Do you believe in magic?

This has made me happy. I will now get back to my cheap wine. Long live the dilution of false reason!

1. The burden of proof lays on the advocates of magic/magick to provide a valid and useful meaning for any terms they would like the non-magical community to accept.

2. David Hume suggested that we cannot directly observe causality, so we have to infer its existence through custom. Kant, of course, noted that we can still understand it as simply phenomena. Neither thinker believed that this made causality any more complicated or arbitrary than the scientific community generally believes. Chaos Theory accepts determinism and rejects the existence of random factors. Only the behavior of the system appears to be chaotic. Chaos Theory thus describes the dynamism of systems, not the arbitrariness of causality.

2b. The James Randi foundation has been offering a $1 million prize to anyone capable of demonstrating any extra-sensory perception. This prize has been offered for almost 10 years and no one has been able to even pass the initial screening test. Again, the burden of proof is on the advocates of magic to offer demonstration of these extra "appendages" or "senses" in a controlled experiment (with, of course, a greater level of success than random chance).

3. Ok, proponents of magic cannot cite both Chaos Theory and Quantum Physics as a scientific justification of their views. Chaos Theory accepts determinism of the physical world, while Quantum Physics rejects this perspective in favor of a probabilistic worldview. Next, the counter-intuitive or random results described by Quantum Physics only occur at the atomic level. Quantum Physics offers no proof (or even an argument) that objects larger than an atom are subject to manipulation through observation.

4. This is a false claim. While logic developed little during the Medieval period, logic developed during the period between the Renaissance and the current time. Logic was developed by Ramus (1515-1572), Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Descartes (1596-1649), Hobbes (1588-1679), Gassendi (1592-1655), Leibniz (1646-1716), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The most impressive improvements were within the last 100 years, though. Still, logic is more developed than mathematics was 3000 years ago. I believe you are forgetting that logic (like any science) progresses at a non-arithmetical rate - i.e., that a period of 100 years can offer more fruits than periods even 10 times as long. Furthermore, despite the late development of formal logic, logic has progressed amazingly in the last century because it builds upon discoveries in mathematics, science, and linguistic theory.

RedBstrd said:
lots and lots of things. Not half bad, either. RESPEC!!!
QUOTE]

Once again in numerical form.

1. There has been a great deal of debate on how exactly we should define this term. It's frustrating. For my own part, I would say that 'magic' is a form of enquiry and interaction with the world which is not yet scientific. I would also join the 'non-magical' folks in saying that much of what 'magical' folks say is crap, mere superstition and wishful thinking. I also propose that the world is a bit more maleable than we normaly consider it to be, and that is what 'magic' is interested in dealing with. I'm not trying to be supernatural, I'm saying that there are perfectly normal aspects of our lives and the world we live in which we do not tend to understand or even recognize. Have I got proof? Nope. Everything I have is too easily argued away, and pointless to use in debate. I do feel confident that this will eventually enter into normal science. If I am able to help in this transition I would like to, but I expect that some time needs to pass first.

2. I cannot speak for the general philosophic community but to me that is exactly what Hume suggested, that cause and effect are more poorly understood than we like to believe. For Kant, the definition of 'phenominon' is an event whose cause or explenation is in question. I looked this up to make sure I wasn't being stupid. This does infer that we don't actually fully understand what's going on. As for chaos theory, do you really think that chaos theorists present a unified front? They have numerous ideas about what their findings mean, including both your interpretation and my own. Deterministic and otherwise.

2b. You got me there. We have been able to prove very little. We stand next to the philosophers and numerous notable and intelligent people of various disciplins in our inability to prove. Virtually none of the theories of psychology or sociology have been 'proven' though many of them have been accepted. People will talk all day about crazy notions like superstring theory, though it is not even so much as accepted. Proof is a rare thing, and hard to get your hands on. The reality of love? Proved by nothing more concrete than consensus. The same goes for all emotional experience. The same also goes for the generally accepted unreality of all dreams. I do not ask you to believe. I am merely making talk on an internet forum.

3. I've already been over the chaos theory bit. As for quantum physics not claiming something, I once again ask you if you really think that quantum physicists present a unified front? Finally, if the physicists will not make macro level claims just yet, I will. Don't burden me with trying to prove things, we are merely talking. I hope you are not too disapointed when paradigm shift time comes and the physicists start asserting their macro suspicions and theories.

4. You're certaintly not wrong about anything you've cited here. I was aware that logic had not simply sat still between Aristotle and the modern age, I said that it had experienced "very little advancement." I still say that. Nothing of very much importance was added until recently. Also, I know that logic is moving faster than many other sciences did in their infancies. From reading your post, I am certain that you are aware of the 'excelleration of time' theory which simply states that things are moving faster now than they used to. Hence, the development of logic is coming along nicely, for an iterative process. I am not unaware of anything you have said, I am saying that logic is still a baby science, and far from irrefutable. It is not an effective means of saying that something is incorrect, merely a good way of finding flaws in argumentation. Also it is of course necessary in computer programming, and works because computer minds are unsophisticated in comparison to organic minds. I expect that there will be another couple of big leaps and reconstructions in logic theory before it really becomes applicable to the real world.

