We know that magical research exists in canon. The Department of Mysteries exists, as do various academic journals. But what do you think the process of magical research entails?

It must be complex and academically advanced, because many people struggle with magical theory, but at the same time it can't be mathematical in nature because mathematics is not part of the Hogwarts curriculum.

As Muggles we're so used to complexity and mathematics going together, but there are areas of advanced academics that are non-mathematical, such as traditional philosophy, literature, law. It is to the methodologies of these subjects that I think we have to look.

In one sense I do like magic to be reminiscent of science in that we have no real ultimate answers, and that many of our answers are incompatible with each other. A wizard should not be able to explain "the one true theory of magic" in a paragraph, or even a chapter. That's far too simplistic.

When considering this issue I've been thinking about the way in which I think HP magic is heavily concept based rather than concerned with physical quantities. Consider the way, for example, that a magical law prevents you from creating food from nothing with transfiguration, but you can create animals with it. The human concept of food is a part of Gamp's law, and that law has magical reality. That is significant, I think.

I think the best way to describe the work of magical theorists and spell creators would be that of "conceptual engineers", and they proceed much as the old philosophers did when constructing metaphysical systems from their armchairs. That's the key concept here: construction. Magical theorists are not engaged in an act of discovery like scientists. They're not discovering and explaining "how magic works".

Rather, they are more creating a narrative that describes magic so as to capture some essence of it. These narratives can either be general attempts to capture all of magic, or more specific, substantial and complex narratives which deal with specific phenomena or areas of magic.

Spells can be created on the basis of these narratives and so they have a sense of reality, but they are basically created by humans. In essence I see magic as a way that human fictions can override reality. As such I consider magical theory as essentially pluralistic: there is no single correct magical theory, no "magical truth" but rather many different, equally correct, ways of viewing magic, at least some of which are contradictory.

Different narratives will have different advantages and disadvantages depending on what they focus on. For example, Voldemort favours a "conventional" narrative that sees magic as essentially inert, mechanistic, and able to be mastered with all variables within the control of a suitably skilled wizard. He doesn't handle the incredibly arcane stuff like sacrifice and love well -- he knows of it, but it is not his instinct to give it weight. Dumbledore prefers a more "mythic" or holistic view of magic which takes into account such obscure ideas as the power of moral certainty, but he too is well aware of the more conventional narratives of magic that Voldemort relies upon.

Neither approach is more correct than the other -- Voldemort achieves many great magical feats with his narrative of magic, and also he recognises the power of Dumbledore's narrative in GoF when he said that Lily's sacrifice was an old magic that he should have anticipated. But Dumbledore's narrative ultimately prevails in the story, because Voldemort repeatedly fails to give it due consideration and acts on the sole basis of his own ideas.

 

This pretty much summarises what I think, Taure. It would, however, be interesting to see what would happen if one reverses the position. Voldemort goes "mythical" and Dumbledore goes with the "mechanistic" approach. Voldemort, as he is wont to do, fails to realise the potential of anything that is not his own view but Dumbledore has more insight. Now, what would the ultimate difference be?

 

It's a very attractive outlook - can't say I disagree, in any case.

I think the comparative value of different academic fields in popular culture plays a large role, here. To feed and protect ourselves as ordinary humans, the natural sciences are undoubtedly more useful disciplines than philosophy or literature. As a consequence, arts subjects are often lampooned as useless time-sinks for people with too much money or (god forbid) dreams to function properly.

Therefore, especially when it comes to anything connoting the need for study or research (even if it's fantasy-oriented), readers and authors alike have a tendency to think physically rather than conceptually, like you said. Superhero movies, RPG mechanics and shonen anime-esque power-scaling don't help either. Interestingly, I honestly think JKR lampshades this with Harry and Hermione, multiple times.

I've read countless articles, blogs and threads on other forums that completely miss the mark when it comes to the message of the series, claiming that Hermione did all the work and knew all teh magicz, so she should have been the protagonist.

Yes, Hermione knew the principles, conventions and exceptions back-to-front, but she often failed to grasp the deeper forces of magic at work. She even seems to admit this at one point:

We all know the quote, but I think a lot of readers (*cough FF.Net cough*) take it for granted.

Harry has shown an instinct for 'doing the right thing' at several points in the books, but because they were more moralistic in nature, the potency of these actions was mostly lost on many readers.

But by DH, he already had a reasonably well-developed personal philosophy on what magic meant to him: it's why he persuaded Ron to stab the locket, after all. His grief over Dobby as he dug his friend's grave by hand helped him to somewhat 'clear his mind'. The love he had for his friends nullified Voldemort's spells at the Battle of Hogwarts, and bolstered his Shield Charm.

Hermione's encouraging words there... that is how he came to see magic, and in the end, it really did work for him too.

