# Is "Magic of the Future" unscientific? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646 "2006-02-02T07:02:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/21 "2006-02-02T17:06:52Z")
Just to cut to the chase: The book is absolute Bullshit. It is utterly false. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word in that book is a lie, including “and” and “the.” If it were mathematically possible for a book to be more than 100% bullshit, _Magic of the Future_ would be that book. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/22 "2006-02-02T18:33:30Z")
**John Clay** , I’m sure you’re really curious about all this. Let me just say that as soon as I looked at the first page I could see this book was totally irrational and, yes, bullshit. The description of the author as the inventor of an Orgone Generator would be enough proof by itself. I strongly recommend you do some reading, starting with The Skeptic’s Dictionary and this old Straight Dope column. Just trying to help. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/23 "2006-02-02T19:02:05Z")
The first thing I noticed was the Kaballistic Tree of Life on the first page. People, the Tree of Life concept is a useful framework for certain kinds of philosophy, and I find it fascinating. But magic? Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/24 "2006-02-02T19:17:16Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Just to cut to the chase: > > The book is absolute Bullshit. It is utterly false. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word in that book is a lie, including “and” and “the.” If it were mathematically possible for a book to be more than 100% bullshit, _Magic of the Future_ would be that book. LOL - oh this gave me a chuckle! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/25 "2006-02-02T19:45:00Z")
You are aware, are you not, **JohnClay,** that there is no hard scientific evidence for the existence/efficacy of magic, or of paranormal or psychic phenomena of any kind? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/26 "2006-02-02T23:35:28Z")
> [@photopat](#): > > **John Clay** , I’m sure you’re really curious about all this. Let me just say that as soon as I looked at the first page I could see this book was totally irrational and, yes, bullshit. The description of the author as the inventor of an Orgone Generator would be enough proof by itself. > > I strongly recommend you do some reading, starting with The Skeptic’s Dictionary and this old Straight Dope column… Thanks… I normally research things like that myself but this time I got carried away. I’d like to just retire the debate… sorry for the nuisance. ---
**Author:** ![Queuing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/90ced4/32.png) [@Queuing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queuing)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/27 "2006-02-03T00:44:39Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Also > From the back cover of IEEE internet computing, volume 1, number 2, march-april 1997 > [http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/717/lucent29uv.jpg](http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/717/lucent29uv.jpg) > (front cover) > [http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/6870/netcomputing38ut.jpg](http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/6870/netcomputing38ut.jpg) > (I stole that magazine from a mental hospital while I was still in a semi-magic-believing state) > I now think that from a materialists POV, the effects of magic always have a simple materialistic explanation like chance or hallucinations. Oh, don’t retire the debate. Please explain, in either the GQ or GD thread that you have started that are the same, what the hell either of these links have to do with the topic at hand? This has also been asked by **Nanado** in the GQ thread. Answering either one would be nice. Honestly I just don’t get these links. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/28 "2006-02-03T02:52:42Z")
Firstly, here’s a conspiracy theory… based on anecdotal evidence (my testimony) I found out how to enter the CTMU messageboards… even though my IQ isn’t that high > **[Mega Foundation is creating Resources for the Severely Gifted | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/MegaFoundation)** > > Become a patron of Mega Foundation today: Get access to exclusive content and experiences on the world’s largest membership platform for artists and creators. Yesterday there were more forums in there - something like “Reality Theory” and also something like spiritualsci. Anyway in the “reality theory” section I replied to a post which suggested the kabbalah could be helpful (showing my diagram of the sefirot, etc) and I also started a topic called something like “empirical evidence for CTMU? (spiritual influence)” I said that since CTMU is based on a symbolic framework where related concepts would be close together it agrees with the idea of spiritual influence where related objects are used. (Note that “spiritual influence” just involves influence) Well now the only CTMU stuff I have access to is the archive… [http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7117/ctmu16ft.jpg](http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7117/ctmu16ft.jpg) Though some of the other forums I have access to are current ones. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/29 "2006-02-03T03:05:24Z")
> [@Queuing](#): > > Oh, don’t retire the debate. Please explain, in either the GQ or GD thread that you have started that are the same, what the hell either of these links have to do with the topic at hand? This has also been asked by **Nanado** in the GQ thread. Answering either one would be nice. Honestly I just don’t get these links. About the ad… [http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/717/lucent29uv.jpg](http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/717/lucent29uv.jpg) Well since people wouldn’t take technology like these following links seriously: (I don’t necessarily either) [http://www.newspiritservices.com/radionicswelz2.html](http://www.newspiritservices.com/radionicswelz2.html) (see products\psionics section) [http://www.xtrememind.com/](http://www.xtrememind.com/) I thought they’d take that ad seriously. Now remember the magazine is from March 1997. I thought there would be a huge market for software that allows communication between all of those electronic devices. BTW, in this thread [http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=149161](http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=149161) it says: > [@](#): > > I hand built the prototypes for the Lucent internet phones. The plastic they used for the chassis was SO f_ **ing brittle that it would shatter if you looked at it cross-eyed. They tried to cobble it together with off the shelf parts. It was one ill-concieved mess. My contact at Lucent was a d** k. I f_\*\*ed with those things for 6 months and I never saw one actually work. But the ad says that it “really” works. Maybe they were magical communication devices that used spiritual influence for communication. (in the other links I mentions magical software and to work I think the user needs intent/desire - a magical intent/desire I guess) wooo - the twilight zone. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/30 "2006-02-03T03:13:35Z")
Well my post about CTMU got me an invitation to [http://www.theoryofeverything.net/](http://www.theoryofeverything.net/) But I’ve got to think of an answer to this question: “Please tell us a little about yourself and why you would be an asset to the forum” ---
**Author:** ![neutron\_star](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/51bf81/32.png) [@neutron\_star](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neutron_star)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/31 "2006-02-03T03:26:10Z")
> [@Queuing](#): > > Oh, don’t retire the debate. Please explain, in either the GQ or GD thread that you have started that are the same, what the hell either of these links have to do with the topic at hand? This has also been asked by **Nanado** in the GQ thread. Answering either one would be nice. Honestly I just don’t get these links. Yes, please answer this. I couldn’t care less about a pseudo-scientific newage\* ebook, but I’m dying to know what the front and back covers of an old IEEE magazine have to do with anything. Of course, if obtaining the answer to that question will require me to rent “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” I think I will respectfully withdraw my query. I also wonder whether the Lucent advertisement from the [second link](http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/717/lucent29uv.jpg) is written like that on purpose, or if they really did hire a struggling ENL (English as a Ninth Language) student to do it. On preview: uh, maybe I shouldn’t have asked at all. \*That’s run together as one word on purpose and pronounced to rhyme with “sewage.” Big thanks to “Penn & Teller: Bullshit!” for that one. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/32 "2006-02-03T05:24:28Z")
Remembering Lucent? No, that was one of their salesmen. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646/33 "2006-02-03T06:38:35Z")
neutron star: see my earlier post [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7063270&postcount=29](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7063270&postcount=29) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-magic-of-the-future-unscientific/342646.md?page=1)