# Do You Believe in Magic?



## CleverNickName (Sep 2, 2008)

I wonder how many of us gamers believe in magic, in the okay-for-real-now, this-is-serious sort of way.

Now, I know that there are many different definitions of the word "magic."  So to keep the discussion on track (and hopefully avoid the religion boilerplate), I would like us to consider _only this one definition of the word_ for the poll.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

*mag·ic*_ n._ The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

So, do you believe in it?


----------



## Semah G Noj (Sep 2, 2008)

Nope.


----------



## Dog Moon (Sep 2, 2008)

No, but I like to think I keep an open mind.  Just because we can't see something or our current instruments cannot detect something, doesn't mean it doesn't necessarily exist.  I think it's possible, while unlikely, that perhaps Magic is simply hiding due to fear of people finding out and attempting to exterminate it, experiment on it, or basically be in general harmful to it and those who use it.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Magic did exist and its existence was slowly or abruptly leaked into everday life.  What would happen?

So while I occasionally think it [since I like to write mainly, and ponder how I could use such an idea in a story], I don't believe with a sureness in it nor do I completely dismiss it as being completely preposterous, just in case there's a chance it truly is real.


----------



## Blackrat (Sep 2, 2008)

Eh... Cruel question you have there... After long consideration I took _Maybe_. With all the weird stuff I've witnessed I'd be idiot to say that I don't believe in the possibility of supernatural. *Possibility*, that's the keyword. I can't say I believe in it outright, but I've seen enough to make me wonder, what if... So _Maybe_.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 2, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> From the American Heritage Dictionary:
> 
> *mag·ic*_ n._ The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.



Well, I'm firmly in the 'No' camp. 

This 'definition', however, is a bit odd or at least incomplete. What does 'invoking the supernatural' mean?

Does 'supernatural' mean something for which no natural explanation is *known*? If so, the question gets more tricky because I think there may be a few things which cannot be explained satisfyingly *yet*.

I do not doubt, though, that a natural explanation for everything *exists*.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 2, 2008)

Nope.

However if you can demonstrate it in a controlled setting, and can repeat it in the same setting, you could change my mind. And at the same time you'd win a prize from The Amazing Randi.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 2, 2008)

I said "maybe" because of quantum uncertainty.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Sep 2, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> I said "maybe" because of quantum uncertainty.




Does that mean until we let you out of your box, your answer might be "yes" or "no?"


----------



## Blackrat (Sep 2, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> Does that mean until we let you out of your box, your answer might be "yes" or "no?"




I believe that would actually make it "yes" AND "no" at the same time .


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 3, 2008)

Yes, I know it is a tricky question (and a vague definition, to boot.)  English is a strange language sometimes.

I remember reading something recently about this topic...I think it was in our campus newspaper, but I could be wrong.  Anyway, it seems that about 20% of the folks surveyed do indeed believe in magic (the supernatural kind, not the sleight-of-hand variety or the popular card game.)

I wondered what kind of results I would get if I polled a group of gamers.  We seem to talk about supernatural stuff a lot more frequently than, say, engineering students...


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> From the American Heritage Dictionary:
> 
> *mag·ic*_ n._ The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.




*circular definition* see *"definition, circular"*.  Until such time as "the supernatural" is defined, this is using an undefined term to define another term.  That's not getting you very far.

Note that some of the physical laws we now understand were, at one time, considered "supernatural".


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 3, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> Does that mean until we let you out of your box, your answer might be "yes" or "no?"




But that is assuming that I, the box, magic, and my answer to the question if magic exists even exists are mutually defendant on the other's existence.  For all I know, if I say "yes" magic might not actually exist, but if I say no might might exist.  But what if there's some kind of paradox where I know magic exists but it doesn't? 
[/freak out]   



Blackrat said:


> I believe that would actually make it "yes" AND "no" at the same time .




Or it could be neither of the choices at the same time.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 3, 2008)

While I'll have my doubts about any _individual_ who _claims_ to be able to perform actual magic, I do not discount what is defined as the "supernatural"'s existence nor it's potential influences.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Sep 3, 2008)

I believe in miracles. Does that count as a yes?


----------



## Blackrat (Sep 3, 2008)

Reveille said:


> I believe in miracles. Does that count as a yes?




