The problem isn't when a character tries to do science to it. That is perfectly understandable, and could be a good plot point. The problem is when it works and magic is reduced to science, which ruins the whole point of magic.

 

Effectively what I meant. When magic is explained with scientific methods.

 

Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

 

I have yet to see any portrayal in HP non-crossover fanfiction that was actually science instead I just see a bunch of bad writing vaguely related to the subject.

Closest to decent was one I thought was a parody of some of the problems inherent on such approach but apparently it was actually serious so no go there either.

Crossovers have a few not too bad ones but there it is more about trying to bridge the different verses than about science.

 

That's not at all the dichotomy you're making it out to be. "Scientific methods" doesn't negate "magic." In short, "scientific method" is about creating a way to research something that is both testable and repeatable.

A character can use a scientific method to research the Killing Curse. Don't confuse that with using science to explain how magic is done. (Although, if one wanted to do that, they'd ALSO use a scientific method to prove their hypothesis).

 

Very well, when magic is explained using muggle scientific theories. Is that better?

 

At the risk of starting a massive tangent, I think you're being overly simplistic about the scientific method, Scrubb. Your post more or less propounds the view of Michael Ruse, who identifies a nice neat set of "essential characteristics of science".

However, I think that there are a lot of good criticisms of this position, especially from Larry Laudan. I don't think that it is at all possible to identify essential characteristics of science, because the breadth of scientific inquiry is so wide.

There's this idea about the scientific method (and I blame Popper) which says that science is basically this simple idea of hypothesis-experiment. This is a very narrow understanding of science.

Consider areas of theoretical physics like string theory, some of which is completely unverifiable at our current level of technology (and for the foreseeable future).

Similarly, consider something like Keynesianism vs monetrism in the social science of economics. There is no way to design a test which can confirm either theory as "correct", nor is it clear how much these theories are meant to explain phenomena, or merely describe it.

Consider the importance of computer models in modern science and how these models are used to test hypotheses, and how much scientific work goes into increasing the sophistication of those models. Especially true in biochemistry, where successfully creating a computer model of something like protein folding is a significant scientific achievement, even if it tells you nothing new about the world.

Consider the way in which simulation rather than empirical explanation is often the goal of scientific enquiry. In cognitive science, for example, computer models are created to replicate aspects of human cognitive processes (e.g. drawing analogies), but no claims are made that the computer's methodology is what the human brain is actually doing. Nonetheless, the models tell us something about the internal structure of an analogy.

Consider the role of scientific institutions (peer review) in deciding what science is accepted or not. In our modern understanding of science, it is very much a social activity, not something an individual can do alone.

Consider the development of scientific theories which are known to be empirically false but are nonetheless useful e.g. the useful fiction of "deep water" in airy wave theory, in which the water has infinite depth.

In the end, I think science is more of a web of ideas, some shared between different scientific disciplines, but none identifiable as completely universal to all science. Much of science seeks precise explanations and often uses mathematics to do so. Other science is more closely related to engineering and is involved in the construction of non-explanatory ideas/models which nonetheless indirectly shed light on the nature of the world. Other science seeks to describe and predict complex behaviour without any reference to explanation at all.

 

Ok, I'm going to desperately try and change the subject before it becomes another six page debate.

As such, my peeve of the day is authors saying Harry could never date Ginny because she looks like his mum.
Now, I have no real problem with Ginny- or any of the Weasleys - but I'm not a huge fan either. However, this really annoys me, and I'll tell you why.
Firstly, the entire argument makes no sense. If memory serves me correctly, It never even says in the books that Ginny looks like lily- they just have the same hair colour. In fact, if Harry is disgusted by the idea, that is a negative point in his character. He's not able to accept someone because of their looks. Not only that, but he isn't even complaining that she's ugly or anything, just that she has an extremely faint resemblance to someone Harry has never know, had a real conversation with, or even seen in the flesh.
What a dick.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, you're also kind of suggesting that all redheads look the same.
Just sayin'.

 

I'm not even convinced they have the same hair colour. I always saw Lily as a redhead whereas Ginny as ginger.

 

What about when they say Hermione is like his mother, simply because they're both muggleborn and (were, in Lily's case) studious people?

 

James Potter was a dick in school. Draco Malfoy was a dick in school. Both grew up eventually. So we have an explanation for all the Drarry slash out there.

How did I not see this?

 

Yeah, Draco grew up... To be a terrorist.

 

There's a version of canon featuring Terrorist!Malfoy after DH? Care to drop a link?

/sarcasm

 

After DH? I wasn't talking about after DH, I was talking about the 6th and 7th books. The epilogue is too vague for anything in any direction, just, that he somehow got off (presumably) without jail time. Or was out of jail at the time of th epilogue. Just like his dad after the 1st Voldemort's War.

 

I thought the parallel I was pointing out was pretty obvious. I meant Draco Malfoy after Hogwarts, since the epilogue, as much as we hate it, hints that Malfoy grew up to be something resembling a semi-decent human being.

Le sigh.

 

Well, at least he could restrain himself from trash-talking to Harry or flinging around the m-words like he used to, that is something like a progress for him.

 

When people give others a run for their money, e.g. "Hermiones glare could give Snape a run for his money"-just no

 

You know, I've been developing a Theory on Harry's real oedipus complex.

First, we should assume that developing said complex doesn't apply to the biological mother so much as the woman who raised you. In this case, that means Petunia.

Next, assuming Harry doesn't develop any feelings towards his aunt specifically, who would he direct his Oedipus Complex towards? Why someone with the following characteristics, of course:

1. A history of hating and abusing Harry.

2. A strange obsession with everything clean and proper.

3. An irrational hatred towards anything abnormal.

4. A willingness to never talk about her own family because some of them are strange and abnormal and goes against her worldview.

5. Complete and utter devotion to a stupid asshole no one else likes and who also hates Harry himself for his own reasons.

6. Is frequently described as having an animal-like face.

Think about it. When you figure it out, I would strongly recommend heavy-duty eye bleach.

 

So, you mean Umbdridge?

"Captain Obvious to the rescue!"

 

Harry x Umbridge?
Hilply shit, were is a neuralizer or the Obliviate-Charm, when you need it??