What would it take to convince you of magic / supernatural?

[PeroK]

Had the Witches not interacted with Macbeth, would the events have unfolded the same way? This is a wonderful topic for discussion, but not scientifically testable, even if you had a Lab-Full-O-Witches.

Well, the truth is that Shakespeare made it all up. Macbeth's troops killed Duncan in battle. No Witches needed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth,_King_of_Scotland

 

[Bandersnatch]

How would you/Clarke define magic? I define it as an ability that violates the laws of physics that everyone else has to follow.

But I submit that the gap between thinking we probably know and being certain can in both cases be very small. For magic, obvious violations of the laws of physics would be really difficult to deal with in any way except accepting that they are magic.

You seem to be defining magic as something that is capricious and impenetrable. Capricious because it chooses where or when (or through whom) to act seemingly randomly. And impenetrable because it's impossible to even begin to construct a predictive model of its nature using existing knowledge.
Which in my opinion still fits squarely with Clarke's adage, as e.g. magnetism or radioactivity would be considered magic a millennium ago according to this metric.
This rock we call lodestone is magic, because it can do things no rocks can do. Why? Impossible to know. These uranium atoms are regular muggles, following the rules. But these identical uranium atoms randomly and without provocation have split. Why? Magic.

I find it difficult to imagine a truly impenetrable phenomenon. Another adage comes to mind - the exception proves (the existence of) the rule. I.e. you see something that doesn't fit with your description of the world? All it means the description is incomplete, not general enough.
Does it manifest in the physical world? Then it can be measured. If it can be measured, then it can be analysed. Does it work only on select individuals/objects/places? Then there is a quality about those that is causative - call it the grace of god, mana, or midichlorians - that can be further isolated in the analysis. Is there a random component to its workings? No problem, we have statistics and probability.

 

[Rive]

Supernatural or magic could demonstrated where laws are broken.

The expression 'supernatural' always baffles me, especially when it's connected to 'broken laws'.
In physics we already had plenty of 'broken laws', starting with Newton. But somehow, it was 'natural' to have them broken and (example) quantum mechanics as a patch usually not considered 'magic' either. (Some might disagree with that one, though .)
What happens is nature. Completely natural. Laws are human inventions. As somebody who is interested in science, can't wait to see them 'broken' again

not scientifically testable, even if you had a Lab-Full-O-Witches.

Yep. Lab-Full-O-Witches will still remain 'natural' in any circumstances (whatever irregularities happens there ) but they may be out of the scope of science and/or our known laws.

 

[russ_watters]

You seem to be defining magic as something that is capricious and impenetrable. Capricious because it chooses where or when (or through whom) to act seemingly randomly. And impenetrable because it's impossible to even begin to construct a predictive model of its nature using existing knowledge.

Pretty much, yes. Though it's not exactly random if a wizard can summon fire on demand.

And I go a step further than impenetrable: there's nothing in the box. I think that's critical. Scientifically minded people may not be programmed to accept an empty box could exist...though I submit they have to when fundamental principles/phenomena are reached.

Which in my opinion still fits squarely with Clarke's adage, as e.g. magnetism or radioactivity would be considered magic a millennium ago according to this metric.

A millennium ago we hadn't invented science so we didn't have the ability to recognize that there is in fact consistency in those behaviors...

er, had the compass been invented yet?

I find it difficult to imagine a truly impenetrable phenomenon.

That fine, but that means that you wouldn't be capable of accepting supernatural/magic if it existed. And I submit that people who set such an exclusionary framing can't objectively investigate the question.

 

[BWV]

the other problem is that magic is a meaningless term, most people seem to refer back to fantasy fiction or dungeons & dragons - but no one makes real claims that the can cast fireballs because they are a level 6 magic user . People who really believe in magic mostly tie it to either spirits / gods /demons or some new age gobbledygook, which has a veneer of science (these healing crystals channel the quantum vibrations of the universe..). To 'prove' magic do you then have to demonstrate the existence of the spirit that supposedly granted the power?

 

[russ_watters]

The expression 'supernatural' always baffles me, especially when it's connected to 'broken laws'.
In physics we already had plenty of 'broken laws', starting with Newton. But somehow, it was 'natural' to have them broken...

I don't consider Newton's laws to be broken. I still use them frequently.

