Does Magic Exist?

So are {/b} and preview. Also good grammar and spelling do wonders for making your point comprehensible.

So you are saying that an any idea can exist as another idea. Whoopie. The question being posed is more to the affect of can it be made into a concrete reality. If I make a movie about the Sino-Aztec war of A.D. 107, it is just a physical representation of this fiction. It is still a fiction with no existence in reality. This is not at all of the same order as saying that such a war actually took place, or that unicorns and dragons actually exist.

Can you give us a good definition of magic to work with? I don’t see how anyone could show you magic untill someone shows a definition of it. MEBunker’s definition specifically removed magic from the realm of science into fantasy and while yours doesen’t you can claim “sematics” if you don’t like it. You come in here saying “magic has to be impossible for it to be magic” and then you want someone to show you impossible things. Its very easy to prove that noone can do impossible things, but that really has nothing to do with magic as the wiccans and pagans see it.

People, it is real damned simple. Would some one who believes in magic (magick, majyck, whatever) please stand up and volunteer to show us that the magic that you believe exists? Just tell us what it really is that you believe in, and fucking demonstrate it. It can’t be so freaking difficult as to merit the postings and hard feelings that these three (or is it four?) threads have generated.

Please. Two simple steps:

  1. State your beliefs about magic and what they allow you to do.
  2. Provide a repeatable demonstration, without trickery, of what your beliefs allow you to do.

I don’t even ask that it be repeatable by someone else. All you have to do is to be able to repeat the effect on request.

Please no sarcastic responses from the skeptics. Let’s allow the believers to express themselves.

YES - If we mean things that can be done that we do not currently understand.

By the way, much of what we do is magic to a dog or chimp.

An acquaintance of mine up here in the Great White North (Sweden, that is) told me this story once:

He and a number of other protesters were trying to prevent a local development project outside of Stockholm from cutting down a stand of trees and converting the area into either a parking lot or housing complex (I can’t remember which). They had been unsuccessful in getting a restraining order in the local city council, and had also been run off the area by the police, so they were at their wits end as to how to stop the developers. As a last ditch effort they decided to perform a “magic ritual” and call upon the “Forces of Winter” to help them with their plight.

That night, after the group had called upon “Winter” to help them, the temperature plummeted; the next day, it was so cold that the construction workers were unable to start their machinery. The cold snap continued for about a week, literally so cold that the tractors were paralyzed, and during that period the protesters succeeded in getting the planning council to change their minds about the project.

So I can’t do magic, but I do know a couple of people who claim they can, and there, I’ve give an example (although I don’t know how good it is). For the record, I myself don’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other, so maybe I’m not the right person to be posting this story. But I’ve always been intrigued by it, and my acquaintance, who also has a Ph.D. in Philosophy here at the University of Gothenburg, swears its true.

Svinlesha, did they decide to carry out this “ritual” before they saw the next day’s weather predictions, or after?

Conveniently ignoring the fact that chimps and dogs can express themselves neither verbally nor in written form, and leaving entirely open the question of dogs and chimps even having the concept of magic. Based upon my observations of dogs, and lacking the wherewithal to question them, I conclude that dogs are of the “shit happens” school of thought and do not bother themselves overly with cause and effect.

And could you give us their names and a way to contact them, so that we could ask for a repeat demonstration? I’ve heard thousands of FOAF(friend of a friend) stories, but not one has ever panned out.

berdollos, could you give us some specific examples of things you could do that are unexplainable to the scientific method, or was this a vaguery without substance?

Alessan: :smiley: No idea.

Czarcasm: I can give you his name, at least his first name, but hesitate to do so in a public forum. I could also probably dig up an email address to him if you wish. I don’t have all that much contact with him these days for personal reasons.

I doubt you could get a repeat demonstration, however. That’s one of the frustrating things about magic, you see: sometimes it works, sometimes it don’t.

You asked for an example, I provided one.

Question 1: Nope.
Question 2: I know someone who makes that claim.
Question 3: See my previous post, above.

Technically, you asked for an FOAF story, so that’s what I gave you.

For what it’s worth, I’ve also participated in some magical rituals. I must say that with one exception they’ve always been rather shallow, new-agey things, group visualizations with Tarot cards and such, and pretty uncomfortable experiences for me personally . The couple of times I tried I felt really out of place.

However, I’m not the sort of person that passes judgement on other people’s beliefs, and just because it ain’t my cup o’ tea doesn’t mean there isn’t anything to it. I dig witches and ghost stories and paganism and such and feel that the world would be a lot more boring without them. Sometimes I think that the sort of “total faith” in the scientific method that I see on these boards (and in othe forums) comes dangerously close to a kind of close-minded dogmatism that contradicts the basic spirit of the scientific project. It amounts to a complete refusal to even consider an event or explanation if it can’t be subjected to rigourous scientific testing, and seems a priori to rule out the possibility that certain experiences or phenomena can exist even though they aren’t, strictly speaking, “testable.”

