Talk: Aura

Canon vs Real life

It is the practice of this wikia to describe concepts based on the context in which they appeared in canon sources, not an overall definition from the Oxford dictionary. And in canon, "aura" was described the traces of magical energy left behind by magical use/activity. Ninclow (talk) 12:01, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

There are a handful of uses of the term aura in JKR canon that I had found, but only one gives any indication of a definition

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 6 (Talons and Tea Leaves) - “You’ll forgive me for saying so, my dear, but I perceive very little aura around you. Very little receptivity to the resonances of the future.”

So according to Trelawney, aura has to do with ability in seeing the future? Any other definition comes from an outside source, which the Oxford English Dictionary tends to be the definitive choice (Google uses it when you ask to define a word). Just because it's been several months since someone create their own definition and attributed it sources that don't quite line up, doesn't make it true or immune from needing clarification.

But I'll let Seth weigh in on this - I'm sure he loves having to step in repeatedly as you refuse to acknowledge all other editors' input. --Ironyak1 (talk) 12:33, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

My opinion? Ban Ninclow's IP permanently. It'd be a lot easier on this wiki, then! I agree with Ironyak. :D --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:04, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Are you an administrator, HarryPotterRules1? If not, I'd be much obliged if you could be so kind as to keep those snide, disrespectful comments/threats to yourself. This section, based on the turn communication took, is dedicated to determine what aura is and/or what other uses/meanings. If you are going to contribute to this discussion, the least you can do is to do so productivity.

\

When I argue against a movie prop from said film, I'm naive and ignorant, but when I support another one from the same movie and ties it into already established canon lore, I should be banned for life... Objectively, it's kind of funny how we switched the perspective on the canoncy of the movie props, and I'm still not only in the wrong, but also a heavy weight to carry for the HP community as well... At least I'm laughing at it.

---------------------------------------------

According to Trewalany, half the students she taught shouldn't live to see the graduation ceremony. :-P

But seriously, though, Professor Trewalany's use of the word can be taken with a pinch of salt, as that kind of "aura" is generically used in relations to predicting the future, not to mention that she is notorious for saying  just about anything to shock and impress her students... THAT, and there is nothing that suggest that "aura" can't also be used for Divination. Or do you suggest that the Master Aurologists from Korea arrived in the US with a rampant Obscurus to check, not the traces of magic left behind by whatever causes the troubles, but the potency of North American Seers? Also, it IS used in another source canonically: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. 

But you said something about "a handful uses", but I can't remember any other than Trewalany's denouncing of Hermione's abilities as a Seer? If you find them, we might be able to expand the page!:-D

Ninclow (talk) 15:26, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

As for other uses of the term aura:

• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 36 (The Parting of the Ways) - "“You are blinded,” said Dumbledore, his voice rising now, the aura of power around him palpable, his eyes blazing once more, “by the love of the office you hold, Cornelius!"
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 10 (Luna Lovegood) - "The girl gave off an aura of distinct dottiness. Perhaps it was the fact that she had stuck her wand behind her left ear for safekeeping, or that she had chosen to wear a necklace of butterbeer caps, or that she was reading a magazine upside down."
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 24 (Sectumsempra) - "Ominously, there were many cob-webbed boxes piled on a table where Harry was clearly supposed to sit; they had an aura of tedious, hard, and pointless work about them. “Mr. Filch has been looking for someone to clear out these old files,” said Snape softly."
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 13 (The Muggle-Born Registration Commission) - "There were more dementors in here, casting their freezing aura over the place; they stood like faceless sentinels in the corners farthest from the high, raised platform."
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 26 (Gringotts) - "Hermione sighed and set to work, muttering under her breath as she transformed various aspects of Ron’s appearance. He was to be given a completely fake identity, and they were trusting to the malevolent aura cast by Bellatrix to protect him."
• Writing by J. K. Rowling: "The Quill of Acceptance and The Book of Admittance" at Pottermore - "Non-magic children born to witches and wizards occasionally have some small, residual aura of magic about them due to their parents, but once their parents' magic has worn off them it becomes clear that they will never have the ability to perform spells."
• Pottermore - Slytherin introduction - "We like to feel that our hangout has the aura of a mysterious, underwater shipwreck."

JKR most often uses aura in the the broad sense given by the OED - "The distinctive atmosphere or quality that seems to surround and be generated by a person, thing, or place." It is not said to be defined as "traces of magical energy left behind by magical use/activity" as you put it, nor ever connected to Dumbledore's abilities in the Horcrux cave. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:13, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it seems you are right. Aura is, typically, used to describe a particular atmosphere. In the books. However, that is not the manner it was used in Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them. Let me try with a little comparison then:

From the sixth book:

Dumbledore was standing in the middle of the cave, his wand held high as he turned slowly on the spot, examining the walls and ceiling. "Yes, this is the place," said Dumbledore.

"How can you tell?" Harry spoke in a whisper.

"It has known magic," said Dumbledore simply.

..............

Dumbledore continued to revolve on the spot, evidently concentrating on things Harry could not see. "This is merely the antechamber, the entrance hall," said Dumbledore after a moment or two. "We need to penetrate the inner place. . . . Now it is Lord Voldemort's obstacles that stand in our way, rather than those nature made. . . ." Dumbledore approached the wall of the cave and caressed it with his blackened fingertips, murmuring words in a strange tongue that Harry did not understand. Twice Dumbledore walked right around the cave, touching as much of the rough rock as he could, occasionally pausing, running his fingers backward and for-ward over a particular spot, until finally he stopped, his hand pressed flat against the wall. "Here," he said. "We go on through here. The entrance is concealed." Harry did not ask how Dumbledore knew. He had never seen a wizard work things out like this, simply by looking and touching; but Harry had long since learned that bangs and smoke were more often the marks of ineptitude than expertise.

.......

- but simply stood there staring at it intently, as though something extremely interesting was written on it. Harry stayed quite still; he did not want to break Dumbledores concentration. Then, after two solid minutes, Dumbledore said quietly, "Oh, surely not. So crude."

"What is it, Professor?"

"I rather think," said Dumbledore, putting his uninjured hand inside his robes and drawing out a short silver knife of the kind Harry used to chop potion ingredients, "that we are required to make payment to pass."

"Pyment?" said Harry. "You've got to give the door something?"

"Yes," said Dumbledore. "Blood, if I am not much mistaken."

..............

"Aha," said Dumbledore, and he stopped again; this time, Harry really did walk into him; for a moment he toppled on the edge of the dark water, and Dumbledore's uninjured hand closed tightly around his upper arm, pulling him back. "So sorry, Harry, I should have given warning. Stand back against the wall, please; I think I have found the place."

Harry had no idea what Dumbledore meant; this patch of dark bank was exactly like every other bit as far as he could tell, but Dumbledore seemed to have detected something special about it. This time he was running his hand, not over the rocky wall, but t hrough the thin air, as though expecting to find and grip some-thing invisible.

"Oho," said Dumbledore happily, seconds later. His hand had closed in midair upon something Harry could not see. Dumble-dore moved closer to the water; Harry watched nervously as the tips of Dumbledore's buckled shoes found the utmost edge of the rock rim. Keeping his hand clenched in midair, Dumbledore raised his wand with the other and tapped his fist with the point.

Immediately a thick coppery green chain appeared out of thin air, extending from the depths of the water into Dumbledore's clenched hand. Dumbledore tapped the chain, which began to slide through his fist like a snake, coiling itself on the ground with a clinking sound that echoed noisily off the rocky walls, pulling something from the depths of the black water. Harry gasped as the ghostly prow of a tiny boat broke the surface, glowing as green as the chain, and floated, with barely a ripple, toward the place on the bank where Harry and Dumbledore stood.

"How did you know that was there?" Harry asked in astonishment.

.....

What was Dumbledore's reply?

"Magic always leaves traces."

Now, in the movie adaption of Fantastuc Beast and Where to Find Them, the Obscurus had been terrorizing New York for some time, and as citizen Mary Lou said in the script: 

"Something is stalking our city, wreaking destruction and then disappearing without a trace . . ."

- Mary Lou.

"It’s an unstable, uncontrollable Dark force that busts out and—and attacks . . . and then vanishes . . ."

- Tina Goldstein.

And wouldn't such an unstoppable dark force, fueled by the supressed magic of a individual, like all other magic, leave a trace? Of course it would. As long as Credence was in his Obscurus form, the magical energy that "busted out" alongside said parasitical magical force could be traced/monitored by that map. That is how MACUSA and their Aurors located Credence, with a map in the Major Investigation Department, bewitched so that it registered the "aura" exuding from it. As the script says;

A metallic map of New York City lights up to show areas of intense magical activity. Madam Picquery, surrounded by top Aurors, looks on, aghast.

MADAM PICQUERY Contain this, or we are exposed and it will mean war. 

Since the map was used to find Credence then, it is not that big of a leap for MACUSA to have detected the traces of the Obscurus prior to this, but not understood what they were looking at. And here is when the New York Ghosts comes in:

What is this perplexing sinister aura?

The pressure on the MACUSA to contain the situation due to the consistent breaches of the International Statute of Secrecy prompted them to seek help from Korean Master Aurologists, whom they Drafted In For Conjecture, hoping they could use their skills in identifying the nature of the activity they had registered by investigating the "aura", or "traces" of magic left behind in the areas where the Obscurus had been active. Seeking outside help presumably was something they were forced to do both because they deemed it necessary to figure this out, in order to appease the delegation from the International Confederation of Wizards, though that can arguably be called theorizing. And WHAT did Dumbledore do in that cave to find the secret passage and HOW did he conclude what needed to be done to get through it? Why, I'll tell you, he investigated the traces, or "aura", left behind by Voldemort's magic . THAT'S why I say Dumbledore has learned some of the teachings of Aurologists and know Aurology.

