This thread isn’t asking if you can define magic in such a way that you can claim that a magic that no one but the practitioner can perceive is possible. If you claim your ability to do things that only you can perceive, I will have to allow that it certainly cannot be proven that you are wrong. This thread is about whether anyone can do the type of magic that achieves results that can be perceived by others, and cannot be explained by ordinary acts by ordinary people who have no magical ability.
If my choice of tests is absurd, please feel free to correct that absurdity by proposing a test which has the same level verifiability, but does not have the “failings” you find objectionable. My skepticism causes me to expect that you will find no such test that can apply to your type of magic.
Please be aware that I have no quarrel with those who find emotional support in the practice of ritual or expression of spiritual identity with the world at large. But such matters are not the same as magic, in the sense that it is known to others. Calling your spiritual ceremony magic misidentifies it to others, and that is not a failure of those others to respect you, it is a failure of your terminology when discussing your religion. Perhaps including a k on the end of a commonly used word implies a complete description of an entirely personal and subjective experience of ritual related to self for you. For most of us it looks like a spelling error.
Is there some reason you are unwilling to assert that you don’t believe that magic of the type inquired about can exist? Do you believe someone can find water with a forked stick? Can someone you know exhibit some reliable form of telepathy? Just what is the difficulty in saying that that type of magic does not happen? I personally believe in miracles. I happen to believe that they can create faith. But I also know that fraud is far more common than miracles. I can’t accept that people can move objects with mental will alone. If anyone ever just did it, rather than talked about it, I would not bother to be skeptical, since I would have proof. What I lack is a demonstration of any act requiring the existence of magic. That is what the thread asks for. You have philosophy. I have never known anyone who said there was a shortage of those.
By the way, nothing moved, and no one has identified anything. Big surprise.
I read most of page 1, and skimmed page 5. To answer the OP from my POV:
With the establishment of the relationship between matter and energy by Mr. Einstein; and the fact that the brain works by complex physical (chemical) and electrical impulses; and that these impulses change depending upon whatever region of our brain we are trying to access/utilize (memory, creativity, math, speech); and that we humans can consciously direct our own stream of though (“Where did I leave those damned car keys!?”); and that the fact that significant portions of our brains seem un- or under utilized;
then yes, it is possible (strictly IMHO) that we are currently capable of, or may at some future point realize, the ability to effect the physical (and thus energetic) environment about us by summoning mental energies, shaping them, and directing them by will alone.
Some may have figured this trick out already, consciously or unconsciously.
I’m not sure that there are too many saying it is strictly impossible. It surely is possible, but since nobody seems to be able to offer any solid evidence, it doesn’t seem very probable.
I’ts possible to say that I could win the lottery tommorow. But that does not mean it is safe to say that I won the lottery yesterday. (if that makes any sense)
A simple test for simple people that doesn’t involve moving anything.
All you have to do is tell me what the coin on my desk is. I don’t care if you remote-see, read my mind, teleport in for a look, or cast a magic spell. In fact, if you can name the coin and the date, I’ll write to James Randi myself and ask him to test you.
The three possible responses are:
This is a myth. We do use all of our brain already. Cecil himself says so right here.
“Mental energies” (whatever those are) would have to be a pretty powerful to overcome gravity and the electromagnetic force. I don’t see how 3 pounds of tissue can generate energies that powerful. I’d also like to know why these energies would not be subject to the inverse square law*; how could someone in American read the mind of a person or remote-see or levitate an object in, say, Japan? Why wouldn’t those energies drastically weaken over such a distance?
*The inverse square law tells us that the intensity of light or a radio signal or of gravity weakens over distance by a predictable rate. A star two light years away appears to be one-fourth as bright as a similar star one light-year away. Its gravitational influence would be equally weaker. Its radio signals would also be equally weaker. Sound waves also diminish in strength according to the ISL.
Why would “mental energies” not be subject to the ISL as all other energies are?