Nah, you've just listened too much Tom Jones . Cheers Bro


----------



## WhatGravitas (Sep 3, 2008)

No. Because if I require to _believe_ in it... I doubt it.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 3, 2008)

Umbran said:


> *circular definition* see *"definition, circular"*.  Until such time as "the supernatural" is defined, this is using an undefined term to define another term.  That's not getting you very far.
> 
> Note that some of the physical laws we now understand were, at one time, considered "supernatural".



Hmm...you are absolutely right.  As written, calculus would be considered a form of "magic" to someone who never took a math class (since it is an "art" which can be used to predict certain forces of nature.  Weather patterns, for example.)

Tell you what: let's narrow the focus a bit, and pick a definition of the word "supernatural" for the purpose of this poll.  From Dictionary.com:

*su·per·nat·u·ral* _adj._  Of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.  

So let's assume that "supernatural" is something that could never be explained scientifically, even if our knowledge of the physical world were perfect and infinite.  Does that help?


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 4, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> Hmm...you are absolutely right.  As written, calculus would be considered a form of "magic" to someone who never took a math class (since it is an "art" which can be used to predict certain forces of nature.  Weather patterns, for example.)
> 
> Tell you what: let's narrow the focus a bit, and pick a definition of the word "supernatural" for the purpose of this poll.  From Dictionary.com:
> 
> ...



Well, it's one thing to explain it. You still need to test it out to prove it is not supernatural.

I've often wonder about ... for lack of a better term ... the human psyche. If one were to be encountered with a supernatural phenomenon, would you try to disbelieve and rationalize what you saw, or would you believe for what it is you saw before you, at the risk of damaging your sanity?


----------



## Orius (Sep 4, 2008)

No, I am a complete skeptic WRT the supernatural.

Remember, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 4, 2008)

Orius said:


> No, I am a complete skeptic WRT the supernatural.



Keep saying that, and you might believe it.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 4, 2008)

Orius said:


> Remember, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.




And sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 4, 2008)

No, I don't believe in magic or the supernatural. 

I am sure that we don't know everything there is to know about the universe, but I am sure that it is possible to find a scientific theory for everything.

If I saw someone throwing a fireball or casting a charm person spell, I would believe in "magic", but I wouldn't believe it as being supernatural as in "outside of nature / not part of physics". But I don't believe anything like that ever happen, either.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 4, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> And sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.




Any insufficiently advanced technology is distinguishable from magic.

Though I think what would be more fitting to say is: 
"Any insufficiently understood technology or phenomena is _mistaken_ for magic".


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 4, 2008)

I prefer, "Any technology distinguishable from magic is _in_sufficiently advanced."

But to me, magic is "influence or prediction of events by non-intuitive causality, often in violation of the laws of thermodynamics."

For instance, tossing bones to predict the weather is magic because the weather does not meaningfully influence the bones, or vice versa. Examining satellite images of the weather to predict the weather, however, is science.

Waving your hands, rubbing some sulfur and bat guano together, and creating a burst of flame 400 ft. away is magic because there is no direct line of incidence between the one action and the other. Laying down a cable that leads to a bunch of explosives, and then pressing a detonator to set off the explosives is science.

Telekinesis, magic. Magnetic levitation, science. This is an example of where the line blurs. Some science is non-intuitive, and requires understanding unseen forces. However, science relies on spending energy to create an effect, whereas magic often bypasses the whole energy requirement. A person just thinks really hard and something moves, as opposed to you having to plug in a lot of electricity for your magnet machine.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 4, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> So let's assume that "supernatural" is something that could never be explained scientifically, even if our knowledge of the physical world were perfect and infinite.  Does that help?




As a scientist - no, it does not. You have stumbled into what a scientist might call an, "unfalsifiable hypothesis".   

We are all aware of the basic form of the scientific method, yes?  Form a hypothesis, create an experiment that tests some part of the hypothesis, run the experiment - if the results are consistent with the hypothesis, that is evidence the hypothesis is correct, if the results are not consistent with the hypothesis, we adjust the hypothesis to meet the experimental facts.