I don't think this is a nitpicky distinction. As many of the examples show it's easy to conceive of the laws being obliterated by magic.

To me, what I'm seeing is people have an axiom "magic does not exist" and are unable to set it aside to entertain the question.

 

[pinball1970]

The expression 'supernatural' always baffles me, especially when it's connected to 'broken laws'.
In physics we already had plenty of 'broken laws', starting with Newton. But somehow, it was 'natural' to have them broken and (example) quantum mechanics as a patch usually not considered 'magic' either. (Some might disagree with that one, though .)
What happens is nature. Completely natural. Laws are human inventions. As somebody who is interested in science, can't wait to see them 'broken' againYep. Lab-Full-O-Witches will still remain 'natural' in any circumstances (whatever irregularities happens there ) but they may be out of the scope of science and/or our known laws.

We get some wriggle room in this thread yes?

We have to start somewhere so let’s start here? 2021?

I gave a few biological examples but we can stick walking on water in there as well.

These are real verified acts, under water cameras people in the pool touch the souls of my feet while I cross no “illusions” verified

Everyone can agree these acts break the “natural” laws.

 

[PeroK]

To me, what I'm seeing is people have an axiom "magic does not exist" and are unable to set it aside to entertain the question.

That's a bit harsh. For example, many magicians can do what Uri Geller does, so I might claim it's illogical to believe that he is a genuine exception and using supernatural powers.

Those who claim supernatural powers often do so for personal fraudulent gain. If we believe that a medium is speaking to a dead child or spouse, are we being open minded or complicit in their deceit?

 

[russ_watters]

That's a bit harsh.

I don't see/intend it as harsh, I see it as a perfectly viable worldview. Reversing the angle it could be phrased, "there's nothing in this universe that I/we scientists can't figure out." I think that attitude would serve scientists well because if they believed there were unknowable things they might stop looking for the answers. That's part of the problem with Sagan's "demons" - once you make the "demon" conclusion, you stop looking for another explanation.

And from a practical standpoint, there's really not much downside to the assumption because it's likely they will never actually need to test it. It only matters for rhetorical purposes: if talking with a believer, it's fairplay to acknowledge one would never accept a conclusion of "supernatural".

Those who claim supernatural powers often do so for personal fraudulent gain. If we believe that a medium is speaking to a dead child or spouse, are we being open minded or complicit in their deceit?

If we believe that we're being so open minded our brain falls out. The bar I'm setting is scientific scrutiny. Believers don't apply such a skeptical eye.

Being open minded doesn't mean one has to accept any particular answer, it just means one has to accept that any answer is available for selection following the investigation.

 

[Rive]

Everyone can agree these acts break the “natural” laws.

Well, not me. In case it really happens (and to settle with that 'really' would take quite lot of scrutiny) the most it would be able to break is my expectations.

Reversing the angle it could be phrased, "there's nothing in this universe that I/we scientists can't figure out."

Now, that's a bit harsh. There are plenty of things what happened too far away, happened only once, was not recorded, was not recorded with the right equipment and so on - these will likely and rightfully remain unknown.

I don't consider Newton's laws to be broken

Well, in different context I too prefer using different wording for this, like 'incomplete' or 'limited', but here maybe it's more appropriate to go with the flow of 'broken' (with those commas there).

 

[PeroK]

Being open minded doesn't mean one has to accept any particular answer, it just means one has to accept that any answer is available for selection following the investigation.

Two obvious areas where such an approach could be costly are medicine and the law. If we accept at least reasonable doubt on any paranormal explanation for a crime (evil spirits etc.), then it won't be easy to gain a conviction. The law only works if we are relatively closed minded on paranormal alibis.

Medicine, likewise, would be strained if doctors had to allow the possiblilty of possession by evil spirits. If a patient dies, and the family can sue the hospital for not trying exorcism.

Finally, if you found youself under arrest and on trial for witchcraft, I don't believe you would be very happy that the authorities had decided to take those accusations seriously. Especially if the punishment was to be burned alive at the stake. Give me closed-minded skepticism over that nonsense any day.

PS This isn't my most coherent post and it's perhaps a little over the top, but I think taking the paranormal seriously is a Pandora's box. Human society has been there and the results were tragic.

 

[Tom.G]

"What would it take...?"

That the proponent demonstrate the phenomina to me in an un-inhabited desert area with no structures or human artifacts around, while naked.