Why did I write that he may have learned from the Korean ones? That's the only place where the experts in said branch of magic is said to be. Of course, much may have happened in seventy years, which is roughly the number of years between the Korean Aurologists was called in, and there might be another country with better ones by the time Dumbledore became interested in their learnings - but that'd be speculative. I could just have written "Aurologists" instead of "Korean Aurologists" on Dumbledore's skill set section, but hey, if you have canon information, why not milk it? 

Everything, from me adding Aurology to his list of skills, to my chain of reasoning and the sources that's provided, is called picking up that red thread Rowlingand Co dropped us and seeing where it lead me. If nothing else, it does indeed prove that "aura" indeed could be defined, in canonically "specific" terminology, as a "subtle field of magical energy surrounding a person, object, or place".

If we were to have a page for "aura" in the broad sense, we might have had a page of every word that was ever used to describe the atmosphere in every given situation throughout the seven books.

Ninclow (talk) 23:00, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Ninclow - As Seth pointed out here you haven't provided proof for several points:

• Where in canon does it say MACUSA called in the Korean Aurologists?
• Where in canon does it say that the map detects traces left by magic? Other tools like the MACUSA Real-Time Hex Indicator map by definition don't look for traces left by magic but real-time magical activity, so why would the New York map work differently?
• Most importantly, where in canon does it that an aura is the traces left by magic?

The OED definition covers the examples seen in canon, including The New York Ghost, so until you have proven any of the above, I will put it in back in place. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:31, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

I have provided proof, you just keep insisting I haven't in the hope that I'll eventually go like "you're right, I'm wrong". Or, at the very least, you could have fooled me.

• The New York Ghost. Article. 
• The map doesn't show the traces left behind, and I never said it did, I said it shows the traces of magical activity, it showcases areas real-time in which high magical activity is occuring. The trace, or "aura" (which might also be an alternative name for the light popping up on said map), is what lingers in the wake of magical activity in any given location. Including the Obscurus, since it is suppressed magical energy. And because the script written by Rowling says so. And the movie shows it. 
• I've lost count of how many times I've answered this very question. Hint: The word is 'context'.

The OED definitions covers the general use of the word, and NOTHING else.  Ninclow (talk) 01:13, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

Here is the image of The New York Ghost. The full text of the article is "What is this perplexing sinister aura? Korean Master Aurologists drafted in for conjecture by C. Williamsum, New York and Seoul" - Where does it say that MACUSA called them in to take steps and "get to the bottom of it"?

From Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Original Screenplay, Scene 102 - "A metallic map of New York City lights up to show areas of intense magical activity." No mention of traces of magic or auras, just magical activity.Are you now saying that aura is defined as magical activity?

Our role as editors is to list what is known, not invent connections. Until you have evidence, (not contextual interpretation) to prove your statements, expect them to be undone.

The OED covers all the canon uses including the sinister aura (distinctive atmosphere) surrounding New York at the time. I don't expect you to agree, but it is up to you to prove your statement, which you've provided no evidence for. I would recommend you read again what Seth had to say on Talk:Albus_Dumbledore#Aura_.2F_Magical_Detection as he makes the point much more clearly and directly. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:53, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

I never "invent" connections, contextual or otherwise, I make them based on what is known. Now, I will tell you exactly why you I wrote what I wrote:

• Where does it say that MACUSA called them in to take steps and "get to the bottom of it"?

Again, it says so in the context. THINK: For anyone else to interfere and "draft Master Aurologists" behind the back of the government in such a crisis would be like me interfering in police work. In other words, a punishable offence. Think about it, do you seriously think some random, unqualified civilian(s) would take something as important as that incident (and the law) in their own hands, undermining the jurisdiction and authority of a government whose higher-ranking officials apparently have the power to see you executed without due process? No, they wouldn't. And in any case: MACUSA are in charge of wizarding America, MACUSA  are the ones expected and charged with doing something, MACUSA were the ones under pressure due to the continued breaches in Secrecy, MACUSA were the ones admitting they were at a loss to explain the casue of the "unexplained [magical] activity", and MACUSA who got in trouble/would get in trouble with the ICW if the appropiate meassures wasn't taken. The Magical Exposure Threat Level had been increased to "Severe", and why had were that so? The reason given was "Unexplained Activity". Which would have fallen to the wizarding governing body of the magical community in America, seen as how it is their responsibility. There is no non-MACUSA third party who'd be allowed to do something like that.

• "A metallic map of New York City lights up to show areas of intense magical activity." No mention of traces of magic or auras, just magical activity. Are you now saying that aura is defined as magical activity?

This is kind of a no-brainer, because we know for a fact that:

a) Magic always leaves traces.

b) The map in question lights up in areas of magical activity.

So that the areas lighting up when the trace left behind by magic shows up on the map is strongest, as in, real-time, when the trace is "emitted" so to speak, then yes, obviously the areas lighting up showcases traces of magic. Also, if you watch the film again, you will see the dark cloudish Obscurus represented on the map moving across the city as a yellow, bolt-like dot, not just a blinking light. Also, let me correct you, I say magical activity and/or the traces exuding and/or left behind by it is one way to use the word "aura". 

• Our role as editors is to list what is known, not invent connections. Until you have evidence, (not contextual interpretation) to prove your statements,

The supposed "contextual interpretation", if we go by how you used the term right now, is a little more than a make-believe concept to undermine my arguments. The truth is that there is a difference between me subjectively thinking something has a particular meaning or significance and for me to actually look up facts and see that; "Wow, 1 + 1 = 2! Great!"  In any case, defining "contextual interpretation" is aimed on finding the correct and accurate meaning of a norm in accordance with the general framework it belongs to. Even if I merely interpretated and not outright pointed out facts you're not happy with, I'd still be right, because it'd be contextual and not subjective, which would've made all the difference.   

• The OED covers all the canon uses including the sinister aura (distinctive atmosphere) surrounding New York at the time.

Nope. I mean - it would have, if not for the fact that the existence of such a thing as Aurologists renders an "aura", at the very least in the broader sense in-universe, as something more an individual's personal feelings surrounding a situation. Not to mention other factors, such as the fact that magical activity always leaves traces, the fact that the map that detect magical activity, the fact that MACUSA had no means to identify the cause of said magical activity, the fact that the public were made aware of this by the MACUSA's Surveillance Wizarding Resources Department admitting that the cause behind the many breaches of the statute was unknown/unexplained, the fact that it is up to MACUSA to get to the bottom of and find a solution to it and the fact that Korean "Master Aurologists" was believed to be able to, and the fact that they were "drafted in for conjecture" all presents aura and magical activity as contextual synonyms. Ninclow (talk) 10:14, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

No one said that if someone other than MACUSA summoned the Aurologists, they were doing so "behind the back of the government" and were committing a punishable offense. I would think it a credible scenario if, say, a group of concerned wizards called Aurologists in order protect their homes from this "sinister aura" (no one said anyone was "taking law in their own hands" -- it would be pretty much similar to, say, a group of people knowing there is a burglar on the loose and using the services of a private security company while the police do their work). Even if we discount this possible scenario, I should again note that we are in such ignorance of what these Aurologists do, that we don't even know if they're legitimate wizarding professionals or mere quacks. Attempting to draw connections between concepts we don't know anything about is a futile exercise. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 11:37, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing, Seth, we are not in such an ignorance. The context = fact of the matter. And based on the context, the fact of the matter is that rather than saying "What is this perplexing sinister aura? Frightened wizards turn to Korean Aurologists", it says: "What is this perplexing sinister aura? Korean Master Aurologists drafted in for ". And what does this tell us?

• That they are called in in response to the Credence's obscurus:

As the MACUSA Surveillance Wizarding Resources Department confirmed, the increase of exposure threat level increased to severe due to "unexplained activity", which makes sense since its been established that the Major Investigation Department could detect the magical activity on the New York map, (or "aura" of the Obscurus). However, up until Credence decided he wouldn't even try to control the Obscurus within him and "let loose", the authorities was unable to identify the nature of the "magical activity" on the map. So what did they do? Well, they drafted Master Aurologists from Korea for a conjecture, usually defined as "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information". And incomplete information was exactly all MACUSA had to work with. There is NOTHING to suggest Master Aurologists could, would or should be called upon all the way from Korea during such a situation for any other reason. Anything else is just cavil, lest it can be properly explained with information given us from canon sources.

• That Aurologists are not "mere quacks"

"Master Aurologists" by itself tells us nothing. "Master Aurologists" accompanied by every other factor available, however, tells us quite a bit. In addition to the context brought to us by the headline of the article in the New York Ghost, we also know that an "aura", as Ironyak1 has told us in the quest to limit the in-universe definition to Harry Potter's personal opinions on his surroundings, is defined as "the distinctive atmosphere or quality that seems to surround and be generated by a person, thing, or place". Now, as you know, "ology" is a term for a scientific discipline, meaning "Aurology" is a subject of study.  So we have established that "Aurologists" work with "Aurology", which is the study of "auras". And in consequence of being wizards, an "aura", to them, must necessarily mean more than what our (Muggle) dictionary describes. If the study of auras meant what is stated above when it comes to Harry's uses, there would be no need for any termology such as "aurology", seen as Legilimency and Veritaserum would give people ample opportunity to poke around people's personal life to "study" people's percieved reality of "the "auras" of the "atmosphere" of certain situations". Which is creepy, unlikely and thankfully not a thing in the Rowling's universe. So... Yes, in the wizarding world, for those who really understands the nature of magic and is intent on studying it, an aura necessarily has to be more than the Oxford dictionary states. Otherwise there wouldn't be subject of study dedicated to it.   Which makes sense, too. Because wouldn't an "aura" in wizard terms by definition be a 'distinctive quality' generated by the activity in question. And wouldn't said "distinct quality" linger in the "surrounding atmosphere"?  And rather than being a "distinctive atmosphere or quality that seems to surround" something, wouldn't an "aura", the distinct quality and/or atmosphere generated by magical activity, DEFINITIVELY  be there? The answer is simple: Yes. Yes it would, because magic always leaves traces:  1 + 1 = 2. Aurology = the study of "auras".Auras = the remains of the distinct quality of magical activity lingering in the surrounding atmosphere. 

