term-use already implies Q=H&C).
Rather than examining the evidences independently, they all seem to be lumped into an unassailable whole.
This is how it feels like when you are using One Argument Against An Army.