If we return once again to Clarke’s ubiqitous quote:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
I see no logical contradiction in saying that in the same way that ET life could exist on planets we’ve not discovered, magic could exist and be based upon physical laws that we’ve not discovered. Or do you honestly believe that our level of scientific knowledge encompasses everything?
Would you’d prefer it if I said “although I do not believe in God, I cannot conclusively state that such a being does not exist”? I’m more than happy to say so.
If you mean the technomages on Babylon 5, yes, of course, alien technology could be so advanced as to seem magical to us: matter transporters, food replicators, and so forth. But we’re not talking about alien technology. We’re talking about folk magic that violates laws we have alreadydiscovered. How can you levitate without defying gravity? How can you slow a bullet with your hand without violating f=ma?
Having not seen Babylon 5, I hope you’ll excuse me for not looking at the items you mention.
Your gravity question is a particularly good one. If you’re so certain that it would be impossible to defy gravity, you might want to tell NASA they’re wasting their money. Now, obviously the odds are that that experiment won’t work. But sooner or later, one very well may.
As for your bullet question, I don’t know. The obvious flaw with the idea of telekinesis has always been conservation of energy - even if there was a way to physically affect such a change in velocity, how was the energy generated? But that’s if we accept our current physical laws as cast in stone, and a definite, be all and end all description of how the universe works.
You see, laws of physics are based only on what we currently know. They will be revised, probably when someone discovers something that seems to operate on principles that operate in contradiction to what we currently believe.
Regarding ET life vs. Magic:
We do not yet have the capability to observe extraterrestrial life. We haven’t completed extensive surveys of Mars and Europa. We don’t have telescopes good enough to analyze the atmosphere of terrestrial extrasolar planets and determine that their atmospheres have been modified by the presence of life. (Etc.–there are lots of other hypothetical ways to find life.)
At this point, “Life exists on planets other than Earth,” is an untestable claim. We don’t have the technology to do it.
What we do have in abundance is folks capering about right here on Earth claiming they can do supernatural things. They claim that using magic, they can make more money, predict your future, heal your illnesses, etc.
These claims are testable. What this thread is looking for is someone willing to say that they beleive they can create a measurable, testable, repeatable effect.
Svinlesha offers a story of a bunch of pagans who caused it to be cold in Sweden in the winter. If these pagans think that they can do it again, do it several times, so that one can determine that it gets cold after their ceremonies more often than can attributed to chance, then, well, that’s something, but, as she has been told, one story doesn’t prove anything–and she has admitted that, but, strangely, continues to complain that we aren’t discussing this example, which everyone agrees isn’t relevant ot the discussion.
BeoWulf’s post is so riddled with errors of fact and muddled in its protrayal of science that I would have to do some tedious, line-by-line dissection to do it justice. However, the relevant point to the discussion is this: scientific evidence does not consist entirely of what can be directly observed in a laboratory. We can be confident of certain theories because we test them indirect means–albiet the most direct means available.
However, the point is that certain practitioners of magic make claims which, if correct, would result in directly observable and measurable results. And, the question, once again, is “Where’s the beef?” You can heal people? You can change the weather? You can read minds? Begin with a demonstration for a Doper, and, heck, if you’re so confident in your abilities, show it to James Randi and get that juicy prize.
If you feel that magic is not something that can affect the physical world in a measurable way, then mazeltov! You’re not the ones we have a beef with.
Podkaye, if you wanted to prove that people who claim to have magical abilities are liars, that’s cool. But the title of the thread “Does Magic Exist” is more sweeping than that.
I liked the use of “mazeltov” though.
Just curious. How do you square your faith in ET with Fermi’s paradox?
In the article you reference, NASA is using a device in their experiments. That’s not germane to the discussion. Now if NASA were using magic words and mystic gestures in their experiments, then we’d have something.
You’re half-right. yes, laws of physics describe what we already know, and, yes, they are subject to modification in light of new knowledge. However, new advances in science do not contradict what we already know; instead they fill in the gaps and complement the existing principles. For example, relativity does not contradict Newtonian mechanics; instead it clears up and explains phenomena we found puzzling before.