• Also:

The suffix also implies its a well-established and comprehensive branch of study, as other magical disciplines which also carries suffixes includes respected "scientific" fields of magical study such as Legilimency, Occlumency,  Arithmancy, Herbology, Magizoology, Broomology, Numerology, arguably to a lesser extent Astrology, but that's also used in magic, to the point where the star sign of Ministry individuals popping up on their identification cards (if I'm not misremembering). It tells us that "Aurologist" is a thing, and that MACUSA, whose overall competence gives every impression to surpass that of the British Ministry of Magic (Grindelwald's deception nonewithstanding), did not seek out just anyone, but they sought the aid of the Korean Aurologists, the "Master Aurologists" whose reputation of competence put them above most others. And unless we should make it common practice to assume stuff with no canonical basis for it, such as considering the possibility of the Master Aurologists being "mere quacks", which is possible in theory but for Korean deceivers to enter America to cash in on catastrophe would certainly be a "treasonous betrayal of your fellow witches and wizards" which the MACUSA would not just let pass with umpunity.

• This brings me back to Dumbledore:

With Aurology being what it is, and Dumbledore being able to detect and identify the traces of Voldemort's magical protection on the "distinct quality" of the aura lingering in the surrounding atmosphere, I hereby point out, once more, that it is more likely Dumbledore used a field of magic unknown to Harry and later identified in canon in another context than for him to have used a completely different kind of skill unrelated to Aurology but doing exactly the same. Dumbledore doesn't necessarily have to be an Aurologist himself. He wasn't a wandmaker, but knew wandlore better even than Ollivander. In short:

2 + 2 = 4.

Dumbledore knows Aurology. 

Ninclow (talk) 23:44, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that no matter how you thoroughly analyse it, the phrase "What is this perplexing sinister aura? Korean Master Aurologists drafted in for conjecture" does not answer any of the following: a) who drafted these guys in, b) is their field of work serious or "pseudo-scientific" (if one can use the term in a wizarding context), c) do auras exist objectively, d) if they do exist, how do they sense/study/feel/whatever them. The fact of the matter is that we don't know anything about why these Aurologists were called to the US, we don't know who exactly summoned them, we don't have the slightest clue about the nature of their work, we don't even know if the object of their area of expertise is a thing. Clarify how we are "not in such an ignorance" -- I can't for the life of me see how.

Now to counterargue your points:

Again, you have not demonstrated why, necessarily, MACUSA had to be the ones who summoned the Aurologists to the US. Tell me again why the scenario I've presented before is so utterly impossible (you did not seem to be able to dispove it, you just provided an alternative)? I just thought of another possibility: tell me why is it utterly inconceivable that, say, The New York Ghost themselves drafted these Aurologists so they'd have something to print about the strange goings-on? And I could go on, and on.

Your argument that because "Aurology" ends in "-logy", it is therefore a well-established and comprehensive branch of study is seriously flawed. I can think, off the top of my head, of two real-world counter-examples: Graphology and Phrenology. It is also entirely wrong to say just because dedicates his life to the study of something, that something must exist (e.g., just because there are homeopaths, that doesn't mean the two central axioms of Homeopathy hold true; another good example is that the existence of theologians is not proof of the existence of God).

"And unless we should make it common practice to assume stuff with no canonical basis for it, such as considering the possibility of the Master Aurologists being "mere quacks", which is possible in theory..." -- THAT is exactly my point. You are the one making dangerously unproven and shakey assumptions, based on the teeniest bit of canonical info. I am counter-arguing with equally possible scenarios that, by your own admission, are just as possible as the one you present.  About your last paragraph, I find it amusing that you begin by saying "With Aurology being what it is...". Aurology certainly is what it is; the thing is, we don't have any clue about it is. You seem to be labouring under the assumption that Aurologists must act the same way as Dumbledore did in the Cave. Entertain this thought: seeing as we have no idea on the methods of an Aurologist are, it is certainly possible that (again, think of this as an hypothetical) in order to sense auras, Aurologists run around in circles screaming at the top of their lungs, then strip to their underwear and do a backflip. Would you still say, if this is true (it certainly is possible) that Dumbledore was performing an Aurologist technique in the Cave? Less humorously, but perhaps more importantly, the point of this paragraph is: if Dumbledore, to use your own words, "used a field of magic unknown to Harry" -- how in the world do we know he was using Aurology and not just another abstruse field of magic? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:19, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

• =====Again, you have not demonstrated why, necessarily, MACUSA had to be the ones who summoned the Aurologists to the US. Tell me again why the scenario I've presented before is so utterly impossible (you did not seem to be able to dispove it, you just provided an alternative)? I just thought of another possibility: tell me why is it utterly inconceivable that, say, The New York Ghost themselves drafted these Aurologists so they'd have something to print about the strange goings-on? And I could go on, and on.=====

Can you tell me how likely it is that any newspaper, fictional or otherwise, would have employed someone who's obviously so bad at their job that they required  help of someone living about 6671 miles away to write a newspaper article. Also, what would The New York Ghost need a conjecture for? They didn't have any information, all they knew was what MACUSA told them: That the Exposure Threat Level was increased to Severe due ot an "Unexplained activity". MACUSA, on the other hand, sat on information such as how frequent the Obscurus appeared on the map, how the "energy signal" looked like, they had Aurors and/or Graves investigating the areas in which it were/was active and could provide detailed descriptions. And just like how cop can enter a scene of a crime and get a better understanding of the events that had been taking place there based on the findings than I could, it is not unreasonable to assume highly trained criminal investigators such as Aurors would be able to understand more than a New York Ghost reporter when he looked at the property damages the Obscurus saw. 

Also, the day after it has been reported that the Aurologists had been drafted, another headline was: President Seraphina Picquery calling for all Aurors to be on full alert: International support not yet confirmed. Now, the IQW intimidated her enough for her to consider a potential delegation of theirs a "threat", which makes sense, since it would mean she was deemed unfit to lead the wizarding community of America "without help". As seen with Damocles Rowle, being head of state will not gurantee you're untouchable if the ICW is unhappy with you. Based on her concern for the ICW's involvement, and how she said "The ICW threatened to send a delegation" as opposed to "I've been forced to ask the ICW to send a delegation", we can safely exclude said "international support" coming from them. Then whose left? I seem to have read another headline mentioning international support being requested further up - ah, yes! The Korean Aurologists, who had been drafted for a conjecture about 24 hours prior who had yet to respond/make a final decision on whether they would help out. And ultimately didn't need to since the Aurors caught up with the Obscurus and with Newt's help arrested Gellert Grindelwald, but still.

• ===== Your argument that because "Aurology" ends in "-logy", it is therefore a well-established and comprehensive branch of study is seriously flawed. I can think, off the top of my head, of two real-world counter-examples: Graphology and Phrenology. It is also entirely wrong to say just because dedicates his life to the study of something, that something must exist (e.g., just because there are homeopaths, that doesn't mean the two central axioms of Homeopathy hold true; another good example is that the existence of theologians is not proof of the existence of God).=====

Since when have Rowling, who I've been so throughly reminded recently, oversaw the content of many of the props to the fantastic beasts, been in the habit of presenting us with non-productive coincidence during worldbuilding? I'll tell you - NEVER, that's when. That's why her universe are so elabroate. The only coincidence I can remember in all of her seven books was some little kid living near Privet Drive named Evans who wasn't related to Lily Potter. But again, Evans is a common name.

Also, if Aurologists were in any way considered "quacks", and Aurology bogus, why would the newspaper have encouraged people's indulgement in counterproductive ways to cope with the stress of an international crisis that came dangerously close to be the worst thing to happen to wizardkind collectively since they were presecuted by "common wandless men"? I know some reporters are less moral than others, but geeze, they're humans when it comes down to it. Did I mention certain high-ranking MACUSA officials can have you executed without due process?

Okay, so I admit I didn't think that argument all the way through in terms of how I presented it, but if we go back to the point I was making. Based on the the etymology:

Aurology = Study of aura.

An Aura = contextual synonyms with "traces" left behind by magical activity. 

1 + 1 = 2, and Auras are studied by Aurologists.

We have nothing more to go on in regard to what an aura is and what aurologists do, so to suggest Aurologists are "mere quacks" are something not supported by canonical sources, whereas them not being "mere quacks" definitively is, based on the context and situation they appeard in. Etymology, definition and canonical context proves Aurology is a real thing, while there is no evidence supporting otherwise.

• =====THAT is exactly my point. You are the one making dangerously unproven and shakey assumptions, based on the teeniest bit of canonical info. I am counter-arguing with equally possible scenarios that, by your own admission, are just as possible as the one you present.=====

They're neither dangerously unproven or "assumptions", shaky or otherwise. For the reason I gave above, your scenario, though labled "possible" by me, was by no means "equally possible", because the context in which it appears in canon states otherwise. Your scenario might have happened  had the circumstances in which "Aurologists" appeared been different, but alas, they weren't. No one says you have to agree, Seth, but contextual evidence is still evidence.