That would get me to consider the possibility.

 

[russ_watters]

Two obvious areas where such an approach could be costly are medicine and the law. If we accept at least reasonable doubt on any paranormal explanation for a crime (evil spirits etc.), then it won't be easy to gain a conviction. The law only works if we are relatively closed minded on paranormal alibis.

How do you figure? That sounds more like far fetched doubt than reasonable doubt to me.

Medicine, likewise, would be strained if doctors had to allow the possiblilty of possession by evil spirits. If a patient dies, and the family can sue the hospital for not trying exorcism.

Same: how are you figuring this could happen based on my framing? You're not proceeding on the assumption that all available choices get equal weight, are you?

Finally, if you found youself under arrest and on trial for witchcraft, I don't believe you would be very happy that the authorities had decided to take those accusations seriously.

The "reasonable doubt" burden of proof is pretty high.

...setting aside why witchcraft would even be a crime. But I guess that's why we have to hide ourselves from muggles.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, not me.[break the natural laws] In case it really happens (and to settle with that 'really' would take quite lot of scrutiny) the most it would be able to break is my expectations.

Let's say Harry Potter submits himself to testing in a lab setting and shows repeatedly, on demand, that he can summon lightning from the tip of a stick by waving it and uttering a phrase. No changes are observed to occur to him or the stick before, during or after the emission. That would be pretty hard to reconcile with conservation of matter/energy -- it seems like a pretty obvious violation to me.

Now, that's a bit harsh. There are plenty of things what happened too far away, happened only once, was not recorded, was not recorded with the right equipment and so on - these will likely and rightfully remain unknown.

Do scientists really believe that a phenomena can happen only once and then never be seen again? It's a big universe.

 

[AlexCaledin]

Hmmm, to a tech guy like me, it's natural to think that the physical world is generated/simulated by the transcendent Computer; then, physics must be only the basic level controlled by the high level programs which are making quantum choices trying not to violate the Born rule too much. Now, one's mind is certainly participating somehow in the high level software, thus being able to be engaged in some "magic"; - but it's hardly very "scientific". Science is only looking at the basic level.
_____________________________________
Susskind's QM textbook:
That’s the content of Bell’s theorem: The classical computers have to be connected with an instantaneous cable to simulate entanglement.

 

[hmmm27]

Why the assumption that I don't believe in magic/supernature, in the first place ?

 

[Vanadium 50]

That would be pretty hard to reconcile with conservation of matter/energy -- it seems like a pretty obvious violation to me.

Not 100% sure I buy this. He could be getting the energy from "somewhere else".

Is this more or less magical than Asimov's Electron Pump?

 

[pinball1970]

"What would it take...?"

That the proponent demonstrate the phenomina to me in an un-inhabited desert area with no structures or human artifacts around, while naked.

That would get me to consider the possibility.

Well, not me. In case it really happens (and to settle with that 'really' would take quite lot of scrutiny) the most it would be able to break is my expectations.

The breaking egg is used an example of entropy/ arrow of time in pop Science.
So, I can reconstruct an egg after it rolls off the table onto the floor without touching it.
So a violation of motion energy gravity and entropy.
I can repeat it on request.

Assuming there are no illusions, all checked and verified. Observers are magicians (fake ones who know the tricks) and physicists who can list all the Scientific violations.

 

[BWV]

The breaking egg is used an example of entropy/ arrow of time in pop Science.
So, I can reconstruct an egg after it rolls off the table onto the floor without touching it.
So a violation of motion energy gravity and entropy.
I can repeat it on request.

Assuming there are no illusions, all checked and verified. Observers are magicians (fake ones who know the tricks) and physicists who can list all the Scientific violations.

But putting on a SF hat, a swarm of nanobots could accomplish feats like this, which would then look like magic

 

[BillTre]

But putting on a SF hat, a swarm of nanobots could accomplish feats like this, which would then look like magic

If they could do it without the energy input needed to run the nanobots, that would be magical.

 

[Jarvis323]

I still hold that everything is magic. Someone waving a wand and uttering a phrase before something unexplainable happens would be surprising, but no more magical than anything else happening in the universe. Technically nothing is explainable. Nobody can tell me how something really happens in the universe, except in terms of high level abstractions. Explaining that the lightning bolt was caused by a certain wand waving pattern and phrase would be no different, it would still just be explaining it in terms of high level abstractions. The main difference is that in this case the event wouldn't fit the commonly used scientific models, and would have a different break down into lower level abstractions than other more well known phenomena, and would perhaps be impossible to break down past a higher level than most other phenomena.

