Why would Lucius be convinced by that?
Asymmetric
Karma: 172
And yet, he did an entire arc about the role of a hero and supporting characters. I don’t think we can be sure that his decisions won’t be influenced by story concerns.
That means losing Dumbledore as an ally, and convincing the entire world that he really has gone Dark. He might even lose Hermione. Would that really be worth it?
I was under the impression that we can actually influence the events of the story based upon how good our ideas are. If I may ask, Eliezer, are we trying to pick your brain for a True ending (something you have written already that we’re trying to guess) or are we coming up with a Good one?
This thought just occurred to me: would Harry think to check the phoenix’s price chamber for a picture of Narcissa Malfoy? If it is not there, how strong is it as evidence against Dumbledore immolating her?
I would put Lucius up there as a suspect or accomplice: he loves his son, and was noticeably offended when he saw Hermione beat him in magic. Purebloods also have a history of thinking of muggleborns as not-people (see Harry and Draco talking about Luna on the train), so he wouldn’t have any moral compunctions getting in the way of hurting Hermione. He was also at the school at the time, so he has almost as much opportunity as the rest of them.
And wouldn’t that just be a perfect rationality lesson? Eliezer can talk about how Lucius is blinded by perceived threats to his beliefs, thereby putting his son and an innocent girl in danger.
Of course, I really hope that it’s Quirrel instead, if only because it would be impossible to convict Lucius.
This is exactly how history is studied.
Historiography is how historical opinions have changed over time. It first begins with the Orthodox viewpoint, which is the first, generally accepted viewpoint of the events that arises. It is generally very biased because it comes about directly after the event has occurred, when feelings still run strong.
This Orthodox viewpoint is contrasted by several Revisionist viewpoints, which tend to make wildly different conclusions based upon new evidence in order to sell books (historical scandals are quite good for that). Sometimes a Revisionist viewpoint can become the new Orthodoxy if it has become entrenched in the public consciousness long enough.
Then there’s Post-Revisionism, which, after the rancor has died down, aims to dispassionately weigh the evidence brought to the table by both the Revisionist viewpoints and the Orthodoxy (different Post-Revisionist conclusions arise from differing opinions on how reliable certain pieces of evidence are). While the Orthodoxy and especially the Revisionists tend to make strong statements about the controversy, Post-Revisionists rarely make statements that concede nothing to other viewpoints, and thus their arguments are “weaker”, though Post-Revisionist opinions are seen generally as the least biased of the three.
The problem with the Post-Revisionist viewpoints is that, even though they don’t arise from emotional attachment (or rejection of the same), they tend to have access to less evidence in total—I mean, just look at all those Egyptologists. Or, really, anyone who wants to know about an ancient civilization.
Oliver Sacks wrote a book called “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat”, which is all about right-brained anosognosia. It was first published in 1970, so it may be outdated, but it is relevant.
Sometimes it’s just the techniques. My drawing of faces became significantly better once I read a “how to draw” book that told me that the eyes are in the middle of the head (many beginner artists draw them towards the top). Likewise, knowledge of basic anatomy is helpful in drawing figures.
That said, I’m very interested in this series. Good luck!
Until he finds a person who he would describe as good but had legitimate reasons to torture someone? The situation would be contrived, but it’s still possible.
Harry has said that Hermione is his moral center. Is she? Should she be?
I have mixed feelings. She’s hardly a paragon, and if she’s going to continue to develop into her own character instead of a satellite of Harry, Eliezer’s going to outline her faults in more detail. We’ve seen this with Harry. Every time he undergoes a trial, readers learn more and more how fallible he is, and why.
Thoughts?
For those of us still in high school, should we put “general” or the major we expect to take in college?
This whole idea is actually a major source of conflict in my family. I consider myself an atheist, but I enjoy Christmas and see it as an excuse to get together with my family, exchange gifts, listen to the music, eat food, light a fire in the fireplace, and just generally experience quality time with my few blood relations. I’m actually quite attached to the holiday. It has been the source of many fond memories.
However, my parents aren’t letting me participate this year, because of my beliefs. They think Christmas is about Jesus and by celebrating I’ll be cheapening the holiday for them. They don’t understand why, if I’m an atheist, I should even want to celebrate Christmas, and that I’m not being consistent with what I think. Therefore, I won’t be able to give or receive presents, go to church or do Christmas related things with them. I personally agree with Alicorn’s and taw’s comments: I see no reason to feel hostile towards the holiday. Does anyone have any advice for what I should do?
Thanks for the correction—fixed.
Applying Bayesian Analysis to History (post idea)
Sure, but how would he know to do so? Harry didn’t know about that rule in canon. He wouldn’t have the impulse to not use the stone on himself unless he knew that wanting to do so would prevent him from getting it.
His testimony and memories would still be considered primary sources by historians. I don’t think there is such a thing as a zeroth source. And every source has its limitations—frankly, a shelf full of memories all relating to a specific event (which, canon, is possible) would be better than the memories of only one person, depending upon the subject in question.
But still. The things that man must have seen …
Eliezer has already mentioned things like Atlantis. History would probably play a role in finding out how magic works in general. Harry, from a political perspective, would do well to learn how the situation arose, and it may be an opportunity for Eliezer to set up an Aesop.
And it wouldn’t necessarily change history. The muggle world as it is in canon is very similar to how it is in the real world, down to things like Playstations, yet Rowling invents a wizarding history that manages to not change much. All of the science Eliezer has mentioned is historically accurate to the year. It’s not a stretch to say that the only part about HPMOR that is an alternate universe from canon is wizarding history, because even the existence of a wizarding world in canon didn’t manage to change much.
Of course, this would be impossible to discuss in-universe without many-worlds magic. Harry can’t find out why the existence of a wizarding world has not changed history if, from his perspective, there was no other “reality” for him to compare it to that he can actually draw evidence from.
However, wizards having their own history means they have their own documentation of that history. This means there are far more primary sources that may have been magically preserved, and muggles could, in the future, use these to learn more about their own history. They might even be able to settle historical debates that have gone on for decades, like what the actual pathogen that devastated Europe during the Black Plague was (since there is significant controversy over whether it was in fact the bubonic plague). Not to mention the existence of things like Pensieves. Magical historians are comparatively spoiled rotten when it comes to primary sources of historical events.
So the implications would be that, instead of changing muggle history, muggles would be more knowledgeable about what actually happened.
How would successfully transfiguring nanotech be bad, exactly?
We think it’s likely that Voldemort can’t cast it, but Lucius and the Wizengamot do not, and the only information they have regarding it being a sign of altruism is Harry’s word on the subject.
It’s even more of a stretch to say that Lucius would be convinced that Harry is not Voldemort, because the Patronus alone isn’t enough evidence.