All that said, try to remember that we are only talking on an internet forum. Nothing is going to be proved here. If you can't handle talking about unproven things, then I suggest we stop this now.

First of all, I respect you too. Anyone who likes Mr. Bungle is an OK fellow in my book.

Hume didn't believe that causality is poorly understood. According to Hume, we constantly observe processes and can make consistent predictions based on them. The problem was that we cannot observe the process of causality itself. We can only infer it. Your reading of Hume that puts causality as an actual thing in the world that we don't understand conflicts with both of his premises: that we consistantly observe the connection of events (and thus infer a necessary connection - causality), and that we have no valid reason for doing so since causality may not even be a thing in the world. If we were going to be good Humeans, then we wouldn't claim that causality is a thing in the world that we don't understand, but rather that causality is probably not a real thing yet we can correctly anticipate which events follow each other through custom alone.

I would have to take issue with your definition of "phenomena" for Kant. In Kant's metaphysics, the world is split into a noumenal world and a phenomenal world. The noumenal world is the world "as it really is." The phenomenal world is the world as we perceive it. According to Kant, the noumenal world is unknowable to us (although we get some hints about it). The phenomenal world is perfectly intelligible to us, though. "Phenomena" are things in the phenomenal world. In his picture, causality is only present on the phenomenal part of the equation (like time or space). As such, phenomena are not things lacking a cause (the are actually the only things where the notion of cause is even applicable). Dictionary.com lists a definition consistant with my usage: "In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon."

Here is an excerpt from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason where he states clearly (well, as clearly as 19th Century German philosophers get) that the phenomenal world and all of its contents are regulated by empirical laws of causality and intelligible to us. The only thing unintelligible for us, in Kant's worldview, are noumena. http://praxeology.net/kant2.htm

As far as the sciences go (Chaos Theory and Quantum Physics), of course no complete consensus exists. However, I believe my articulation of the general consensus is correct (which a review of the relevant articles on wikipedia suggests), then we at least must concede that advocates of magic cannot argue for the validity of their worldviews on the basis of the findings of these sciences. In other words, your hope is that the direction of these sciences will go will be supportive of the theories of practicioners. Currently, however, the status of the findings of these sciences do not appear to support the magical worldview.

I won't be disappointed if (not when) by virtue of a paradigm shift quantum physicists are able to assert that macroscopic objects are subject to the behavior of microscopic objects. Likewise, I won't be disappointed if my crazy neighbor is able to prove the existence of an chocolate factory on Neptune. However, I am not expectant of either, since neither has any evidence of being true at this point.

I disagree that we are able to prove very little. Many things like pain were proven once we adopted a materialistic worldview and realized that pain is nothing more the sensation connected to C-fiber firings in the brain. We rule out things like the reality of dreams because they lack internal consistency and correspondence to the world. Additionally, they lack causal relations to physical entities (if I urinate in my dream, my bladder is still full in the morning when I wake up, for instance). Certain things we generally believe, however, do lack proof. The question, though, is: what standards of proof should be expected of potentially existent magical things?

The existence of natural senses has been proven. Should we not expect magic senses to have the same testability? The existence of natural appendages has been proven. Again, should we not hold magical appendages to the same rigors of testability? We believe in some things without proof but we don't want this list of things to be needlessly populated. The obvious solution to the question of whether we should believe something without proof is to evaluate whether we are able to prove closely related things (or alternately, to require testable implications and that other things imply the existence of the object/force under question).

I agree with you on the status of logic (that it can't tell us about the world directly). It can only tell us what is logically possible and also give us tools for evaluating claims people make. However, I think this is all I (and presumably most advocates of logic) want from it in the first place.

Sort of off-topic, but which cheap wine are you drinking?

By the way, one of my ex-girlfriends was Wiccan (well, more than one was but only one is relevant to the story). She started throwing stuff - pillow, book, ashtray, etc., - at me once when we discussed magic and theology.

Fortunately, I have cat-like reflexes. Ever since then, though, I have appreciated the internet as a means of discussing these topics.

This has actually been an enjoyable debate. Thank you.
The cheap wine was my good friend Carlo Rossi, Burgundy. He keeps me good company when I don't think I can stand another cheap beer that tastes llike dirty dishwater.

Firstly, I think you've actually got me in regard to what the philosophers said. It's actually been a while since I read either. In regard to Kant, you are absolutely right. I had forgotten his very personalized use of the word 'phenomena,' which is very different from my own. I'm going to have to reread Hume. What you've said to me about Hume is somewhat different from what I remember, and very interesting.