Here, we have a hypothesis, "Phenomenon X can never be explained by science."  How, pray tell, am I supposed to be able to test that?  There is no test you can construct that can say something _will never, cannot ever_ happen.  One would need complete knowledge of the future to be able to make such an assertion.

Science, in general, is not in the business of proving negatives - that's for mathematicians.  A scientist can speak to what can or cannot be explained right now, but not to what might or might not be explainable in the future.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Sep 4, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> Waving your hands, rubbing some sulfur and bat guano together, and creating a burst of flame 400 ft. away is magic because there is no direct line of incidence between the one action and the other. Laying down a cable that leads to a bunch of explosives, and then pressing a detonator to set off the explosives is science.



If I wiggle my fingers and press some metal, rubber and alchemically treated oil together, a silvery box starts spouting arcane noise and blinks with weirdly coloured lights.

In other words, according to your definition, a remote is magic, because there's as much intuitive link between the TV and the remote as between the bat guano and the explosion.

I think this also demonstrates that "intuitive causality" changes with society, which means that your definition of magic is a social one, depending on the society and their views on causality.

The thermodynamics clause, however is better - if something is decreasing the entropy of the universe, I will be shocked.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 4, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> The thermodynamics clause, however is better - if something is decreasing the entropy of the universe, I will be shocked.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Of course, not all instances where magic is used in stories makes magic do that.

Hey, Discworld magicians seem to be pretty scientific in that regard. 
Forcing a door open telekinetically is dangerous, because you're using your brain as leverage. If you're not careful, it might smash!


----------



## Umbran (Sep 4, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> The thermodynamics clause, however is better - if something is decreasing the entropy of the universe, I will be shocked.




That's all well and good, except for the fact that we are incapable of measuring the entropy of the universe as a whole - local entropy can be manipulated willy-nilly, so long as you dump the excess somewhere out of sight


----------



## Samnell (Sep 4, 2008)

I don't even believe in the supernatural, of any kind.


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 4, 2008)

I selected _maybe_ because I like to keep an open mind, and I like to sit on the fence.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 5, 2008)

Knightfall1972 said:


> I selected _maybe_ because I like to keep an open mind, and I like to sit on the fence.



Sitting on the fence is is nearly a sport - pole-sitting is the real deal.


----------



## Studio69 (Sep 9, 2008)

No; not in the least.


----------



## Whitemouse (Sep 9, 2008)

I believe that anything ordained as a magical effect is simply sufficiently advanced technology.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2008)

Samnell said:


> I don't even believe in the supernatural, of any kind.




There is a school of thought that the word, "supernatural," is itself an oxymoron.  The idea being that nothing is actually outside the natural world - if you think a phenomenon is "supernatural" that merely means your concept of "natural" was of insufficient scope.


----------



## Samnell (Sep 9, 2008)

Umbran said:


> There is a school of thought that the word, "supernatural," is itself an oxymoron.  The idea being that nothing is actually outside the natural world - if you think a phenomenon is "supernatural" that merely means your concept of "natural" was of insufficient scope.




That's more or less my thinking on the matter. Were we to come on a genuine event which clearly did not operate according to our understanding of how nature behaves, it would not mean that we have found some different sort of reality. It would only mean we needed to expand our understanding of reality further. To me, calling some real phenomenon supernatural does nothing more than to close off lines of inquiry and preserve ignorance. People used to think lightning and disease were supernatural, but they were wrong.

...but I sense that I am quite close to religion side of the religion & politics rule, so I'm going to stop here.


----------



## Merkuri (Sep 10, 2008)

Umbran said:


> There is a school of thought that the word, "supernatural," is itself an oxymoron.  The idea being that nothing is actually outside the natural world - if you think a phenomenon is "supernatural" that merely means your concept of "natural" was of insufficient scope.




Yeah, I was gonna say something like that.

I believe that anything that we think of as "supernatural" (ie being outside nature) is just something we have not been able to sufficiently explain, and once it it studied and its explanation is found we will find that it is natural indeed, it was just a part of nature that we were unaware of before.

I've wrestled with this sort of idea when trying to define exactly what magic is in my homebrew.  The scientist in me won't let me just say, "it's magic!" and leave it at that, but I find that the moment I define magic it becomes non-supernatural, because it has been explained as a part of the natural world.