 

Whenever I mentally compare muggles to wizards, the one word that always comes to mind is "quirky". Muggles base their understanding of the world on logic, looking for answers and explanations that make logical sense. Wizards, by virtue of their lives, society and very nature revolving around magic, are of course much less "logically inclined" than muggles. That's because magic itself doesn't seem to follow what would be commonly understood as logic, it defies the underlying rules of the universe without causing everything to flip.

Two examples I like are Snape's first DADA lesson in HBP and the poular fanon justification for Dark magic, when the author starts ranting that even a Tickling Spell is a viable murder method if you do it to someone standing on the edge of a cliff.

Firstly, Snape's explanation of of Dark Arts is very cool and poetic and I think it tells us something about Snape himself: he views it as such, but it's not a view his students are forced to share. Someone else could simply see Dark magic as nothing more than a tool, or a weapon whose use is justified in war. That's when the fanon comes in. It often seems to me that authors who try to paint all magic as equally deadly use whichever character talks about it as their mouthpiece without considering that neither approach is more wrong or right than the other. I think that a person's nature plays a role in the whole debate. Dark!Harrys tend to lean towards Snape's canon interpretation and often end up "corrupted" by the Dark magic. Then you have Indy!Harrys with the utilitarian and in my opinion boring approach: magic is just a tool.

Summing up this word-vomit, I interpret Dark Arts as magic with the potential to corrupt the practitioner because when the concept of Dark magic was "invented" by some scholar, it was defined as such. That's how I could have, for example, Aurors who are simply trained in some aspects of Dark Arts under the table to better combat them when they're used against them and Death Eaters, who see it all in a more... esoteric? arcane? way and thus end up violent and Dark with the capital D.

There hasn't been much about my thoughts on magical research in this wallpost yet because I wanted to give my perspective of looking at magic and it's a sort of expansion of Taure's neat explanation of "conceptual magic".

All that said, muggles research mainly because they want to innovate. There's a desire for understanding there, but it's always alongside the drive to master the world around us, put it all in logical terms. We don't like not knowing things and I think this trait shows very clearly in Hermione, whom I see as one of those people with the utilitarian approach to magic. Her methods aren't wrong, as her track record demonstrates, just different. Her adherence to the logic of muggles is contrasted by Luna's perfect wizarding quirkiness.

I imagine that magical research is similar - some do it because they want to innovate and understand, others probably spend their time on pursuits that would look completely bonkers to someone like Hermione looking in from outside and make perfect sense to Luna.

/ramble

edit: I very much approve of ihateseatbelts' post.

 

As an aside, I was almost wholly convinced that the 'forceful spell' Dumbledore cast at the DoM really was a Tickling Charm at one point, but I actually mis-read the passage something terrible (shining silver).

 

I didn't read the whole post, but one of the things that is uncertain to me in 'research' is if people are actually creating new spells, or just rediscovering old spells. I find it hard to believe that Snape created so many basic spells (not doubting his prowess), and that they're probably just offshoots of something else.

 

I think he cannibalised old spells. After all, Sectumsempra is basically a modified cutting charm, and levicorpus is essentially a levitating charm.

 

I think of Magic the same way I do of Physics:

• The world's best minds have been on it for hundreds of years.
• There are some things that have been constant; others, every time we think we have it figured out, something new comes up that makes us question what we thought.
• The closer we get to figuring out the inner workings, the more theoretical power and efficiency of its use we have access to, for good or bad.
• Everyone thinks that some ancient civilizations had access to all of this knowledge, but even though there are some pretty coincidental things, nobody can prove anything.

There are other things in my head that I've thought of before, but I can't concentrate on this and the code I'm writing ATM, and the code wins. For now.

 

Here are some of my ideas. Forgive the rambling.

Magic has memory at least. Wands remember the last spell they cast, brother wands can cause one wand summon intelligent shades of former victims, ghosts.

That magical memory ties in to spell development. Silent casting shows that incantations aren't necessary. Wandless magic shows that wands aren't necessary. When people are designing spells they're actually imprinting the spell into the fabric of magic. Like creating a program which executes with a certain phrase. The phrases and wand movements are chosen to guide the caster into channeling magic through these programs. The more these magical pathways are used, the more defined and accessible these pathways become.

I think magical research in the HP world would be similar to scientific research in that part would be government funded and part commercially funded. Government research in the Department of Mysteries would be aimed towards the development of magics which would give a military advantage in the event of a conflict. Commercially funded would be the development of products such as Wolfsbane Potion, Skele-gro (which definitely sounds like a a branded product) or new spells.

The idea of selling spells could work (disclaimer: i'm making this up as I'm writing it) by charming the instructions to be able to be read by the purchaser. That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch from cannon based on what we know about books that you can't stop reading, houses that you can't see unless you've been told where they are etc. Of course following off of my previous ideas about spells, the more they're used the less important those instructions are going to be and eventually someone's going to stumble upon the way to cast it or come up with a new technique to access that magical 'program' and esentially it becomes generic.

Or something like that