Who said I had faith in ET? I only said that the possiblity of ET life, in contrast to magic, violates no physical principle and is plausible. How likely ET life is in the galaxy is as yet unknown. Enrico Fermi’s question of why aren’t the aliens here already is disquieting, but not germane to the topic at hand, which is the plausibility of magic.
For those who don’t know, Fermi’s paradox: Extraterrestrials should have colonized Earth long ago, but they have not. So where are they?(A discussion of Fermi’s paradox can be found here.)
First, I don’t see any expression of faith in the existence of ET life, just in the plausibility thereof. Secondly, nothing has been stated about the likelihood of evolution producing creatures intelligent enough to be capable of space travel and colonization. Thirdly, any such creatures might be vastly different from humans, psychologically and otherwise, so we can question whether they would have any interest in colonization.
Notice that in the 4 or so billion years of life existing on earth, there have been creatures with the physical mental capacity for developing space travel for less than 0.1% of that time, and they have actually posessed the technology for same for just over 0.001% of the time that they have existed. There is no reason, especially in light of these numbers, to suppose that evolution always produces such intelligence, nor that such intelligence always leads to such technology. And any number of astronomical, geological, or evolutionary events could have interrupted the process as it occured on earth at any time. We just got lucky.
The incidence of life on other planets might be very rare. Based on our own planet, the incidence of intelligent species capable of developing interstellar travel can be expected to extremely rare. But it’s still possible for it to be out there.
Though this falsehood has been refuted many, many times before, I didn’t see anyone else do so in this thread, so:
Wrong. Here are some observed speciation events.
And now for something even more ludicrous.
Even easier to observe. The Foucault pendulum. Discovered back in 1850 by a guy whose name was Foucault, too, by some amazing coincidence.
So because it’s untestable it’s somehow more valid? Oh and btw, they have yet to directly observe any extra solar planet. There are speculations that there are planets around certain suns by measuring their dopler shifts, however the mere existance of an extra solar planet at this point in time is an untestable claim.
Svinlesha has offered two examples at this point, yes the first one was anecdotal, but the second one is PEAR being conducted at Princeton. So here is your “PROOF” a respectable, repeatable test, that proves that humans can alter the external world by their mind. Yet everyone of you staunchly refuses to even acknowledge it. LOL! Very ironic that the one post that gives you exactly what you ask for and you refuse to acknowledge it was even posted.
LOL if this wasn’t so ridiculous at this point it would almost be funny. If someone were arguing in another thread that evolution doesn’t exist because there has never been any observation of it, there has never been a scientifically repeatable experiment verifying evolution, he would most likely be laughed off the board for his / her lack of understanding. However it suprises me that none of you can see the dichotomy of your position. You claim that my portayal of science is full of holes. How? You completely avoided answering any of my arguments. I know enough about each and everyone one of the topics listed above to have a lengthy intelligent conversation about it, yet you act is if I have no idea what I’m talking about. You dismiss my claims by saying they are full of holes but fail to show how. Yes they are relevant to this discussion, because what you are asking for is 100% absolute unmistakable proof that magic exists, yet you are willing to accept far less than that on many other issues in science. Interesting!
See above, although apparently none of you will even step up and attempt to have a legititmate unbiased discussion about the existence of magic. LOL I think we should do some searching, because I’ll bet that in the past these very people have argued that “Lack of proof that something is true, does not prove it’s false”.
Not to put too blunt a point on it, but under what weird version of the scientific method does a phenomenon have to be visually observed before it is capable of being tested? I notice you appear to have dropped the ridiculous “Nobody’s seen speciation happen!” argument.
If I hypothesize that there is a planet orbiting Sirius, then the basic laws of gravity dictate that the planet will affect the star’s movement. So I go out and see if the star is moving in ways consistent with the presence of a planet in its orbit. Ta-dah! I’ve just tested the hypothesis. The test might not be conclusive–individual scientific tests rarely are conclusive–but the hyposthesis is damn well testable. Quite unlike magic in its strong form, since all its proponents keep scurrying off whenever they’re asked to demonstrate it.