Really, by definition, supernatural things are things that do not exist.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2008)

It's noticeable that magic in most settings actually follows laws. It might be called "supernatural", but you can still research it, and you can repeat it. The way you create the effects might be "strange" - making a gesture and speaking some words of power creates a fireball - but it is still something that you could research with scientific methods.


----------



## Eye Of The Hawk (Sep 10, 2008)

I believe in possibility of magic. Perhaps does exist but we is blind to it as mortal perceptions are limiting.


----------



## Nyaricus (Sep 11, 2008)

Umbran said:


> There is a school of thought that the word, "supernatural," is itself an oxymoron.  The idea being that nothing is actually outside the natural world - if you think a phenomenon is "supernatural" that merely means your concept of "natural" was of insufficient scope.



That's what I came in here to say; in other words, no, I don't believe in magic or the supernatural of any sort.

----------------
Now playing: At the Gates - Captor of Sin [Slayer Cover]
via FoxyTunes


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 11, 2008)

Nyaricus said:


> That's what I came in here to say; in other words, no, I don't believe in magic or the supernatural of any sort.



The distinction is mostly because of our language and culture:  ghosts are regarded as being "supernatural" but not necessarily "magical," for example, and wars have been fought over the distinction between "miracles" and "sorcery."  As far as physical science is concerned, none of these things will ever be adequately proven.

Psychology offers some interesting explainations, but psychologists and physicists have enough trouble agreeing with each other as it is.


----------



## love.christine (Sep 11, 2008)

Eye Of The Hawk said:


> I believe in possibility of magic.



This.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Sep 12, 2008)

There have been a lot of misquotes of Clarke’s Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

And
Benford’s Modified Clarke Law: 
Any technology that does not appear magical is insufficiently advanced.

The simple truth is:
There is no such thing as magic.

Astrology does not and cannot work, no-one can talk to the deceased, or summon spirits, or heal with crystals. No-one can bend spoons, or read minds, or tell the future with cards, or heal by the laying on of hands. No-one can cast a spell. There is no such things as ghosts…

However
There’s nothing wrong with storytelling and playing games, so if they work in a story or game, that’s fine.


----------



## Whitemouse (Sep 13, 2008)

Whitemouse said:


> I believe that anything ordained as a magical effect is simply sufficiently advanced technology.






GrumpyOldMan said:


> There have been a lot of misquotes of Clarke’s Law:
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> 
> And Benford’s Modified Clarke Law:
> Any technology that does not appear magical is insufficiently advanced.



 Meh. Close enough.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Sep 13, 2008)

Arthur C Clarke & Gregory Benford may disagree 

Well, okay, Mr Clarke is unlikely to to say anything to you unless my post above is entirely wrong.


----------



## Whitemouse (Sep 14, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> Arthur C Clarke & Gregory Benford may disagree
> 
> Well, okay, Mr Clarke is unlikely to to say anything to you unless my post above is entirely wrong.




Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Sep 14, 2008)

Yes, I believe in Magick.

I have practiced in the past, but find the ethical implications of _causing change to occur in conformity with the Will_ to be somewhat complicated. 

I have several friends who practice.


----------



## John Cooper (Sep 15, 2008)

No, but thanks for getting that song stuck in my head.  The Lovin' Spoonful, wasn't it?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 15, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> The simple truth is:
> There is no such thing as magic.
> 
> Astrology does not and cannot work, no-one can talk to the deceased, or summon spirits, or heal with crystals. No-one can bend spoons, or read minds, or tell the future with cards, or heal by the laying on of hands.




As far as you know.


----------



## Whitemouse (Sep 15, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> As far as you know.



Agreed. Everyone is entitled to their *opinion*.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Sep 16, 2008)

*Send me $1000 and I'll cast a spell to improve your life!*



Relique du Madde said:


> GrumpyOldMan said:
> 
> 
> > The simple truth is:
> ...



And, if you know differently, why not put the charlatans (sorry – I mean hustlers – oops  _noble practitioners and miracle workers_) in touch with the James Randi Educational Foundation. They are prepared to give any proven magician $1,000,000. No takers, because it’s easy to fool a rube, difficult to fool a combination of scientists and stage magicians.