You are also correct that I cannot use chaos theory and quantum physics as an absolute or even distinctly compelling argument in favor of my magical theory, and I apologize for seeming to do so. What I think I can do is claim that these things are suggestive of my theories and bear many similarities to them. I do think that macro level applications of quantum theory will be forthcoming, but that is merely a prediction and time will tell. My use of chaos theory in defense of my beliefs is really just to point out that causality is very subtle and complicated and includes or can include factors which could be described as 'magical.' I do not mean to say that causality is actually random, though I do believe it is impossible to effectively predict in circumstances which are not carefully controlled. I am sure you are absolutely correct in believing that your statments represent the scientific consensus at this time. For my own part, I am defending a very fringe sort of belief, and am using fringe interpretations of these theories. I have never been bashful about using less popular approaches to things, especially when less popular ideas stand parallel to my own ideas.

As for proving things, I suggest that we have a difference of opinion with regard to the degree of proof needed for a thing to be proven. I say that when an idea fits the current paradigm it is easyer to prove because less effort is made to disprove it, while likewise an idea which is in opposition to the current paradigm is nearly impossible to prove because tons of intelligent and well educated people will go to great lengths to disprove it. If you have read Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' then you are well aware of where I am coming from here. I expect that the entire structure of our understanding of facts will have to shift significantly before effective scientific enquiry into 'magic' can be made. Of course when (if?) this happens, we will almost certainly cease to use the word 'magic.'

Since I see scientific proof as being pretty much impossible to aquire at this point, I only try to prove magical theories to myself. For your amusement I will tell you some of my more effective experiments in this area. My earlyest training (all self-applied because I absolutely refuse indoctrination) was in elemental theory, ie earth, fire, wind, and water. Many applications were psychological and can be easily written off as self-hypnosis, which they may well be, so I will stick to physical examples. A test of my ability with fire was to go into a thoroughly closed space, being careful to eliminate all sources of draft, and to move a candle flame through application of will. I sat far enough away from the flame to hopefully eliminate interference from my breath. I was able to move the flame in any direction I pleased, and was pretty well convinced of what I was doing. I used to be able to raise up a pretty good breeze on a still day (this may have been coincidence, of course, but it worked almost every time). My most enjoyable experiment was also my most recent. I was taking a feminist philosophy class from a particularly obnoxious woman. I am glad you are probably the only person on this site reading this post, as this could almost certainly get me flamed. In class I would lower my head and concentrate very carefully on tickling and teasing her nipples with an ephemeral finger. I would look up occasionally to check for success and without fail whichever nipple I had been molesting would be perked up under her shirt and she would be looking a bit flustered while lecturing. That alone made the class liveable, though I did feel just a bit guilty.
Anyway, the point is that I believe I have satisfactorily proven to myself the existance and validity of my 'magical' theories. I expect science to eventually address these things because, well, if it's real then it has to be in some way scientifically understandable right? It just isn't suited to the current paradigm, nor do I think we yet have good tools and theories with which to scientifically address 'magical' phenomena.

So, that's my bit for now. I promise not to throw an ashtray at your head. Amusingly, my own discussions with wiccans also tend to lead to some sort of violence, or at least animosity. Our 'magical' theories do not match up at all.

i thought i was the only one that got in some bad fights with wiccans. we should form a club.

I can only hold off something like this for so long...

Do you believe in magic in a young girl's heart
How the music can free her, whenever it starts
And it's magic, if the music is groovy
It makes you feel happy like an old-time movie
I'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul
But it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock and roll

If you believe in magic don't bother to choose
If it's jug band music or rhythm and blues
Just go and listen it'll start with a smile
It won't wipe off your face no matter how hard you try
Your feet start tapping and you can't seem to find
How you got there, so just blow your mind

If you believe in magic, come along with me
We'll dance until morning 'til there's just you and me
And maybe, if the music is right
I'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night
And we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see
How the magic's in the music and the music's in me

Yeah, do you believe in magic
Yeah, believe in the magic of a young girl's soul
Believe in the magic of rock and roll
Believe in the magic that can set you free
Ohh, talking 'bout magic

Do you believe like I believe Do you believe in magic
Do you believe like I believe Do you believe, believer
Do you believe like I believe Do you believe in magic

Ah shucks, that's the sweetest thing anyone has every said to me.

I have read Thomas Kuhn's famous book. I am more of a Carl Hempel fan myself, though. The two of them taught a science (or perhaps science of philosophy) class together at Princeton once, which would have been tons of fun to watch.

Thanks for the friend add.

HOLY SHIT!!! People's been reading all this????? FUCK!!!

I haven't read Hempel. I'll take a look.

Oh, and of course! This has been a pleasure. How often do philosophical debates happen without getting bitchy?

Ahem. I can make explosions using three commonly occuring materials, cure illness by grinding up the bark of a certain tree, and retrieve knowledge from the very currents of the air. What is magic? What isn't magic? Who give two toads and a newt's eye?

Dove said:
i just spit my tea out all over the place. and you know what that means.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."

Welcome to the first reply of the thread.

I know, I saw it. I just couldn't resist joining in.

Idolater! The pancake god is the only god! All hail Flap Jack, god of all, savior of some.