And as a matter of fact, extrasolar planets have been visually observed when they darken the stars they orbit when passing between them and us. So you’re wrong on both your astronomy and your scientific method.
PEAR is neither conclusive nor reputable. First of all, its alleged results yield a claimed effect of something like 1 anomolous result for every 10,000 tries, which is so miniscule it can be explained by all kinds of causes other than ESP or whatever other goofiness the researchers are claiming to study. Other researchers have criticized the PEAR guys for both their methodology and their statistical analysis. Is it evidence that weirdo magical stuff is out there? Sure. Is it convincing evidence? Not hardly, at least not until reputable scientists have had a crack at repeating PEAR’s results.
So I’ll just take you at your word about that intelligent conversation thing and charitably conclude that you’ve intentionally gotten all those facts fundamentally wrong.
If you want an “unbiased discussion” where everybody blindly accepts every wild-ass claim somebody makes, you’ve definitely come to the wrong board.
I for one am not out to prove the non-existence of strong-form magic–I have neither the time nor the inclination to pursue phenomena so transitory they have escaped all attempts at scientific measurement. I just want to see one of the people who believes they can use magic to measurably affect the visible world step up to the plate and demonstrate it. So far, they’ve all declined. You gonna give it a shot, BeoWulf, or are you just gonna sit around bitching about how us nasty skeptics haven’t proven the non-existence of a phenomenon that we can’t demonstrate in the first place?
BeoWulf:
Er, no. No one’s asked for “100% absolute unmistakable proof.”
No one.
All Czar has been lobbying for all along is a single, witnessable, verifiable, replicable magic spell that does something tangible.
One example, Wulf. That’s all.
But you and Svin seem simply to not understand the basics of the scientific method. An anecdote is not useful at all. I have anecdotal evidence that the Earth is flat, but that doesn’t make it true.
Scientific evidence requires a lot more than “I heard of this.”
“LOL! Too funny!”
BeoWulf threw out a bunch of examples of supposedly unverified scientific theories or results. I’m not qualified to address all of these, but I’ll do what I can.
This was already addressed, but it bears repeating:
Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events
I believe this was also already addressed.
The point I would make here is that scientists won’t accept a Unified Field Theory until one is produced which makes some testable predictions, and those predictions are then tested by experiment or observation. In other words, scientists want evidence for a UFT, which is what skeptics want for magical or paranormal phenomena.
I’m going to have to leave those four to someone who knows physics. I will note that on the last one, NASA is trying to perform an experiment to verify the theory. It’s true that there will be some resistance to throwing out a well-established theory, which has passed many other experimental tests, on the basis of one result. On the other hand, if the machines are always “improperly calibrated”, then yes, the theoreticians will have to take a hard look at the theory (and next thing you know, they’re handing out Nobel Prizes like Halloween candy).
Some scientists were skeptical that black holes really existed, but there’s increasingly good evidence that they do, to the point where I think it’s pretty much universally accepted now that these are real objects, not just some theoretical prediction. (There was a story on CNN on black holes just yesterday, in fact.) On this and on extrasolar planets I think it’s wrong-headed to insist on direct visual observation. Having a human eyeball something is certainly not the only sort of acceptable scientific evidence. I’m quite sure that if a psychic could change Geiger counter readings under controlled circumstances he’d get a big fat check from James Randi, even though no one can “see” ionizing radiation.
I’ve been in airplanes. And the Wright brothers convinced the doubters by building an airplane. To convince skeptics, all you have to do is produce evidence.
So, once again it boils down to evidence.
Regarding ET’s: If someone said, “I know ET’s exist”, then they have no good basis to make that statement. Fermi’s Paradox is just a speculation in the absence of evidence, as are opposing speculations about extraterrestrial civilizations. The only thing to do is look: heck, I run a screen saver on my computer that crunches numbers for the SETI@Home Project. NASA is sending probes to nearby places of potential biological interest (Mars, Europa, Titan); and there are plans in the works for instruments which could detect life-bearing planets around nearby stars. In other words, those hopeful for extraterrestrial life or intelligence are looking for evidence, which is all anyone wants from those hopeful for paranormal or magical phenomena.