Whitemouse said:


> Agreed. Everyone is entitled to their *opinion*.




Everyone is, indeed, entitled to their opinion. They’re entitled to the facts as well, because, face it, facts trump opinion. In some peoples opinion, the world is flat, the moon landings were faked, the earth will be destroyed by a hidden planet undetectable by any means known to science (or by the Large Hadron Collider). Fortunately, a healthy dose of scepticism, and a quick check of the facts allows us to disprove many opinions.

Still, this poll is only about what people believe, not what is factually accurate, so it doesn’t really matter does it?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> And, if you know differently, why not put the charlatans (sorry – I mean hustlers – oops  _noble practitioners and miracle workers_) in touch with the James Randi Educational Foundation. They are prepared to give any proven magician $1,000,000. No takers, because it’s easy to fool a rube, difficult to fool a combination of scientists and stage magicians.



One could claim that 1,000,000 $ isn't enough for a real magician...


----------



## Whitemouse (Sep 16, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> Everyone is, indeed, entitled to their opinion. They’re entitled to the facts as well, because, face it, facts trump opinion. In some peoples opinion, the world is flat, the moon landings were faked, the earth will be destroyed by a hidden planet undetectable by any means known to science (or by the Large Hadron Collider). Fortunately, a healthy dose of scepticism, and a quick check of the facts allows us to disprove many opinions.



 Okay, point me to solid factual evidence that magic doen't exist.


----------



## Samnell (Sep 16, 2008)

Whitemouse said:


> Okay, point me to solid factual evidence that magic doen't exist.




Sorry, but that's not how rational discourse works. Should you assert that something exists, we are not obligated to believe you. Quite the opposite, in the absence of any evidence that it does we are obliged to consider you at best mistaken. The default position is always unbelief. The burden of proof is yours.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2008)

Samnell said:


> Sorry, but that's not how rational discourse works. Should you assert that something exists, we are not obligated to believe you. Quite the opposite, in the absence of any evidence that it does we are obliged to consider you at best mistaken. The default position is always unbelief. The burden of proof is yours.




I am not sure this is entirely correct. If you have some indications that something might exist or is true, we can start with the assumption that it is true, and then try to make predictions. Then we test these predictions. 

But as long as we don't have any predictions, or none of the predictions can be tested, the original theory has little merit.


----------



## Samnell (Sep 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not sure this is entirely correct. If you have some indications that something might exist or is true, we can start with the assumption that it is true, and then try to make predictions. Then we test these predictions.




And we can't do any of that until we have some kind of indications, which have not been forthcoming. There are people who believe in many things but that is not sufficient. People believe lots of things, both now and in the past, which we are fairly certain are false.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Sep 17, 2008)

Samnell said:
			
		

> The default position is always unbelief. The burden of proof is yours.




Absolutely. This is a central principle of magic.



			
				Naughty Magician Aleister Crowley said:
			
		

> I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> AFortunately, a healthy dose of scepticism, and a quick check of the facts allows us to disprove many opinions.
> 
> Still, this poll is only about what people believe, not what is factually accurate, so it doesn’t really matter does it?




And we return to the note about the scientific method, and note that outside of mathematics, negative proof is generally not possible.  We are fundamentally incapable of "factually" stating that magic does not exist.  The non-existence of magic is not a "fact".  




Samnell said:


> Sorry, but that's not how rational discourse works. Should you assert that something exists, we are not obligated to believe you. Quite the opposite, in the absence of any evidence that it does we are obliged to consider you at best mistaken. The default position is always unbelief. The burden of proof is yours.




To be exact - that is not how traditional _dialectic_ rational discourse works.  There are other modes of rational discourse that do not depend upon the pro/con dualism to explore ideas.

There is only a "burden of proof" if there is a "burden" to "prove" anything.  This is a friendly discussion, not a court of law, and nobody here is under any obligation to provide you satisfaction.


----------



## Whitemouse (Sep 17, 2008)

Umbran said:


> And we return to the note about the scientific method, and note that outside of mathematics, negative proof is generally not possible.  We are fundamentally incapable of "factually" stating that magic does not exist.  The non-existence of magic is not a "fact".