• =====About your last paragraph, I find it amusing that you begin by saying "With Aurology being what it is...". =====

Great! Nice to see we can find humour in stuff instad of taking things personally and be offended and so on. :-)

• =====Aurology certainly is what it is; the thing is, we don't have any clue about it is. =====

We do, actually: Based on the the etymology, we know that:  

Aurology = Study of aura.

Aurologists = Works with Aurology.

An Aura = contextual synonyms with "traces" left behind by magical activity.

Context = They were drafted for cojecture in a crisis taking place in wizarding America in a time MACUSA had incomplete information and were in need of "international support" to get to the bottom of what were casuing the "unexplained activity" that placed them in such a difficult position.  

• =====You seem to be labouring under the assumption that Aurologists must act the same way as Dumbledore did in the Cave. Entertain this thought: seeing as we have no idea on the methods of an Aurologist are, it is certainly possible that (again, think of this as an hypothetical) in order to sense auras, Aurologists run around in circles screaming at the top of their lungs, then strip to their underwear and do a backflip. Would you still say, if this is true (it certainly is possible) that Dumbledore was performing an Aurologist technique in the Cave?=====

Yes, definitively, I just think Dumbledore's methods was rooted in traditional teachings as opposed to those odd, controversial practices found among the Swedish. :P

• =====Less humorously, but perhaps more importantly, the point of this paragraph is: if Dumbledore, to use your own words, "used a field of magic unknown to Harry" -- how in the world do we know he was using Aurology and not just another abstruse field of magic?=====

Based on the the etymology, we know that:  

Aurology = Study of aura.

Aurologists = Works with Aurology.

An Aura = contextual synonyms with "traces" left behind by magical activity.

Based on the context, we know that:

Korean "Master Aurologists" were drafted for cojecture during a crisis taking place in wizarding America in a time MACUSA had incomplete information and were in need of "international support" to get to the bottom of what were casuing the "unexplained [magical] activity" that was registered on the map that placed them in such a difficult position.  

Now, book six:

Based on what Albus Dumbledore did in the cave, we know:

• He detected that the area had "known magic"/There was a trace / a distinct "aura" lingering from the magical activity having taken place there decades earlier.
• Upon further investigation, he determined what kind of magic and how to overcome it.

 

And based on the above, it is determined that what Dumbledore did and the reason Master Aurologists were requested to help out in determin the cause of their distress through the use of Aurology, that they are indeed the same thing. I mean, if you went for a walk and passed by a red house, and in the garden, a man was building a tree house,  would you need someone to tell you that what he were using hammer and nails for was carpentry in order to know he was doing carpentry? If someone looked through a telescope and drawing a star chart based on what they observed, would you need to be told that what they were working on was called astronomy in order to know it was astronomy? Ninclow (talk) 14:56, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

From my end, it just seems that you have pretty much repeated your scenario which, I must say yet again, while it is possible, it's not proven. (Also, clarify how something can be "possible" but "not equally possible" as another possible thing. I am baffled. Is there such a thing as degrees of possibility, or are things either possible or not possible? Note how the word I use is not "probable" -- it's "possible".)

Your focus on etymology to derive meaning is erroneous. For one, the etymology of a term alone is not nearly enough to define it: an etymological analysis of several technical terms (and otherwise) would produce misleading or just plain wrong definitions. I am reminded that the word "atom" comes from the Greek átomos ("indivisible") and the Latin atomus ("smallest particle"), though we've known about subatomic particles for some 150 years now. The term "hysteria" comes from Ancient Greek husterikós (meaning something like "the evil of the uterus"), though hysteria is certainly something not restricted to females. Defining "Philosophy" (from the Ancient Greek phílos, "loving" and sophía, "wisdom") as "love of wisdom" would be seriously lacking. Similarly, an etymological analysis of the term "minister" would render "attendant, servant, waiter" (from Latin minister, itself derived from minor, meaning "lesser, inferior"), far from the current meaning of a high-ranking governmental office. My personal favourite has to be Voltaire's quip that the Holy Roman Empire "n'était en aucune manière ni saint, ni romain, ni empire" (was not, in any way, Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire). The point, here, is that etymology alone is not sufficient to properly define a concept.

However, one of the most important issues with your reasoning is that, as Ironyak1 and I have repeatedly said and you seem to be ignoring, we don't know and have no way of knowing the precise meaning of the word "aura" within the Harry Potter universe. You keep saying context tells us we should take it to mean "traces left behind by magical activity" — but you fail to explain why. You are pushing this definition to suit your argument, with little or no canonical backing. We know nothing about the nature of the traces Dumbledore mentions; he doesn't explain. We know nothing about what magical abilities Dumbledore performed in the Horcrux cave. To pretend we do is, again, a gross appeal to ignorance.

As for Rowling having overseen the content of many props, I'm afraid I must correct you there. While MinaLina, the propmakers, did confer with Rowling to make sure there weren't clashes with the rest of the story (because, of course, there wasn't a long, written novel they could use as reference, nevermind things that are likely to pop up in the future films), they did come up with most of the minor headlines in The New York Ghost from scratch, by their own admission (this wouldn't include, obviously, the headlines provided by the script). So, even if you admit Rowling never presented us with "non-productive coincidence" (and I would question that, but I digress), the fact remains that this Aurology stuff likely wasn't Rowling's brainchild to begin with.

And again, the analogies in your last paragraph are most certainly not apt.

• "If a man was building a tree house, would you need someone to tell you that what he were using hammer and nails in order to know he was doing carpentry?" — I wouldn't. This, of course, is because I know what carpentry is, I know carpenters use hammer and nails, and I know tree houses can be built using hammer and nails. See the difference? I don't know nearly as much about Aurology as I do about Carpentry.
• "If someone looked through a telescope and drawing a star chart based on what they observed, would you need to be told that what they were working on was called astronomy in order to know it was astronomy?" -- In order to be an apt comparison, I should be a) in total ignorance of what Astronomy was (since we don't know anything about Aurology apart from its name -- we don't know the methods, we don't know the process, etc.), b) uncertain about what a star was (since we don't know how "aura" is defined within the Harry Potter universe), and c) be blindfolded while the astronomist drew the star chart (as we don't know what, exactly, Dumbledore did in the Cave to detect Voldemort's magic).

As I fear this discussion is starting to get repetitive, I'll ask you to answer the following questions, as succinctly as you possibly can:

1. Do we know how Aurologists operate? If so, how?
2. What reason do we have to conflate "aura" with "traces left by magic"? Are the two terms ever connected in canon?
3. Do we know Dumbledore was sensing "auras" in the Horcrux cave, or is it possible that he was applying an entirely different field of magic we just don't happen to know about?

--  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:27, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

To answer your first question about "equally possible"... I messed up, I mistook possible and probable for the same thing (whcih is odd, since I can't ever remember having gotten those two mixed together when bending them to "possibly" and "probably", so when I said your scenario was not "equally possible", I meant it was "possible but not probable", like I believe mine to be. Elemental mistake, but English is my second language. That being said:

• Do we know how Aurologists operate? If so, how?

I'd still say that Dumbledore gave us a pretty good idea how they operate in the sixth book. In spite of the real life examples you provided about real life and misleading etymologies, and I do commend your comittmment to accuracy and thourgouh research, those concepts were exactly that, they were real life, not invented to fit a story, and as such, it would make no sense for Rowling, or MinaLima, as a contribrutor to said story, to present to us a brand new field of magic that seemed legitimate but actually wasn't without telling us that it was the case. It would be misleading to the audiance and preplexingly counterproductive as a tool in storytelling. 

• What reason do we have to conflate "aura" with "traces left by magic"? Are the two terms ever connected in canon?

I wasted my time trying to convicne Ironyak1 that the Oxford definition didn't cut it when what I should have done from the geto were actually properly explaining my reasoning for saying that. Having already pointed out that there is a very real difference between real life and fiction in regard to the probability of misleading etymologies, let me use them, for the last time, to make my point:

