Does Magic Exist?

And I cannot make it any more plain that it is not the analogy that I take exception to, rather it is your translation of it which I find to be misleading.

No. In fact, it was not that particular quote which I was referring to. It was this quote (which I am reproducing again, for the sake of the stubborn):

Now, PLEASE tell me you can tell the difference between positive and negative proof. This thread is looking for positive proof. You are continually insisting that there’s no negative proof, which is NOT what this thread is looking for and which is NOT something that anyone has disagreed.

What we HAVE contended is that, despite the absence of definite proof the the contrary, we feel that there is a high enough probability - measured by the blatant lack of evidence and the fact that no positive evidence has come to light - to be rest assured that magic does not exist.

And if there’s not evidence of magic existing, then we take the notion that it may exist with a big friggin’ grain of salt. And I mean a REALLY BIG grain of salt. Like, BIG-big. VERY EXTREMELY big.

Here’s the magical words to magically change your eye color (whilst burning a candle of the desired color) (from the above site):

To quoteCecil (from when he was talking about magic spells):
“El retardo supremo, if you want my opinion.”

And my eyes STILL haven’t changed color since repeating the magical words about 10 times (I even burned a bright red birthday candle: I want glow-y red werewolf eyes, dammit! Still didn’t work though.

Fenris (It don’t make my brown eyes red)

Oh Fenris, you unfeeling bastard, you just don’t believe.

-J-

Whoah, cowboy. My statement was not, “Could Gary EVER be a demented sexual attacker,” but “Is Gary IN THE PRESENT a demented sexual attacker”? Two different questions: one speaks to current action and character, while the other speaks to the progression of character over time.

And you still miss my point. If we’re allowed to say this statement “may” be true on the basis of zero evidence - well, just think of how uncomfortable you’d be eating in a restaurant with everyone staring at you and muttering hatefully under their breath. Probability is not just a word, it’s a state of mind with consequences in our actions.

Suspicion without evidence is the definition of paranoia.

-J-

Prosaic reasons, and many more can be invented:

(5) Magick does work, but the minute a skeptic comes to observe the working, the massive negative psi energy he emits negates it.

(6) Magick does work, but not when you’re performing it for profit and/or personal promotion.

(7) Magick does work, but it takes other people trained in Ye Arts Magickal to recognize and appreciate these phenomenon.

I didn’t even make these up; magickal folk use these excuses all the time.

And that’s what they are, I’m afraid - excuses. Post-hoc rationalization. It’s the same type of guessing, once again, that Popper meant to quelch with the theory of falsifiability: if you can explain away failure by making major non-testable adjustments in your theory, you’re not doing science - you’re fantasizing. And as important as fantasy is to a healthy psyche, it’s not science.

I’ll probably beg off this thread from here on in. The thread’s growing large, and we’ve exhausted all arguments on either side. It’s been real though. Magical, even. :smiley:

-J-

“But… he’s not wearing anything!”

Th’ recipe didn’t call for belief. Just called for a candle and magic words.

And as a status update, it’s the next morning and I still don’t have glowy-demon-werewolf eyes. I don’t even have Bette Davis eyes.

I demand restitution!

Fenris

I posted an explanation of a mishap in my desk object offer in the George Thread. Feel free to discuss it there.

Tris

Yes, I agree my exact % is dodgy. But I’m trying to get Gary to retract his ‘equally valid’ statement. I’m sure ‘alien life’ is much nearer 99% than 50%, and that ‘magic’ is much nearer 0.01% than 50%.

Do you think the Loch Ness monster steadily making money for the locals is like a pyramid scheme? :wink:

I believe this point was already brought up and addressed in this very thread. Fermi’s paradox assumes life evolves intelligence and intelligence produces cultures capable of space travel. Both of these conditions may be quite rare, but we may reasonably agree that the evidence indicates that space travelling cultures are very rare to nenexistent. The paradox tells us nothing about the possible existence of extraterrestrial life in general, though.