Maybe that is how to define it if you want to distinguish it, by how much the explanation can be broken down into lower level abstractions. But IMO it should be independent of human limitations, so you should assume the explanations exist indepenent of human knowlegde and only need to be understandable by some kind of oracle with limitless powers for understanding.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Repeatable experiments/observations that produces physical evidence. And with the added guideline "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan, IIRC).

He has got that right, IMO. Science has to be highly conservative in order to stay apart from Magic and Charlatanism.

just like there is no such thing as alternative medicine

There is plenty of Alternative Medicine. When it works reliably then it is valid in that it should be 'allowed' to be used when it does no measurable harm. Or even if it appears to do more good than harm. Medicine is very pragmatic; few medics (if any) have rock solid knowledge about the treatments they use. They work on the basis that 'it works mostly and is worth the risk'. I can go along with that when I have confidence with a particular organisation or practitioner. A lot of (or even most of) Medicine is a fringe Science but none the worse for it.

We have to be scrupulous if we are to win over the Anti-vaxers but the Pro evidence is only statistical and many people just cannot deal with statistics.

Is it reproducible? In Harry Potter it is.

Harry Potter's world ( and other examples in this thread) is fictional and it works on (not very self consistent) axioms. It cannot validly be part of this thread. No Fiction can be Science, despite the number of pieces of SciFi that are used as 'evidence' within these walls.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Arthur Clarke

As has already ben pointed out, that's just a personal definition.

Everyone can agree these acts break the “natural” laws.

I would say that they don't break natural laws because the 'experiment' is subjected to external influences.

 

[pinball1970]

But putting on a SF hat, a swarm of nanobots could accomplish feats like this, which would then look like magic

Damn it...
Edit, You can play the nanobot card on a lot of my suggestions.

 

[russ_watters]

Harry Potter's world ( and other examples in this thread) is fictional and it works on (not very self consistent axioms). It cannot validly be part of this thread.

I disagree, for two reasons:
1. Our rules prohibit discussion of "real" pseudoscience.
2. Example from fiction would be compelling if observed in real life. Far more compelling than any claimed magic we actually see. So they make for good examples to test the logic (and that's common in science). Remember, this isn't a thread about whether magic exists, it's about whether or how to evaluate it if it did.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Remember, this isn't a thread about whether magic exists, it's about whether or how to evaluate it if it did.

I have a problem with that. Taken to a very slight extreme then any unexplained phenomenon could be interpreted as Magic. Where would you draw your line between Magic and some Science we are still 'working on'?
This thread has suffered too much from a reliance on what Fiction is claimed to tell us. Too many 'If's being used in the non-mathematical sense.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a problem with that. Taken to a very slight extreme then any unexplained phenomenon could be interpreted as Magic. Where would you draw your line between Magic and some Science we are still 'working on'?

That is the discussion topic of the thread, yes.

[Edit] I haven't responded yet, but I really like @Jarvis323 's recent take.

This thread has suffered too much from a reliance on what Fiction is claimed to tell us. Too many 'If's being used in the non-mathematical sense.

Fictional thought experiments are used extensively in science to test logic. I'm not sure I see the problem. It's common for them to fail accidentally or be impossible in irrelevant ways. The main difference here is we're devising ones that fail on purpose.

 

[Rive]

The breaking egg is used an example of entropy/ arrow of time in pop Science.
So, I can reconstruct an egg after it rolls off the table onto the floor without touching it.
So a violation of motion energy gravity and entropy.

Maybe the problem is, that you think gravity and entropy (and energy conservation) are rules of nature.
But they are human constructs: they are part of a model we using to describe and predict 'nature'.
It is a very good model, indeed.
Still, nature rules. If any of the events discussed above really happens, then it's not 'nature' what's broken, but our model.
It would be a very ambiguous feeling to watch it happen, though. I definitely do not expect it to happen, and it would take lot of scrutiny to accept it.

To put our model at the rank of 'rules of nature' kind of reminds me of Lord Kelvin and his rule about flying.