I repeat, and I do apologize for being so tediously repetative, the term "trace" and "aura" is connected in canon thrhough contextual evidence only, but that still count.   Aurology = Study of aura.Aurologists = Works with Aurology.An Aura = Contextual synonyms with "traces" left behind by magical activity. Why? Aura is the distinctive atmosphere or quality that seems to surround and be generated by a person, thing, or place. Trace is the indication of the existence or passing of something. Magic is, as defined by this wikia, a supernatural force that can alter the fabric of reality at fundamental levels that follow the laws of physics, specifically the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy. In other words: Magic is energy. In the wake of magical activity, the energy required to accomplish a certain feat through magic will fade, but will invariably always linger in the area in which a specific spell or bewitchment was used. This "subtle field of magical energy" left behind, which by definition is both a "trace", being not only a verifiable indication of the "existence and passing of" the magic used there, but also an "aura" because the trace are compromised by the "distinctive quality" of the energy that was generated by the magical activity.  When the Obscurus flew around New York, wreaking havoc, it popped up on the aforementioned map in MACUSA, which was bewitched to to show "intense magical activity" and then vanished. When Credence returned to "human form", the map could not register the Obscurus because he was suppressing that "dark magical force", aka "energy" inside him. Since MACUSA hasn't had to deal with an Obscurus in about 200 years by 1926, so for every intent and purposes, the map would've been useless to track down the "culprit", seen as how "intense magical activity", which, if how the Ministry of Magic operates in Great Britain is any indication, usually manifest itself in an area to which those in charge can rush out and put it to rest and/or cover it up (as opposed to zig-zag rapidly all over and across the city, which wizardkind is only able to do on a broom or a carpet at the time) - until the Obscurus was active long enough for the Aurors to be able to follow its movements and catch up on it. (It also helped it was no longer invisible. :p) Now, in the meantime, before the Obscurus was active long enough to be actually tracked down on the map, it popped up briefly, then vanished from the map, accompanied by even more reports of the suspicious and frightened No-Majs. So what were they to do? To register magical activity and to identify what's causing it two widely seprate things, now isn't it? It isn't as if anyone ever saw the Obscurus and could confirm that was what it was. So what was MACUSA to do? And of course, they came to the conclusion that of course, the energy generated by the Obscurus would still linger in the surrounding atmosphere in which the Obscurus had been present in the form of a faint aura, seen as how magic always leaves traces. With both the International Confederation of Wizards and even their own countrymen breathing down their neck (The Midwest Association of Warlocks and Witches Questioning MACUSA's Defence Efforts), and at a loss of what to do, they needed "international support". They needed a "conjecture" from someone who truly knew what to make of this magical activity on the map, and who would that be but the Korean Master Aurologists, who was better equipped to identify the cause of said intense magical activity by investigating the areas the Obscurus passed through and study the aura/trace, that subtle field of magical energy it had left behind. They didn't need to, because the matters resolved itself. Still, the whole crisis, which is what brought context (and presumably casue) to the appearance of Aurologists in canon, tells us a lot of what they do and why they were called upon. And the reason I so firmly insist MACUSA were the ones who called upon the Aurologists was because they were called upon in a crisis it fell to the MACUSA to resolve during the same time where MACUSA confirmed they had already requested "international support", and based on the etymology of their occupation, with not even the slightest hint of them being "quacks" upon being mentioned, had an occupation that served the very purpose for which they would definitively be needed in such a particular situation for MACUSA to get an idea of what they were dealing with and how to put it to rest. It would make sense for "President Seraphina Picquery [to be] calling for all Aurors to be on full alert, seen as how the Master Aurologists drafted for conjecture would be working with the Major Investigation Department - working with Aurors - and now that "International support [were] not yet confirmed", naturally she would tell the Aurors to step up it up to meet the possibility that they either had to wait for help to arrive or for (though less likely, seen as how maintaining secrecy is paramount) not receive help at all.

• Do we know Dumbledore was sensing "auras" in the Horcrux cave, or is it possible that he was applying an entirely different field of magic we just don't happen to know about?

For the very reason I gave above, for the context in which and the etymology by which the Aurologists appeared present them as being brought into wizarding America to do exaclty what Dumbledore was doing: Identifying the cause of magical activity by studying/investigating the distinct qualities of the "traces", in this situation, aka "the atmosphere", left by the lingering aura of magical energy generated by Voldemort's casting of the magical protections in question. THAT'S how I know the traces of magic is an aura, because magic is energy. In the wake of magical activity, the energy required to accomplish a certain feat through magic will fade, but will invariably always linger in the area in which magic was used. This "subtle field of magical energy" left behind, which by definition is a "trace", being both a verifiable indication of the "existence and passing of" the magic in that area, but also an "aura" because the trace are compromised by the "distinctive quality" and "atmosphere" of the energy that was generated by the magical activity. And whether Aurologists were Rowling's "brainchild" or not is ultimately irrelevant, seen as how the occupation are still part of her universe lest she states otherwise. And based on the context and etymology, both of which were carefully chosen to fit into the story, this is all that can possibly be proven with certainty. That an "aura", in a broad sense, by definition is contextual synonyms with traces left behind by magic, and that there are those who work with studying them, and that the best ones are in Korea.

Ninclow (talk) 12:33, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

run around in circles screaming at the top of their lungs, then strip to their underwear and do a backflip - that's about where I am at at this point ;) Aura is not defined as magical traces anywhere in canon, and is used in the OED sense repeatedly. While all this conjecture makes for a possible story (and the backdrop for a decent fanfic), it is just one possible explanation of many. Until Newt visits the Aurologists of Korea (while returning a trafficked Kappa to Japan), or Dumbledore write about the 7 ways to detect magic in Transfiguration Today, there is nothing to connect these topics, other than a speculative interpretation that is not supported by the texts. Last of my 2 cents (I hope) --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:48, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you choose to believe, Ironyak1. :-)

• Waiting patiently for Seth to voice his views on the reason, now that it is half-way decently explained* 

Ninclow (talk) 20:44, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

I'd still say that Dumbledore gave us a pretty good idea how they operate in the sixth book. -- I'll have to stop you right there. That Dumbledore was performing Aurology is exactly what you're trying to prove, so you can't possibly use it as a premise for further argument; it's circular reasoning (i.e. Dumbledore was using Aurology because he did what the Aurologists do; we know what the Aurologists do because we've seen Dumbledore do it). Question one remains to be answered.

You start your answer to question number two by defining "Aura is the distinctive atmosphere or quality that seems to surround and be generated by a person, thing, or place". And this is all very well -- it is a working definition we are using for the purposes of clarification. Same goes for the definition of magic as "a supernatural force, etc". However -- and this is of the utmost importance -- working definitions (such as these two) should not be confused with authoritative definitions (such as, say, the definition of Transfiguration of a brand of magic that alters the molecular structure of objects). Note that none of the two definitions are ever given in canon and are our own, and we use them due to a lack of a better, established formulation. Of course, one could think, at first glance, that there is very little difference between the two — and they would be sorely mistaken. Working definitions can, by definition, be supplanted with a better, canonical and authoritative one, at any time. Consider the case of skin-walkers: before Rowling clarified matters via Twitter, our definition was "a magical phenomenon found among the indigenous peoples of North America... witches and wizards with the ability to transform into animals. The point of the distinction is that, due to their tentative nature, working definitions should not be used in deductive arguments — and it is easy enough to understand why: if the "official" definition turns out to be significantly different than our provisional one, all arguments based on ours will invariably collapse (I am reminded of Descartes's analogy that arguments, like houses being rebuilt, need to stand on secure foundations lest they come crashing down at the slightest disturbance).

This is particularly significant when we're talking about in-universe magical concepts, of which we don't know and have no way of knowing unless through Word of God. For instance, I remember we used to have a "Magical familiar" article based on speculation rather similar to yours, in fact — it was created in 2008 and deleted in 2011 (almost 4 years later!) shortly after Rowling explained on Pottermore in the tersest terms: "Familiars, in the strictest sense, do not exist within the world of Harry Potter." Rowling is the first to admit that the magic in her universe is sometimes based on real-world folklore and mythology but "[she's] always twisted them to suit [her] own ends", and "[she's] taken liberties with folklore to suit [her] plot". With that in mind, we have no real reason to strongly believe an "aura", in-universe, reflects our real-world conception of an aura as a paranormal phenomenon. We don't know what it is, exactly; we don't know if it objectively exists (see skin-walkers example above); and we certainly have no reason to conflate it with the vaguely-explained "traces left behind by magical activity".

I fail to see how the inner workings of the MACUSA map (of which, again, we know nothing about apart from the fact that it "lights up to show areas of intense magical activity") help your argument. And again, the issue of The New York Ghost does not clarify who called the Aurologists for "conjecture"; you are assuming it was MACUSA, despite the fact I already have pointed out that there could be alternative explanations (private citizens wanting answers? The New York Ghost looking for "expert advice", as news outlets often do? -- who knows?)

To finish, you did not answer question three, at all. We don't know what Dumbledore did in the Cave to identify said "traces" of magic, and pretty much nothing else can be gleamed from the text in Half-Blood Prince. Is it or is it not possible that Dumbledore was using an alternate form of magic we don't know about? That was my question. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 04:20, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh*

I give up. Unless what I say are confirmed by a higher authority in addition to everything else, none of you are going to accept facts of any kind. Oh well, if nothing else, did I at the very least manage to get a laugh from that joke about 'Swedish practices' in Aurology at least? Ninclow (talk) 16:18, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

The main answer is probably this -- Dumbledore has read a book about Horcruxes (we know he has them, Hermione steals them!) and understood they leave traces, so looked for those traces all over the world to find them. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:49, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Canon vs real life

Who am I kidding, I can't REALLY let this one go... Not when that stuff that puts me in a bad light is still up there for the whole world to see and won't be removed soely because it doesn't negatively impact anyone else than me. That was, at the very least, all I got out of the explonation. All I have left now, is trying to get this through... I know I'm right about this, so I will continue to argue for my case untl such time that SOMEONE ends up sharing the notion that the validity of fact is not dependant on where it comes from, as long as it is proveable. If my personal feelings is ignored, at the very least I will keep on fighting to be heard on a "what is what" scenario. Sure, you can IGNORE me if you feel like it, though that still wouldn't make me any less correct... That being said: Sorry for new section if its deemed unnecessary, but those codes confuse me a bit.

Now, you asked, Seth: ''Is it or is it not' possible that Dumbledore was using an alternate form of magic we don't know about? That was my question."

YES. It is possible. But that is also beside the point, because there is nothing to suggest they are different things, yet contextual evidence from the Fantastic Beast part of the Potter universe to suggest they are. I mean, isn't it ALSO possible Hermione's bushy brown hair was actually blond due to a recessive gene the whole time, but that her mother didn't like blond hair and made her color it from a very young age? It's unlikely, because there is no information supporting it. It is also possible that some Slytherin Prefect reprimanded Malfoy for calling Hermione a Mudblood on the Quidditch pitch in book 2 because it might cost them house points one day. We don't know for sure, of course, since there is no canon source supporting it. Ron's disgust at Pettigrew's time as his rat might have turned into a "funny story" in later years, where he laughed at the absurdity of it all, and how stubborn he was for refusing to believe it until proven wrong. But, alas, there is no evidence supporting it.