In that case, thank you for the story, for without anything at all to back it up, that is all it was. Did you really believe that you could tell such a tale and not believe that it would be questioned? You seem to believe that “magic” behaves differently than every other phenomena in the universe, in that it is not repeatable. Fine. Can you tell me why it never functions under controlled circumstances? Can you tell me people who claim that they can do “magic” run away whenever scientists ask to see what they claim they can do?

Yes, I believe that the scientific method is the best method. If you think that there is a method that works better to uncover the facts, please inform us. In the meantime, I think I’ll stick with something that works consistantly, thank you.

What’s with this business of equating the word “supernatural” with “impossible”? I’m as staunch a philosophical naturalist as there is, but this still seems weird to me. “Supernatural” just means “of or pertaining to existence outside the natural world; especially, not attributable to natural forces.”

Suppose that you’ve got a little girl who can set fire to things just by thinking about it. She can by-God do this–you have numerous video tapes of cinder block walls vaporizing when she looks at them funny, and anytime you feel like it you can trot her out and say “Charlene, vaporize that wall over yonder” and whoosh–no more wall.

Now, there are two possibilities–one is that this is a hitherto unknown natural phenonomenon, like radioactivity used to be. Eventually, with careful study and experimentation, you discover the mechanisms behind this–“psychic energy”, “tetrion radiation”, “phlogiston”, or whatever the hell–and you learn to build psi-meters and psi-shields and psionic energy power plants and you win the Nobel Prize in Physics and make yourself Emperor of Earth.

The other possibility is that you never, ever have anything but the bare fact that little Charlene can blow stuff up with the force of her will, plus a whole lot of negative information:

“Let’s see–she just generated about 10,000 Kelvins there, which should have taken a lot of energy, you’d think–Is she really, really hungry–does she want 37 steaks and a couple chocolate cakes for dessert?” “Nah, no more than any other 8-year-old.”
“What’s her body temperature?” “37 C.”
“Does putting up a lead wall between her and the target have any effect?” “Nope.”
“Anything on the Geiger counter?” “Nah.”
“Anybody detecting any EM radiation on any frequency?” “Just that Top 40’s station out of Reston.”
“Anything unusual on the MRI or the PET scan?” “Not really, no.”
“What’s her blood chemistry look like?” “Perfectly normal.”
“Okay, screw this–She’s starting to scare me anyway–Let’s kill her and dissect her–Anything weird about her brain?” “Nope.”
“Pituitary gland?” “Normal.”
“Any weird, freakish, hitherto unknown organs in her skull or anywhere else in her body?” “No.”
And so on.

Now, whether you call that “supernatural” or not is up to you, I guess. But I don’t see why, logically speaking, we couldn’t encounter phenomena which were both completely verifiable, and yet completely inexplicable, completely irreducible to any simpler explanation or coherent theory. It’s just that we don’t, or haven’t, anyway.

Excuse me? “Faith,” let alone “total faith” are anathema to the scientific method. There is no need to call in faith or belief in order for the scientific method to work. I know that the scientific method works because I use it everyday. I see the results of discoveries made using the scientific method everyday. You see, the nice thing about the method is this: I follow the scientific method in that I accept the method as proven and use it to try to solve a problem. Having now solved one problem by following the method, I have provided proof to substantiate the validity of the method. Now that I have proof of its validity, I can go ahead and use it for other things, and the really nifty thing is that everytime I use it, I provide more evidence for the validity of the scientific method.

And now, for those who slept in science class, or spent it worrying about how to be “In” with the “In” crowd in school, here is a paraphrasing of the scientific method:
To prove the validity of a given proposition, make a statement that can only be correct if the proposition is correct. Now, set up an experiment to test the validity of the statement. If your experiment validates your statement then you have provided proof of the validity of your proposition. It does not mean that you have proven it beyond doubt, but merely that you have shown that the proposition has merit. Now, you can pass your results on and let someone else try to verify your results, or show where you made a mistake. Each time someone repeats your work adds weight to your proposition. Each time it is challenged, you either correct your propositon, or allow that it was flawed to begin with. Once you proposition has withstood the review of other experimenters, it can be accepted as a theory. Theories can be used as the basis for new research, but are still themselves subject to review and challenge.

Whew. Long sucker, but as you see there is no reference to belief or faith in the whole thing. You try, if it works then you use it, and if it turns out wrong you scrap it and go with something else.

:slight_smile: You’re welcome! And I agree.

Not at all. I think it would be interesting to question it. Besides, I did offer to see if I could find an email address to this guy – not that he would necessarily be willing to talk about it himself, but if you want to I’ll give it a shot. Either way, though, I think you’ll still find that you’re stuck with nothing more than a “story” – albiet from a first-hand, rather than a second-hand, source.