Aw, c’mon, Jab, didn’t you ever watch Star Trek? Everyone knows that telepathy and “remote-seeing” is completely possible… you just need a funky nose, forehead, or ears!
Extank, I expected much more from you than “Somehow sometime in the future something will be shown to be true!”. Whatever happened to the thoroughness and research you’ve shown us in the past? You would never give this weak an answer about Constitutional rights.
Oh come on, Czar. Lots of things could be possible - time travel, anti-gravity, FTL travel, total matter conversion, etc. Why not telepathy?
Of course, just because something could be theoreticaly possible at some point in the future, that doesn’t mean it can be done right now. Otherwise I’d be sending this message to you via ansible from Betelgeuse 4.
[list=1]
[li]Give evidence that magic exists. No one has done this[/li][li]Prove it doesn’t exist. Do we really have to go through the whole Hume/Popper argument again, or do you accept that you cannot prove something doesn’t exist?[/li][/list=1]
Do you accept this? If you do, then all that’s left is individual opinions, each with equal validity. If you don’t accept this, please elaborate.
And I’m really starting to get worried by the butt fixation that you, spoofe and some others are showing.
Gary, that may be the single most foolish statement I’ve ever seen posted in Great Debates. It encapsulates all the problems inherent in applying non-scientific epistemologies to the examination of real world phenomena.
Whoever told you all opinions are equally valid? I’m of the opinion that the sky frequently becomes a subtle shade of mauve instead of the azure with which most (mundane) people are familiar. Moreover, it’s my opinion that this change can be brought about through an incantation of Bob Dylan songs by any free being sufficiently practiced in such rituals. Since you can’t prove that this opinion is in error, I don’t have to offer any evidence in support of it; after all, not only is it a subjective change in the color of the sky :rolleyes: it’s equally as valid as Czarcasm’s opinion that the sky remains blue no matter how many bars or ‘Maggie’s Farm’ I belt out.
[list=1]
[li]Give evidence that Gary is a serial rapist. I have not done this.[/li][li]Given evidence that Gary is not a serial rapist. Do we really have to go through the whole Hume/Popper argument again, or do you accept that you cannot prove you are not a demented sexual attacker?[/li][/ol]
(2) No one has denied that you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. WE DON’T HAVE TO. We have tons of evidence which indicates magick does NOT work. In other words, the magickal proposition - in those cases where it is falsifiable, and thus is a scientific proposition - has been falsified repeatedly.
(3) Stop using Hume and Popper as if they’re your epistemological bitches. THEY ARE NOT. Hume and Popper were both ultra-empirical skeptics. Again, consult Hume’s Of Miracles, where he says:
And:
One can quibble about the terms “laws of nature”, but the point is clear: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you have evidence for the magickal proposition, I’ll consider it. If not, I’ll throw it out the window along with the other kazillion ideas in the world that have no factual basis.
[list=1]
[li]Give evidence that you are a serial rapist. No one has done this.[/li][li]Given evidence that you are not a serial rapist. Do we really have to go through the whole Hume/Popper argument again, or do you accept that you cannot prove you are not a demented sexual attacker?[/li][/ol]
(2) No one has denied that you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. WE DON’T HAVE TO. We have tons of evidence which indicates magick does NOT work. In other words, the magickal proposition - in those cases where it is falsifiable, and thus is a scientific proposition - has been falsified repeatedly.
(3) Stop using Hume and Popper as if they’re your epistemological bitches. THEY ARE NOT. Hume and Popper were both ultra-empirical skeptics. Again, consult Hume’s Of Miracles, where he says:
And:
One can quibble about the terms “laws of nature”, but the point is clear: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you have evidence for the magickal proposition, I’ll consider it. If not, I’ll throw it out the window along with the other kazillion ideas in the world that have no factual basis.
It’s just as well that Usurer called off his bet. If he had not, I would have because gambling of this sort is illegal in both the city of Los Angeles and the state of California. (LAMC 43.01; CPC Section 337 (a)) (I only now discovered this!)