There is, however, evidence supporting MACUSA being the ones to draft the Master Aurologists, other than the fact that a government in need would require a conjecture, whereas a newspaper staff would require the opinion of someone to flesh out their stories as to better sell their product. Based on the context and etymology, two very real aspects of canonacy, mind you, and factoring in said aspects into an overall scenario, instead of thinking what "might or might not" be the case in the very same scenario based on nothing other than stubborn cavil. When I first wrote on the page that Aurologists studied traces of magic and that was, in a broader sense, what an "aura" was, that weren't some random whim. I had context, and eventually etymology supporting what I wrote. Ninclow (talk) 23:32, May 5, 2017 (UTC)

It is not beside the point. Again, you do not seem to have grasped the concept of an appeal to ignorance fallacy. None of the analogies you present are apt, due to the fact that no one is putting forward an argument that any such things happened based on the fact that there is no contradictory evidence. It is not "stubborn cavil", it's the acknowledgement that when we have no further information, we ought to suspend any judgement, not fill in the blanks as we like it best.

The evidence for your argument has been questioned already, and is incidental at best. The two arguments (etymology and "MACUSA must be the ones who called them") are an attempt at proof by repeated assertion: you're just repeating what already has been challenged. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:12, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

In simple terms, Ninclow. We do not know that Dumbledore used Aurology. There is no information either way, so saying he did is appealing to the fact that it has to be true because there is no information to say he didn't. It's making something a fact based on the fact that there's nothing to say it didn't happen. It would be like saying: Henry VIII had a boil on his back - by your reasoning, he did... because there's no evidence to say he did not have a boil on his back. See? Until is can be proven that Dumbledore did not use aurology, it cannot be proven that he did.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:04, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

I have NOT said Dumbledore used Aurology because there was no evidence to the contrary, Rules1, I said Dumbledore used Aurology because the appearance, context and etymology of Aurologists dictates it, in effect of being an official part of the canonicy. And that's two VERY different things. So it is, in fact, proven. It's just the evidence that is deemed insufficent, without that being the case.

And in response to you, Seth: Pulling out one wikipedia article after the other with labeled scenarios in social interaction and pinning them on my arguments doesn't mean they're wrong. I am NOT trying to prove anything by "repeated assertion", I try to prove something by presenting actual evidence. And when I hear you're aren't happy with what I lay before you, very well, then I have to try and find a different way of putting it so that you might understand my arguments properly. Because there is evidence there, as a matter of fact. And as those evidences are continously ignored for no other reason than you finding the scenario I took from canon sources to be as likely as some random one you can come up with at the top of your head, the fact that my scenario has backup by the context in which it appeard in canon and yours didn't not acknowledged, mind you... Well, no wonder it becomes repetative after a while. English is my second language, and though I daresay I'm slightly over average for a Norwegian my age, there is only so many ways I can try to show you the information I have gathered before I start going in circles. Ninclow (talk) 03:30, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

You are relying on the argument from ignorance, Ninclow, the argument that "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)." I.e. you are saying that Dumbledore did use Aurology... because it has not been proven that he didn't use it. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:49, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not, oh CHEESES FRIED! Listen, just because I'm repeatedly told how I'm "relying on the argument from ignorance" doesn't mean that I'm actually relying on the argument from ignorance. I won't magically be relying on the argument from ignorance just because you say so. I mean, seriously, how is it possible that I can say that "point A is there, so this must necessarily be point B" - and STILL hear that it's based on ignorance? It is as if I painted a fence with black and you repeatedly tell me I were using freaking motor oil or something. Ninclow (talk) 05:47, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

I am not pulling out "labeled scenarios in social interaction and pinning them on [your] arguments" -- I'm pulling out simple definitions of the informal fallacies in which you are incurring, to show you why your reasoning is wrong. It's not "social interaction", it's informal logic.

"And as those evidences are continously ignored for no other reason than you finding the scenario I took from canon sources to be as likely as some random one you can come up with at the top of your head, the fact that my scenario has backup by the context in which it appeard in canon and yours didn't not acknowledged, mind you..." -- that is the heart of the matter. The scenario you present does not necessarily follow from the available canonical information. And I've explained why, repeatedly so. So, all logic dictates that, if it a) does not necessarily follow from the information we have and b) we can come up with other possible scenarios, then we have no reason to present it as fact.

You said "Dumbledore used Aurology because the appearance, context and etymology of Aurologists dictates it". And yet, we have repeatedly asserted we know nothing about Aurology -- or an Aura, for that matter -- in-universe (so much for "appearance"), that there are multiple alternative scenarios to explain the rather vague pieces of information we have at present (so much for "context"), and that etymology is not proof enough of anything, really. We're saying you're using an argument from ignorance and proof by repeated assertion because you keep saying "point A is there, so this must necessarily be point B"... even though we have already addressed that A does not necessarily imply B. You're trying to pass speculation off as deduction, when it is not the case. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:37, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, about the fence and motor oil analogy, I'd certainly need further information if I knew literally nothing about what black paint was (and, for that analogy to be accurate, I'd be suggesting that it might've been motor oil, I wouldn't know -- just as I never asserted the possible alternative scenarios I've presented were canonical fact). I'd link you to the Wikipedia article on the "False analogy" fallacy, but I'm not sure it would help. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:45, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

I am not pulling out "labeled scenarios in social interaction and pinning them on [your] arguments" -- I'm pulling out simple definitions of the informal fallacies in which you are incurring, to show you why your reasoning is wrong. It's not "social interaction", it's informal logic.

The label of Informal logic, then... Call it what you want, they are still labels. At least one of which is incorrectly used to refer to my arguments. Because I am not sayingDumbledore used aurology because nothing say he didn't, I said he used aurology because aurology exist and the context in which it is introduced and the etymology it appeared under is perfectly in line with what Dumbledore did in the sixth book. 

-that is the heart of the matter. The scenario you present does not necessarily follow from the available canonical information. And I've explained why, repeatedly so. So, all logic dictates that, if it a) does not necessarily follow from the information we have and b) we can come up with other possible scenarios, then we have no reason to present it as fact.

Uhm... You know, it actually does, because proving one can come up with scenarios to explain a canon situation by one's lonesome does not invalidate the fact that the scenario I presented has the combined support of canonical information and contextual evidence. And yours had neither. I can also come up with the idea that maybe one day, Corban Yaxley will escape Azkaban following the battle of Hogwarts, kidnap an unspeakable and try to ressurect Voldemort by going back in time through a Hour Reveral Charm to go back and prevent certain events.The fact that I can come up with that possible scenario, which is made possible by the fact that while Pottermore stated there had been no escapes from Azkaban since they began using Aurors instead of Dementors, that was written pre-2017, and people have escaped before, making it possible that an elderly Yaxley could somehow escape and carry out this plan. Doesn't change the fact that Voldemort's dead/gone, now does it?  

You said "Dumbledore used Aurology because the appearance, context and etymology of Aurologists dictates it". And yet, we have repeatedly asserted we know nothing about Aurology -- or an Aura, for that matter -- in-universe (so much for "appearance"), that there are multiple alternative scenarios to explain the rather vague pieces of information we have at present (so much for "context"), and that etymology is not proof enough of anything, really. We're saying you're using an argument from ignorance and proof by repeated assertion because you keep saying "point A is there, so this must necessarily be point B"... even though we have already addressed that A does not necessarily imply B. You're trying to pass speculation off as deduction, when it is not the case.

YOU have "asserted" we know nothing about Aurology. However, and I feel forced to repeat myself, because there are evidence. And no, I'm not confusing one for the other, seen as the former is means that I would've been the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence, which I'm not, and the latter means I'd be applying the the process of reasoning from one or more statements to reach a logically certain conclusion, which I am.

"Aurors Dispatched Nationwide in Light of Exposure Crisis".

This headline serves as an indicator to the severity of secrecy breaches caused by the Obscurus.

"I.C.W. convened for Emergency Talks". 

This headline asserts that MACUSA decides to turn to the Confederation for advice on how to proceed because the exposure risk and difficulty in concealing magic with the Obscurus (which they at the time still don't know what is) on the loose.

"No-Majs in Grave Danger Warns Piquery". 

This headline asserts that MACUSA ackowledges the cause of the destruction (Obscurus) as a threat to No-Majs more so than to wizards. 

"Magical Disturbances Risk Wizarding Exposure". 

This headline asserts that MACUSA ackowledges the Obscurus as a threat to No-Majs more so than to wizards AND that this threat to No-Majs "could mean exposure, it could mean war."

"MACUSA on Maximum Alert".

Emphasizes the above.

"International Confederation of Wizards called for emergency meeting". 

This headline asserts that rather than merely advising them, the I.C.W. took the exposure threat so seriously that they decided to take more hands-on approach to sort out the problem. Rather than giving them a consult, they opted to come to USA. You could have argued that their eminent arrival was "already announced" above on point 7, since it was an "emergency talk", but no, because Seraphina Piqcuary said they were threatening to send a delegation, which is not how she'd have phrased it if they invited the I.C.W., meaning the latter "called it in" as opposed to "were called in", catching MACUSA off guard and leaving them concerned that there would be another "humiliating public inqury", or even worse: The otherwise independent MACUSA would be rendered reliant on help from the I.C.W. like Tibet was/would become. 

"President Seraphina Picquery to Address Fearful American Wizarding Community" and "Thousands of letters will be dispatched across America from tomorrow. Owls on stand by". 