BeoWulf, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. I see by your message count that you’re fairly new here. This board is dedicated to eradicating ignorance. So, when I saw your previous message, and saw you advocating clearly ignorant positions, I provided information refuting your points.
Now, you proclaim your points unrefuted. It is possible you missed seeing my post, as it was the last on the previous page. Please, read it, and follow the links to more specific information refuting your points. Otherwise, I will have to assume you are being intentionally ignorant.
As I am rather new to this board, I must say this discussion and the one in the pit really have me depressed on the state of mind of the “Intellectuals” of the world. I would think that on a board made to fight ignorance, started by a man whom writes an article debunking Urban Legends and such, wouldn’t attract so many Psuedo-Intellectuals. But perhaps I just came at a time where there is a sudden increase or something, I thought. No such luck, as a search of past Threads will reveal just as much ignorance and illogical thinking. I cannot say that these people are stupid, that would not be true, but they sure need to get thier head out of thier arse and actually think instead of mindlessly quote things out of thier “anti-science” handbook.
You may have missed that line on the front page, Amedeus: “thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.”
No, I must honestly state that I had not understood that to be the gist of Czar’s request. If we go back to the beginning (and I know I’m harping on this, but anyway) all I saw first was a request for an example of magic, followed by several posts from people complaining that “them damn pagans nut-balls can’t even present a single example.” So I thought, “What the hell – I’m no pagan, but I can at least provide an example around which a discussion can be held.” I didn’t provide it as sterling proof of magic, and I do understand the “scientific method,” which I would also argue comes in a few different varieties. In other words, I simply presented an example to counter the complaint that no one could provide one.
That being said, one of the other reasons I posted my first example above (freezing ritual in Sweden) was to pose a question about scientific proceedures, one that I myself often encounter in a very different field of knowledge production (I work as a psychotherapist). I wanted to highlight the possibility that the standard methods used the natural sciences might have a problem dealing with a phenomena that is, let us say, extremely variable, that relies on perhaps a large set of preconditions all of which must be in tune before it can make its presence felt, a phenomena that is by virtue of its nature subjectively experienced and one that is difficult to measure. I think that’s a really interesting discussion. But when I brought up Prigogine in my first response to Czarcasm, that was also deftly ignored, and after a while I began to feel like I was posting to a stone wall.
So then I present a second example, repleat with scientific testing and proof of repeatablity, published by an established and well-respected academic institution – Princeton University. Response from the critics?
Opps – I have to take that back. I see now that minty green has disputed the PEAR studies. And that’s fine; I thought that was what this discussion should be about. I’ve no idea if those studies are “conclusive,” myself, and I’d be completely stunned if they were – but at the very least the skeptics out there can admit that there is some evidence, even if it’s disputed. That’s a far cry from Czar’s original claim that such evidence has “never” been produced. (For what it’s worth, I kinda feel the same way about this whole discussion as minty. The thing I really react to is the rather arrogant attitude that I see here sometimes that “if it ain’t scientific, boy, then it don’t even friggin’ exist.” Other than that, the “existence” of magic isn’t really a major concern of mine.)
Finally, since I’m here to set the record straight – dammit, Podkayne, I’m a man.
Thank you, and good night.
You can’t always sum up the entire intent of a thread in the title. That’s what the OP and subsequent clarifications are for.
Nobody wants to prove that people who have magical abilities are liars–unless they are liars. We don’t want to prove that anyone’s delusional–unless they are. We’re asking that people demonstrate what they claim to be able to do.
BeoWulf, sweetie, I’m not saying there are ETs. I’m saying it’s not a question we can currently answer. But whether a pagan can make it snow, or give me shiny, healthy hair, is something we can test. Got it?
Many people have addressed your scientific errors, and I am grateful to them, but it doesn’t seem to be making much of dent, soooo…