Exactly.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Sep 17, 2008)

Umbran said:


> And we return to the note about the scientific method, and note that outside of mathematics, negative proof is generally not possible. We are fundamentally incapable of "factually" stating that magic does not exist. The non-existence of magic is not a "fact".




Equally, of course, we can categorically state that the _existence_ of magic is *not* a fact.

We can, however go further than this:

We can say that (for example) Astrology does not and cannot work. Every scientific test of ‘time twins’ has failed to prove any life-similarities, The observational details used by astrologers is fatally flawed, as any astronomer will tell you. And physicists have been unable to discover any ‘force’ from distant planets that could in any way affect an individual.

We can also say that every controlled scientific test on people claiming magical, mental or other ‘supernatural’ powers has failed to detect any such powers. In many cases (like a certain Mr Geller) the individual has actually been filmed faking his results, or has been unable to duplicate them in laboratory conditions.

There remains, of course, the ‘magic’ (or illuminati) argument that we’re all being manipulated by these super powerful people and that the scientific results have been manipulated to make us rational folk believe that there’s no such thing as magic. I can’t argue against that belief, because that’s conspiracy theory and as soon as I argue against it I become one of those super powerful mages covering up for their existence. Which is, of course nonsense!

Or is it?   

Dunh Dunh DUNNNNNH!


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> We can say that (for example) Astrology does not and cannot work.




Um, no.  That's my point.  You cannot say that Astrology cannot work.  That'd require a negative proof.

Real science _admits_ that there are mechanisms in the Universe it doesn't know yet.  Failing to admit that you don't know everything is dogma, not science.  Science is about _seeking out_ those mechanisms of which you're ignorant.  

You can say that science cannot (yet) explain how Astrology could work.  You might do a study and show that correlation between astrological prediction and actual outcome is at or below what you'd expect from random chance.  For any particular event, you might be able to show that events can be explained without invoking astrological influences.

But none of those actually say Astrology _cannot_ work.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 18, 2008)

For the sake of argument...

There is no physical reason that a sugar pill would help people recover from certain illnesses, yet there are thousands of cases where a sugar pill does exactly this.  The placebo effect has no physical proof...it is truly "all in your head"...yet it exists.  Same thing for the nocebo effect, self-fulfilling prophecy, mass psychogenic illness, the Pygmalion effect, etc.  These things can be measured, observed, and predicted...but not with physics or mathematics.

Perhaps what our ancestors called "magic" is something similar...it may be "all in your head," yet it affects your body and your environment all the same.

I'm not a psychologist or a psychology student, and I'm sure that either one of those could destroy my argument in short order.  And I really don't believe that magic exists, even hypothetically.   But this discussion thread is just too interesting for me to sit here quietly.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> These things can be measured, observed, and predicted...but not with physics or mathematics.




Yes, but physics and mathematics are no the only sciences.  Chemistry, biology, and psychology all have their places, too - and they are not commonly considered "magic"


----------



## Walknot (Sep 18, 2008)

Could be that magic does exist, but not such as we have seen proof recently.  That's one reason to vote "maybe"; simply being open to the possibility that magic could happen sometime in the future.

Anything you can imagine is possible.  If you say that magic is impossible, maybe you can not imagine it?  Or, could be a "realist" will discount the highly unlikely as simply impossible, to keep things tidy?


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 18, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but physics and mathematics are no the only sciences.  Chemistry, biology, and psychology all have their places, too - and they are not commonly considered "magic"



Aren't chemistry and biology subcategories of physics?  They all boil down to particles and energy, after all.

I'm not sure about psychology, though...it is an odd science.  It isn't the study of particles or energy; it is the study of behavior and learning.  And while I know that behavior can be changed in response to a physical stimulus (like medicine), we can't quantify the behavior of a living creature as easily as we can the "behavior" of particles or energy.  Which suggests that there is more to living creatures than the sum of their particles.

I don't think that psychology is a form of "magic," at least not according to the definition in my original post.  But as far as we know, much of psychology exists outside of the physical realm of particles and energy.  I think that is fascinating.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> Aren't chemistry and biology subcategories of physics?  They all boil down to particles and energy, after all.
> 
> I'm not sure about psychology, though...it is an odd science.  It isn't the study of particles or energy; it is the study of behavior and learning.  And while I know that behavior can be changed in response to a physical stimulus (like medicine), we can't quantify the behavior of a living creature as easily as we can the "behavior" of particles or energy.  Which suggests that there is more to living creatures than the sum of their particles.
> 
> I don't think that psychology is a form of "magic," at least not according to the definition in my original post.  But as far as we know, much of psychology exists outside of the physical realm of particles and energy.  I think that is fascinating.