Both headlines asserts how the MACUSA in light of the I.C.W.'s involvement and in response to the already established severity of the exposure threat level turns to their citizenry and tries to keep them calm and assure them they are up to the task of putting it to rest.

"What is this perplexing sinister aura? Korean Master Aurologists Drafted In For Conjecture (New York and Seoul).

As I said above, whether you agree or not, it is a matter of fact that in the Major Investigation Department, there is a metallic map of New York City which is cleverly bewitched so that it lights up to show areas of intense magical activity. But they did not know what it was, it just popped up, "wreaking destruction" and then vanishing without a trace, so it was preplexing. In the sense that MACUSA at the time were unaware what they were up against, and sinister because the threat it posed to people. As for "aura = traces of magic?" There were indeed "distinctive quality" surrounding the area in which the magical activity occurred and lingering after the Obscurus passed through. That is how you define a trace, the indication of "something passing", and that is how you define an "aura" as per the Oxford Dictionary. As such, thoe two words are indeed rendered contextual synonyms. "So much for context and appearance". 

Now, feel free to twist and turn it however you like, but it will not and cannot change the fact that the two obstacles for MACUSA were that the map could not be used to identify the cause of the magical activity that lights up on it, and the Aurors's inability to dispatch quickly enough to as much as glimpse it, let alone corner it, until Credence was so out of it that he "lost control" for an extended (as in, longer in his Obscurus form than previously) time, allowing the Aurors to respond. Because without these two factors, there is literally NOTHING stopping MACUSA from identifying, locating and neutralizing the threat of the Obscurus prior to Newt's arrival in New York. 

However, even after the map goes dark and the trace/aura on it cold, not all hope is lost. Because "magic always leaves traces". "- sometimes very distinct ones". In the wake of the magical activity of the Obscurus, there were traces. There were indeed "distinctive quality" surrounding the area in which the magical activity occurred, generated by the Obscurus and lingering after it passed through. That is how you define an "aura" as per the Oxford Dictionary. Rendering "aura" and "trace" contextual synonyms. Now, the etymology of "Aurologist" indicate they studied auras, and as asserted above, is by definition in this context - "traces" of magical activity found in the areas the map lighted up.

"Prominent No-Maj killed by magical beast: MACUSA Headquarters raises security level".

This headline asserts that a grim situation took a turn for the worse.

"President Seraphina Picquery calling for all Aurors to be on full alert: International support not yet confirmed".

This is the headline that asserts that it was MACUSA, and no one else, who took contact with Korea. The etymology of their occupational title assert they study auras, and auras are contextual synonyms of "traces by magic" by merit of how traces of magical activity has distinct qualities/atmospheres, which is what an aura is.

On top of everything else, MACUSA/Pricquery feels threatened by the involvement of the International Confederation of Wizards, even describing them as a such, to the independence of wizarding America. Therefore, now they are in a hurry to contain the situation before they must face the wrath of the Confederation for failing to enforce their most sacred of laws.

Based on these two factors, we can assert that MACUSA "drafted [them] for conjecture", for as mentioned above, the biggest obstacle they faced was their lack of understanding that they were dealing with an Obscurus, and based on the etymology of their title and the situation in America at the time, that was EXACTLY what Master Aurologists could help them with. They would be IDEAL for a conjecture, an "opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information", because that was all MACUSA had to work with. Incomplete information. So, MACUSA contacted Korea, "drafting" Master Aurologists there for a "conjecture", asking them to come to the USA and investigate by means of their area of expertise before everything went completely out of hand, and either they had yet to reach a decision or yet to respond to the summons, because the day after, the "international support" was not confirmed, prompting the President to put all Aurors on full alert.

How do I know the Aurologists was the "international support"? Because if you look on the original script, in the movie, in the film books, there are no other mention of foreginers requested into America anywhere, and the Aurologists, based on etymology and contextual evidence, would have been the ONE mention of someone in possession of a skill that very well could have been the only other alternative available for MACUSA to see an end to the crisis other than the end result from events in the movie without having to hand over the wheel to the I.C.W. 

As far as your claim that "that etymology is not proof enough of anything", actually it is. Because while the etymology of a term alone is not enough to define it in real life. But made up concepts that are created for the purpose of fitting into a story. Now that is an other matter entirely.

So I might repeat myself, but none of it is based on "ignorance". Ninclow (talk) 22:15, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

It kind of is. You're basing the fact that MACUSA had to be the ones who summoned these Aurologist fellows because there's no evidence they were not (and proceed to ignore the alternative -- and possible, if not proven -- scenarios I have already thrice presented). That is the textbook definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. "Because if you look on the original script, in the movie, in the film books, there are no other mention of foreginers requested into America anywhere..." -- See? All I'm reading is "This is so because you can't prove it was otherwise..."

The concept of aura, in-universe, is a technical term. You can't just decide what something, in-universe, objectively means due to it being vaguely defined. If it is vaguely defined, then we don't know what it is precisely. And that's where we stay, lest we make further abusive inferences. E.g., imagine Fantastic Beasts was never published, and we didn't have nearly as much information on Ghouls as we currently have — should we go around and presume the Weasleys kept a "an evil spirit or phantom, especially one supposed to rob graves and feed on dead bodies" just because that's how the Oxford Dictionary defines it? Or that Cornelius Agrippa was never imprisoned for his "evil writings" just because the real-life Agrippa never was? Or that Morholt was the brother of the Queen of Ireland instead of the King because that's how the real-world real Arthurian legend goes? Or that Necromancy is "the supposed practice of communicating with the dead, especially in order to predict the future"? Or that "charm" is properly defined as "An object, act, or saying believed to have magic power"? Or that a hag is "a witch"? And I could just go on and on. My point is, we don't know anything about anything in-universe until someone explicitly tells us. We don't know the first thing about an aura, what it is, how/if it manifests objectively, or, indeed, if it exists at all. Same thing goes for Aurologists (I won't even bother to repeat myself on etymology and on how the fact someone dedicates their efforts to something is not proof that something exists/is valid/is relevant/etc.).

As for your analysis of all these headlines, you're adding little to nothing more than repeating what you have already said and already has been challenged. See what I mean by "proof by repeated assertion"?

Even though it pains me to point out that arguing with someone that says informal logic is "a label" is, in the last analysis, a tedious exercise (rather, informal logic is pretty much the "rules of the game"), I must say, due to the fear of having to repeat all of this one more, that the (already overly repetitive) discussion comes down to these two simple "yes or no" questions: Do we have a way to know for certain what someone, in-universe, means when they speak of an "aura", keeping in mind that definitions of in-universe phenomena don't necessarily follow from ours?, and, not least importantly, Is there a way to disprove any alternate scenarios in which a) MACUSA didn't summon the Aurologists, b) Dumbledore used an alternative method we don't know about to detect "traces of magic"? Everything else is, to put it quite frankly, conjecture and filler. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:33, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Also, about the Yaxley thing, should I point out how it betrays you have missed the point entirely? Because that we shouldn't presume things that haven't been demonstrated is pretty much the crux of my argument. What you perhaps haven't understood is that any alternative hypotheses I have put forward have the sole purpose of higlighting how the scenarios you constructed around the (very scant) information we have are not the only possible ones'. And if they're not the only possible scenarios, then they are far from proven, clearly. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 10:41, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

"Because if you look on the original script, in the movie, in the film books, there are no other mention of foreginers requested into America anywhere..." -- See? All I'm reading is "This is so because you can't prove it was otherwise..."

Which means you appear to have stopped reading before you came to the "President Seraphina Picquery calling for all Aurors to be on full alert: International support not yet confirmed" part. THAT was the crux of my argument. MACUSA sought out international support, the Korean Aurologists, based on context and etymology, were both the only foreginers called upon to enter the USA as per information, and for good reason presumably well-equipped to help them and the only alternative to have served that purpose. 1 + 1 = 2.

The concept of aura, in-universe, is a technical term. You can't just decide what something, in-universe, objectively means due to it being vaguely defined. If it is vaguely defined, then we don't know what it is precisely. And that's where we stay, lest we make further abusive inferences.

I did not decide what something objectively means, I defined what it definitively must mean based on the information given to us. I don't need someone to point at a flower and telling me "that is a flower", and I don't need Rowling to tell me that "in magic, an aura is-" because the context in which she presented it speaks for itself and tells us all we need to know. Just like I know that the Federal Bureau of Covert Vigilance and No-Maj Obliviation, in simple terms, deals with 'covert vigiliance' and the modification of memories on No-Maj because the title of the beureau already told us as much.

 And that's where we stay, lest we make further abusive inferences. E.g., imagine Fantastic Beasts was never published, and we didn't have nearly as much information on Ghouls as we currently have — should we go around and presume the Weasleys kept a "an evil spirit or phantom, especially one supposed to rob graves and feed on dead bodies" just because that's how the Oxford Dictionary defines it? Or that Cornelius Agrippa was never imprisoned for his "evil writings" just because the real-life Agrippa never was? Or that Morholt was the brother of the Queen of Ireland instead of the King because that's how the real-world real Arthurian legend goes? Or that Necromancy is "the supposed practice of communicating with the dead, especially in order to predict the future"? Or that "charm" is properly defined as "An object, act, or saying believed to have magic power"? Or that a hag is "a witch"?