I suspect that their are lots of “non-repeatable” phenomena in the universe. My life, for example, or yours. Isn’t Prigogine’s “Chaos Theory” predicated on non-repeatability?

I wasn’t aware that it “never” functions under controlled circumstances, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case. I have no idea why “magic people” run away when confronted by scientists. As far as I can tell, I simply answered your questions: yes, I know someone, and here is an example. I don’t vouch for the validity of the example, and I leave to others here, including you, to credit or discredit it.

Well, I believe that the scientific method is a very good method, probably the best method, when it comes to answering a specific range of questions about the composition of Nature. But it’s just a tool, and there are other phenomena out there that the scientific method could argueably blind us to. I’m at least willing to consider the possibility that there’s more to life than statistics.

All that means is that you have faith in a cognition epistemology, the same epistemology that some atheists here (but not all, by any means, e.g. Spiritus Mundi) refuse to allow theists. We experience God every day.

Oh, okay. Gotcha.

Just let me clarify this: the sort of problem that I was referring to in that last paragraph above has to do with the general tendency to believe that everything scientifically unproven, eventually unprovable, is therefore untrue. It is the tendency to equate “true” with “scientifically proven” and “false” with “scientifically unproven”, or maybe “scientifically unprovable.”

I agree with you that the gist behind using the scientific method (actually, there are few methods) is to eliminate human error, subjective mistakes, faith, and so forth. My beef is with folks who think that it’s the only way to produce valid knowledge.

PS: Yea, Libertarian! You don’t know me, but I’ve read your posts often and am glad to meet you, finally.

Read the whole damned post Libertarian. I defined the scientific method without once using the words “faith” and “belief.” Can you define your religion without resorting to faith? The scientific method is not a religion, nor is it a faith or a belief. It is a formalized method for verifying ideas (please do not confuse with ideals.)

I make use of factual observations and logical processes to get me through my day. I repair and modify two-way radios for a living. Prayers to the Lord God in Heaven don’t help in the least. Neither does appealling to the Goddess or Mother Earth. Logic and observation work everytime.

By the way, Libertarian, you appear to “have faith in a cognition epistemology.” I think that I can safely claim that you did not learn to operate your computer based on the Lord’s answers to your prayers. You most assuredly used logic and observation to learn the various functions and how they relate to one another. That or else there was a conversation between you and the Lord of truly magnificent proportions. To wit:

Libertarian:
“Lord, please show me how to operate this supernatural device I find here before me.”
The Lord:
“Push the power button on the front of the machine. Then again maybe you will have to reach around behind it and flip the switch next to the power cord.”
Libertarian:
“A question, Lord. What is a power switch?”
Lord:
“There has got to be an easier way. Right. Devine inspiration. Shazaaam!”
Libertarian:
“I have seen the light. Praise the Lord! Hallelujah! I can now turn on this computer, give it my password, start the Internet Explorer, and post messages to the Straight Dope Message Boards. I can even start Word for Windows and type letters and faxes. Hey! What’s this? General protection fault? Lord, help me please in my hour of need!”
Lord:
“”
Libertarian:
“Lord please don’t forsake me now.”
“Uh, hello. Lord?”
“Is there anyone up there?”
“Waaaaaahhh!”

**

Because it is impossible for something to exist outside of the natural world. How can something exist outside the natural world? And no I don’t accept man made objects as being created outside the natural world.

**

Uh, ok.

**

Ok, this makes sense.

**

Just like early astronomers could have nothing but the bare facts regarding stars and planets. But through the years when you add up all the observations and theories you can find a few answers.

Marc

Understand, I’m not arguing that there are any such phenomena, but logically it’s not impossible that we might encounter something which we could verify the existence of but never, ever explain. If magic (or “magick”) exists, it might either be a hitherto unknown phenomenon which we could eventually explain (“psychic energy”) or it might be something we could never break down into smaller pieces and figure out how it works. If so, then the worldview of people like me would have to be seriously revised. So far, the supporters of the existence of magic haven’t in my opinion come up with anything that verifiably exists, so we aren’t yet even at the stage of trying to figure out if these alleged phenomena are weird but ultimately understandable (like radioactivity) or something in principle not reducible to scientific explanation (like the Will of God).

Can you levitate?
Show me.

Can you move objects with your mind?
Show me.

Can you read minds?
Show me.

Can you fortell the future?
Show me

Can you find specific objects underground using a dowsing rod?
Show me.

Can you produce material objects out of thin air with the power of your mind?
Show me.

Can you view remote objects accurately with the power of your mind?
Show me.

Can you heal broken bones and cure deseases by waving your hands over someone’s body?
Show me.
Show me, or shut up. You would think that, over the thousands of years and hundreds of thousands of claims, one would have panned out by now. It is because every single claim so far has turned out to be a case of self-delusion or fakery that I think that I can safely say that “magic” does not exist.