Chemistry started with statistics, IIRC. Putting varius ingredients together and measure what happens, eventually figuring out relationships between masses and elements. 
So does psychology. There are also areas where psychology and biology (neurology) are combined and give us insights into the real thought processes. Also, psychology on a larger/generalized scale also seems to work to some extent - cognitive theories that explain how people learn, or how people react to user interfaces (physical or digital), reaction of groups of people, and so on.
There is still a lot unexplored, and I wouldn't count on psychiatrists analyzing your brain waves and neuro-transmitters in an average session, but that's something we might end with in a few decades. 

It is definitely science.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> Aren't chemistry and biology subcategories of physics?  They all boil down to particles and energy, after all.




In one way, yes, in another, no.  Physics can tell you the basic structure of atoms, and therefore imply the basic structure of simple molecules.

However, as the number of interacting particles goes up, the straight up physics equations become insoluble - even when you're dealing with gravity, the equations to deal with three general masses cannot be solved analytically.  Even figuring out the folding of one real major protein can be the work of a physics doctoral thesis.  



> we can't quantify the behavior of a living creature as easily as we can the "behavior" of particles or energy.




Nobody said doing science correctly was _easy_.



> Which suggests that there is more to living creatures than the sum of their particles.




"The sum of their particles" is a bit misleading, because it hides the complexity.  Living things may be the sum of their particles - but that sum is very, very large...


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 21, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Chemistry, biology, and psychology all have their places, too - and they are not commonly considered "magic"



What about alchemy?

Should magic be applied, tested, and written out scientifically?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Sep 21, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> Should magic be applied, tested, and written out scientifically?



If it can be applied, tested and written out and is predictable, then it's a science, not magic.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 21, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> If it can be applied, tested and written out and is predictable, then it's a science, not magic.



So, is it a matter of belief, or one would scientifically classify an event or incident as an "anomaly"?


----------



## megamania (Sep 21, 2008)

Yes but it's not as cut and dry as the open and very broad definition gives.  I do believe we can INFLUENCE events but not change them specically.  Believe (faith) is included in this.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 22, 2008)

megamania said:


> Yes but it's not as cut and dry as the open and very broad definition gives.  I do believe we can INFLUENCE events but not change them specically.  Believe (faith) is included in this.



So, in order for something to be called magic it should change the event, not influence it, or does influencing count with a shade of gray (or doubt)?


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Sep 22, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Um, no.  That's my point.  You cannot say that Astrology cannot work.  That'd require a negative proof.
> 
> Real science _admits_ that there are mechanisms in the Universe it doesn't know yet.  Failing to admit that you don't know everything is dogma, not science.  Science is about _seeking out_ those mechanisms of which you're ignorant.
> 
> ...




I disagree.

I’d like to think that I’m not being dogmatic.

You say: “You might do a study and show that correlation between astrological prediction and actual outcome is at or below what you'd expect from random chance.” It has been done. Astrologers work on inaccurate and outdated star charts and cannot even agree amongst themselves.

This Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology is a great site. Check it out, get sceptical.


----------



## Merkuri (Sep 22, 2008)

Not to be picky, Gurmpy, but the stuff you've mentioned proves that astrology is likely not to work, especially as it is practiced now, but it does not (and cannot) prove that it will never work.  Some people might point to the outdated star charts as a reason why it hasn't worked so far - because we don't have it right yet.

I'm not saying I believe in astrology, just that we're incapable to scientifically prove without a doubt that it will never work.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 22, 2008)

Merkuri said:


> Not to be picky, Gurmpy, but the stuff you've mentioned proves that astrology is likely not to work, especially as it is practiced now, but it does not (and cannot) prove that it will never work.  Some people might point to the outdated star charts as a reason why it hasn't worked so far - because we don't have it right yet.
> 
> I'm not saying I believe in astrology, just that we're incapable to scientifically prove without a doubt that it will never work.