No, but that's a very obvious no, too. The distinction, of course, lies in the fact that if we were to do either of those things, we would presume things based on lack of information. I on the other hand, have done nothing of the sort, because I have the context, etymology, chronology of events and props from canonical movie backing up what I'm saying. An "argument from ignorance" is only an argument of ignorance if there is a lack of information, and there isn't. You merely isn't satisfied with the amount, which is fine, but still doesn't change there is enough to go on to determine what is what. Because whereas you can speak about other "possible" scenarios all you want, they were all fabricated in your head, while my scenario is linked to and supported by canon information, which, either you agree or not, is in no way objective.

 As for your analysis of all these headlines, you're adding little to nothing more than repeating what you have already said and already has been challenged. See what I mean by "proof by repeated assertion"?

Sorry, didn't mean to have English as a second language and only a limited number of ways in which I'm capable of presenting facts before you in that language before I end up going in circles. I promise that if Hinduism got it right and we get reborn after death, I will try to become a British or American next time. 

Even though it pains me to point out that arguing with someone that says informal logic is "a label" is, in the last analysis, a tedious exercise (rather, informal logic is pretty much the "rules of the game") You used it like a label, alas, in this context, I treated it as such.  Is there a way to disprove any alternate scenarios in which a) MACUSA didn't summon the Aurologists, b) Dumbledore used an alternative method we don't know about to detect "traces of magic"?

They're disproven by the fact that context, etymology and the chronology of events from canonical assert things differently, ultimately disproving them. 

Do we have a way to know for certain what someone, in-universe, means when they speak of an "aura", keeping in mind that definitions of in-universe phenomena don't necessarily follow from ours?

 Yes. Because in the world of Harry Potter Rowling has created, the only times definitions in-universe phenomena does not follow ours, be it in books, movies or from other canonically reliable sources, are when said sources say it is so. If something is presented but not differentiated by an in-universe definition, our own definitions apply. Just like how we know that when when a wizard is described wearing a cloak, he is wearing a cloak and not some unique, in-universe garment that wizards happen to call cloaks. Ninclow (talk) 00:37, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

Jesu, are you still arguing about this? If Ironyak, Kate and Seth aren't sick of it, then I give them major kudos... because I am. You lost. End it. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:48, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

I have not. Because them not agreeing with me does not invalidate the canonical support of my stance, nor the lack of theirs. If you are not going to argue either for or against me, why not refrain from participating? As mentioned above, if you don't agree and don't seek to persuade me I'm in the wrong, you stand free to ignore my posts, and if me not agreeing with you sickens you, then why don't you? Ninclow (talk) 01:12, May 9, 2017 (UTC))

Well, given that you're wrong, my opinion is quite valid. As they've said before, all your theories are working on the idea of "we have no evidence this did not occur, so it must be true." That makes the theory invalid. And, all your points have just been repeated over and over again.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:16, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

And once again, you seem to either miss the point, or just ignore it: They're not "ideas", nor are they working off the argument "we have no evidence this did not occur, so it must be true". They are working off the argument that "all canon information, however limited you guys might find the amount, points in this direction and asserts this to be the chain of events, as such, we have evidence suggesting this DID occur, so it must be true. Not because there is nothing disproving it, but because there are proof supporting it. Which is why, contrary to your belief, I'm not wrong. Ninclow (talk) 10:23, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

I have to say the problem with your reasoning is not the amount of evidence you have, really — it's the abusive inferences you draw from the tiniest lines in the newspaper props. Exempli gratia:

"The distinction, of course, lies in the fact that if we were to do either of those things, we would presume things based on lack of information." -- Tell me again what information do we have, precisely (that comes purely from canonical materials, mind) about an "aura"? Reviewing all canonical mentions of the word aura, all I can come up with is:

• Trelawney saying that she perceives "very little aura" around Hermione, and clarifying what she meant was she had "little receptivity to the resonances of the future" in Prisoner of Azkaban — which in no way supports a definition of aura as "traces left by magic that can be detected and identified".
• The New York Ghost headline "What is this perplexing sinister aura? Korean Master Aurologists Drafted In For Conjecture" from Fantastic Beasts — from which, as I have already said again and again, nothing else can possibly be gleamed than what's outright spelled out for us: a) that there is a wizarding concept called "aura" (of which we know nothing) which is apparently studied by people that call themselves Aurologists (which, by itself, proves nothing about auras themselves); b) someone (we don't know who) called them for conjecture (we don't know to what end).

That's pretty much all there is to it. Saying we have any more objective and reliable information about the definition of an "aura" within the Harry Potter universe is, to put it quite plainly, wrong. (Your flower analogy is, again, not apt, because the concept of "flower" is not one that is inherently magical, i.e. specific to Rowling's world and the way she built/builds it. By this I mean, Rowling can define "aura", as a magical concept, the way she very well pleases it and still mantain suspension of disbelief because "aura" is not a real concept to begin with; this would not work if she started changing the definitions of bog-standard objects like "clock", or "fork", within the narration).

Apologies, but if the line "President Seraphina Picquery calling for all Aurors to be on full alert: International support not yet confirmed" is the crux of your argument, then I'm afraid you don't got much of an argument at all. Analyse it objectively, and all information one can infer from this single line is that a) Picquery called Aurors to be alert, b) some sort of support from abroad (we don't know and have no way of knowing what or who these words refer to -- and no, we are not sure this refers to the Korean Aurologists, because we have still not established MACUSA were the ones who called them, or to what end they were called for exactly) has still not been confirmed (to who? By the foreigners to MACUSA? By MACUSA to the press? -- we don't know). When you say that "the Korean Aurologists, based on context and etymology, were both the only foreginers called upon to enter the USA as per information, and for good reason presumably well-equipped to help them" you are (and I hate to tell you this all over again) incurring in an argument from ignorance because you are presuming, without good reason, that i) MACUSA couldn't possibly have called for foreign aid in any other way (how can we possibly know this?), and ii) Aurologists are credible, or "well-equipped", enough to be called by a wizarding government for such a task (when we know nothing about these guys). See what I mean by lack of information? The adding of multiple such abusive inferences leads us into a conclusion supported by little more than assumptions.

No one is saying that the scenario you have presented goes against what little canon we have (it doesn't, really) — rather, what I am saying is that it does not necessarily derive from the little pieces of information we have (that's where my other "possible scenarios" come into play: if something does not necessarily derive from the information we have, but all alternative scenarios are deemed to be impossible, then we can consider that something has been proven beyond reasonable doubt — alternatively, and as in this case, if something does not necessarily derive from the information we have, and there are multiple other scenarios that are just as likely and cannot be disproven, then that something is not proven and cannot possibly be seen as canonical fact).

Now, for the answers you gave my two questions:

• I cannot possibly concede your answer to my first question due to everything I've written above (the little bits and pieces of information don't assert — that's a very strong word — anything of the sort; your interpretation of them and the way you filled in the blanks does).
• As for your second answer, you provide no convincing reason to believe that "in the world of Harry Potter Rowling has created, the only times definitions in-universe phenomena does not follow ours, be it in books, movies or from other canonically reliable sources, are when said sources say it is so" — you have not proven that assertion; how in the world can we ever be sure of that? Especially when one considers that we are referring to folklore, superstition, and beliefs that, objectively speaking, don't exist at all in the real world?

As for me saying you keep repeating your assertions, I don't mean you are supposed to dress up your side of the argument (and you really shouldn't presume English is my first language, either) -- I'm saying that, even though I've presented counter-arguments, you have dismissed them without addressing them. It would be a better use of your time and patience to try and tell me why my counter-arguments are wrong, instead of reiterating the same argument-scenario every single time (which I feel, honestly, is part of the reason this discussion has become so long-winded, tedious, and repetitive). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:02, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

"in the world of Harry Potter Rowling has created, the only times definitions in-universe phenomena does not follow ours, be it in books, movies or from other canonically reliable sources, are when said sources say it is so" how in the world can we ever be sure of that?

I'm a dedicated Harry Potter fan. I've seen what is to be seen, read what there is to read and heard what is to be heard of information relating to the world of Harry Potter, and I can assure you Rowling will not in any near future misinform us. If an "aura" had meant anything other than the context presented to us, she'd make sure we knew. 

Wait... YOU aren't a native speaker?! O.o Merlin's beard, kudos to you, Seth!!! :O :-D Ninclow (talk) 13:22, May 11, 2017 (UTC) 

And yet, I see no suggestion of "traces left by magic" in the excerpt "I perceive very little aura around you. Very little receptivity to the resonances of the future." from Prisoner of Azkaban. Could she be using Oxford English Dictionary's alternative definition of aura as "a supposed emanation surrounding the body of a living creature and regarded as an essential part of the individual"? Seems by far more canon-compliant to me. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:54, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I changed the definition from one that Starstuff had previously provided based on the several uses of aura by Rowling through out the texts (see above for all uses). This was tied to the "Dumbledore studying with Korean aurologists" issue as the previous definition of "subtle field of magical energy" was being equated with "traces of magic". Seth's alternative OED definition seems to fit Trelawney's use, but not the New York Ghosts' (NY is not a living creature except maybe metaphorically), nor some of the other in-text uses such as [the boxes] "had an aura of tedious, hard, and pointless work about them." I really don't have a dog in this fight anymore now that the speculation is gone from Dumbledore's article, just clarifying how things came to be. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:32, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

Aurology

No, but I do see "traces left by magic" in an excrept from Pottermore if you check out the Book of Admittance and Quill of Acceptance, you'll find that the book snaps shut to prevent the quill from writing down the names of squibs: "Non-magic children born to witches and wizards occasionally have some small, residual aura of magic about them due to their parents, but once their parents magic has worn off them it becomes clear that they will never have the ability to perform spells. The Quill’s sensitivity, coupled with the Book’s implacability, have never yet made a mistake." Ninclow (talk) 10:07, September 24, 2017 (UTC)