I don’t believe magic exists, but I’m not willing to risk going to jail to prove it.
Let’s look at this with the attitude of a court trial, shall we? Good. You’ve got the mindset of a juror.
Now, is there any evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (I know, it’s an obnoxious phrase, but the stubborness of some people has forced my hand) that magic exists? Given the huge amount of time-tested evidence that strongly indicates otherwise, would you still say that there’s a significant probability - beyond infinitesimal chances - that magic exists?
Because, aside from a whole lot of "may"s, "might"s, and "could happen"s, there really hasn’t been anything to provide any REAL indication that magic exists.
Surely you accept the difference between the following:
Life outside the Solar System
we have no physical evidence; but since life exists in this system, and we observe a huge number of systems, the chances are good that life does exist.
The Loch Ness monster
we have no physical evidence; the Loch has been slightly investigated, and there is no sign of a breeding population, so it is likely just to be a myth which is maintained to attract tourists.
Magic
we have no physical evidence, despite the fact that people have been making claims for centuries and spending huge amounts of time and money trying to prove it.
** Believing in magic is not an equally valid opinion!**
I hope I’m not talking out of my butt here (one tries to maintain the spirit of the thread), but I don’t think that that’s what Kumquat, myself, and a few others here are arguing. I, at least, agree completely that a belief in the sort of magic that Czar, et al, are referring to is not equally valid to, say, a belief in the existence of pizza. Or I could say that it certainly isn’t on the basis of my own experience.
On the other hand, there are two points that we “yea-sayers” are trying to make (I think) :
Scientific research still hasn’t covered all the bases yet. There could conceivable be phenomena out there that we haven’t encountered, or been able to think about in a useful way. For example, one day someone may discover that the randomness of bifurcation points referred to in chaos theory actually can be influenced in some strange way by the will of a human agent. It would require a completel reevaluation of our metaphysical assumptions should we discover something like that, but I suppose it could happen. (Misunderstand me right here: I’m not holding my breath.)
Starting threads entitled, “Stupid fucks who believe in magic…” makes one sound pompous, arrogant, all-knowing, and, well, rather like a jerk. (Sorry, jab1, I know you apologized afterwards, and that was in my opinion an admirable thing for you to do.)
It is easy to discern that although a lot of people here are saying things like “believing in magic is not equally valid,” what they actually mean is, “Anybody who believes in magic, or even argues for the possibility of its existence, is a natu-born idiot.” Just check out Jay’s thread about the magic “cure” that didn’t work (here, in the BBQ Pit). Using the same reasoning presented there (and gee, Jay, I must say, for a Popperian you sure do a lot of inductive generalizing), one could argue that any single mistake made by any individual doctor (not to mention horrors like Thalidomide) would be grounds for dismissing the entire medical establishment as “dangerous” or “false.” I argue that you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you take such a presumptive, dogmatic attitude.
It’s easy to be skeptical towards the claims of others, but the real skeptic is skeptical towards his own presuppositions as well. That’s the hallmark of true critical thought, IMHO.
And as far as robgruver, Usurer, and the others go, they’re welcome to believe what they will. But if they want to convince me, they’re going to have to work at it. Which, by the way, is a far cry from claiming (or implying) that they’re stupid fucks.
They type of magic (correct me if im wrong here) that I think we are arguing against, is the rituals and handwaving, the psychics, alternative medicines, Telepathy, etc that is supposedly prevelant in todays age. All evidence seems to suggest the abscense of said magic.
However, this is not to say that Science knows everything, or that there will one day be discovered some new force that permates matter. (Call this magic if you so desire) This, IMO, is foolish to label any unknown force such. Or to say with certainty that it exists (or doesn’t exist)
I agree, and I feel rather foolish for jumping in the debate so early without thinking of other peoples feelings. I should have been a bit more polite and professional. (even though it is the pit)
This is a good bit of wisdom. Thank you.(valid for Both sides)