The inability to prove that something doesn't work similarly doesn't mean it does work in any way. And that's a sentance and a half, right there...

Note: Actually, I've just caught up with the rest of the thread and I realise I'm going over ground that's already been covered. Ahem. Don't mind me.

I don't believe in magic, though.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> I disagree.




Your agreement is not required.  Science does not do negative proof.  It provides evidence, and you make up your own mind - big difference.



> I’d like to think that I’m not being dogmatic.




No offense intended here - but you sound that dogmatic.  If you actually aren't, then somewhere between your brain and my brain there's a disconnect.  Not unusual, in the text-only medium.



> You say: “You might do a study and show that correlation between astrological prediction and actual outcome is at or below what you'd expect from random chance.” It has been done. Astrologers work on inaccurate and outdated star charts and cannot even agree amongst themselves.




Yes.  That evidence would, to most rational people, indicate that it is highly improbable that astrology works.  It is the basis for a belief, but it is not proof that astrology cannot ever work.

For example, the jury is still out on whether our universe is deterministic - some forms of string theory still allow that.  If it turns out to be true, then there's no such thing as "unrelated events", as all events would be related to the one event that started the Universe, and many forms of "divination" become possible.  This would not be "spooky action at a distance", but simple correlation of events, a fundamental interconnectedness of all things.  Not that this would matter much, as in a deterministic universe you cannot change the future, so knowing it would be kind of moot.  But the point still stands.



> This Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology is a great site. Check it out, get sceptical.




Dude, I'm a physicist.  I am a skeptic, and I don't believe in astrology.  However, as a scientist, I know the bounds of what I can and cannot say - I can say I don't believe that it works, but I cannot say that it cannot work.


----------



## Simon Atavax (Sep 22, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, I'm firmly in the 'No' camp.
> 
> This 'definition', however, is a bit odd or at least incomplete. What does 'invoking the supernatural' mean?
> 
> ...




I admire the faith demonstrated in your last statement.


----------



## Relique Hunter (Sep 24, 2008)

GrumpyOldMan said:


> This Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology is a great site. Check it out, get sceptical.




Wow. That was a great read; many thanks.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 26, 2008)

Only in a young girl's heart....

What?


----------



## Whitemouse (Sep 26, 2008)

Thunderfoot said:


> Only in a young girl's heart....



I'm a young girl.... 

Well, woman anyway.


----------



## ssampier (Sep 28, 2008)

You'll always have a friend with big red shoes.

What?


----------



## megamania (Sep 28, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> So, in order for something to be called magic it should change the event, not influence it, or does influencing count with a shade of gray (or doubt)?





My choice of words are never very good.

Magic can not be easily defined.

Things we can define through science today was considered magic years ago.

There are things we can do that some would consider magical now (or at least paranormal) that eventually may be described / defined through parapsychology eventually.  Predictions, TK and the such.

As for casting fireball or the such....   without a big can of beans and a lighter I doubt many will ever be able to caste fireball.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 29, 2008)

megamania said:


> My choice of words are never very good.
> 
> Magic can not be easily defined.
> 
> ...



So, it's like porno vs. art ... you'll know it when you see it.

Kinda odd, that the _D&D_ wizard class -- mind you, I haven't read 4e -- would have a spellbook that contains the "recipe" or "formula" for casting spells. Is it possible to call that magic when it can be ... for lack of a better word ... codified ... as you would with a scientific experiment, or making chemical?


----------



## Angrydad (Sep 30, 2008)

I'm in the "no" camp on magic. I think that if someone were able to rub some bat guano and sulphur together while mumbling some words and then blast a ball of fire out of their hands there would be some sort of physical and measureable explanation. If such an incident were to occur, I think it would just require us to reexamine our conception of the nature of reality. Anything is possible, but I think that there is some set of laws by which it is all governed, we just don't understand these laws completely so things might seem like "magic".


----------



## Bob the Destroyer (Sep 30, 2008)

Trying not to delve too far into religious territory here, I voted yes because the definition seems to include miracles. I don't believe in magic outside of God, angels, or demons and their works. So... I guess I believe in Divine magic but not Arcane.


----------