 

[kith]

Interesting discussion. I want to add two points regard Clark's statement "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

1) Here is a longer quote from his essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination" where he introduced the concept:

Suppose you went to any scientist up to the late nineteenth century and told him: “Here are two pieces of a substance called uranium 235. If you hold them apart, nothing will happen. But if you bring them together suddenly, you will liberate as much energy as you could obtain from burning ten thousand tons of coal.” No matter how farsighted and imaginative he might be, your pre-twentieth century scientist would have said: “What utter nonsense! That’s magic, not science. Such things can’t happen in the real world.”

Around 1890, when the foundations of physics and thermodynamics had (it seemed) been securely laid, he could have told you exactly why it was nonsense. “Energy cannot be created out of nowhere,” he might have said. “It has to come from chemical reactions, electrical batteries, coiled springs, compressed gas, spinning flywheels, or some other clearly defined source. All such sources are ruled, out in this case — and even if they were not, the energy output you mention is absurd.

Like him, I don't see a way to distinguish a situation which can't be explained by current knowledge from a situation which can't be explained in principle.

2) I see a weaker version and a stronger interpretation of Clark's statement. The cautionary tale above is an example of the weaker version. It is tied to people not having all the relevant knowledge and it is also hypothetical (the nuclear bomb hasn't actually been around at the time where it would have been considered to be magic).

The strong version of the statement is a prediction, namely that technology will permanently outpace legibility. For machine learning algorithms with many parameters, we typically don't understand the logic behind how they arrive at their outputs already today. In this domain, the legibility of technology actually seems to be decreasing in a way which is hard to reverse even by future knowledge and technology. In this sense, the future could become increasingly more "magical".

 

[kith]

Harry Potter's world ( and other examples in this thread) is fictional and it works on (not very self consistent) axioms.

Pretty off-topic: I think my favorite inconsistency is the tension between https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/4/Harry-Potter-and-the-Methods-of-Rationality

 

[mfb]

It's inherently impossible to incorporate magic into the laws of the universe. That's the entire point of magic.

The universe trivially follows the laws of the universe, however complex they might be. If magic needs to be beyond that it can't exist in our universe or any equivalent structure. That would make the question very simple.
If we can determine the laws of the universe is a different question. If some technology is sufficiently advanced then we might be unable to understand it in our lifetime.

 

[AlexCaledin]

The universal law is total dependence on the quantum dice.

__________________________________________________________________
In 2011, Penn State Press began publishing a learned journal titled Preternature: Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural. Edited by Kirsten Uszkalo and Richard Raiswell, the journal is dedicated to publishing articles, reviews and short editions of original texts that deal with conceptions and perceptions of the preternatural in any culture and in any historical period. The journal covers "magics, witchcraft, spiritualism, occultism, prophecy, monstrophy, demonology, and folklore."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preternatural

 

[pinball1970]

Maybe the problem is, that you think gravity and entropy (and energy conservation) are rules of nature.
But they are human constructs: they are part of a model we using to describe and predict 'nature'.
It is a very good model, indeed.
Still, nature rules. If any of the events discussed above really happens, then it's not 'nature' what's broken, but our model.
It would be a very ambiguous feeling to watch it happen, though. I definitely do not expect it to happen, and it would take lot of scrutiny to accept it.

To put our model at the rank of 'rules of nature' kind of reminds me of Lord Kelvin and his rule about flying.

I accept that science is the just method we use to describe nature.

I am trying to imagine a scenario where everyone would agree unambiguously, that something supernatural rather than just natural was happening.

It is harder than I thought.

I thought of the double split experiment and the interference pattern spelling out words at my command but I suppose nanobots could deflect the particles/photons as well.

What about this?
I fire a bunch of neutrinos from the LHC to an underground detector in Italy 731km away.
They reach the detector 60ns faster than if they were traveling at the speed of light.
I have no idea how they would do this but the guys in Italy confirm with the team in Switzerland that they are same neutrinos.

All the clocks, GPS and fibre optics are fine, when they repeat the experiment and when I do not cause the magic they arrive at the correct time.

Nanobots cannot help this time because the neutrinos will not interact with them, they are also traveling faster than light so they could not keep up with them if they did.

You are not allowed to make your nanobots super dense like the Italian detector as they would not longer be able to function/fly.

If you use your bots to squeeze the Earth slightly to move the detectors closer together to fake the result I will send my bots to destroy your bots or repeat the experiment in a giant vacuum – no bots allowed

So this is not like walking on water, this is tweaking an experiment that violates a previously verified model of the universe.

No matter how or where you do it is always 60ns seconds faster (or a figure of choosing) at my command.

 

[david2]

A psychosis can surely help to experience magical/supernatural things.

 

[pinball1970]

A psychosis can surely help to experience magical/supernatural things.

Yes but that was not the point of the thread.

 

[david2]

I have to admit that I only reacted to the title. When I was reading some of the posts I was contemplating to delete my comment.

Carry on people. nothing to see here.

 

[Rive]

What about this?

Missing the point. Trying to tinker with models and tech - these will do (within the pre-set frame of the topic/post) something, of course, but they do that something if/because they comply with ' natural' and not the other way. 'Natural' always has the imperative, so whatever actually happens is natural thing to happen.
If 'natural' breaks our models - well, poor little us.
If by any chance 'magic' really happens, then 'magic' is natural.

Of course on this line of thought, 'supernatural' to happen is not any better than the good old 'this sentence is a lie'.

 

[BWV]

Which is the problem looking at magic / supernatural as some sort impersonal force - the historic view for people who really believe, is that these powers are granted by some entity - gods, spirits, demons whatever. Once you start describing magic in Harry Potter or Dungeons & Dragons terms it’s just a force you can discover the rules of by employing similar methods to science. On the other hand it’s kind of hard to prove that my power to do whatever comes from Zeus and then it begs the question on how those powers work for Zeus

 

[DaveC426913]

On the other hand it’s kind of hard to prove that my power to do whatever comes from Zeus and then it begs the question on how those powers work for Zeus

Zigackly.

I had the same thought re: Thor's hammer in Thor. Odin put a spell on it that could only be broken by a worthy person. And then he threw the hammer away, with the spell still attached.

Which means - however powerful Odin is as a god - his source of magical power is more fundamental than he is. I guess gods have gods.

 

[AlexCaledin]

I once was running across a road (which seemed empty) - and suddenly fell and softly landed on the asphalt. The feeling was as if the spacetime geometry suddenly got perturbed locally. Immediately, in front of me, a car passed at a dreadful velocity.

 

[DaveC426913]

I once was running across a road (which seemed empty) - and suddenly fell and softly landed on the asphalt. The feeling was as if the spacetime geometry suddenly got perturbed locally. Immediately, in front of me, a car passed at a dreadful velocity.

A textbook example of survivor bias.

Those who did not trip before running in front of a passing car are not here to report it.

 

[pinball1970]

Missing the point. Trying to tinker with models and tech - these will do (within the pre-set frame of the topic/post) something, of course, but they do that something if/because they comply with ' natural' and not the other way. 'Natural' always has the imperative, so whatever actually happens is natural thing to happen.
If 'natural' breaks our models - well, poor little us.
If by any chance 'magic' really happens, then 'magic' is natural.

Of course on this line of thought, 'supernatural' to happen is not any better than the good old 'this sentence is a lie'.

Ok before we stray into incompleteness theorem I think what you are saying is, if it happens then it's natural.
I agree I think there is only nature

 

[256bits]

A psychosis can surely help to experience magical/supernatural things.

Yes but that was not the point of the thread.

Assuming of course every individual is a rational being.
That is surely not the case.
Humans are the most irrational in decisions and behavior, beliefs...
David statement outlines whether or not an event could be construed as being 'supernatural' by any particular individual based upon their experiences, their beliefs, their education, ...
The OP states

What would it take to convince you of magic / supernatural​

Assuming "You" could be any random person, the chances that they could discern magical from reality if they witness something new and exciting, and logically be convinced it is one or the other, either by themselves or by others, to change their mind seems fruitless, and/or pointless, in many situations. Their experience is their experience. To tell them what they witnessed is not what it is - they are actually being told that they are crazy and deficient somewhere in there mental capacity - same as what David brought up. Anecdotal, with non-repeatable evidence, is a problem for investigators of these one-off experiences cited as being of the supernatural

I think @mfb had they correct response to the matter in post 80.
Can Dark matter/Dark energy be magic since we do not at this point in time have a physical explanation. Right now it is magic for scientists ( and general population, at least those that know and worry about it ). Perhaps, maybe, later some solution may be found. Later being unknown.

Scientists deal with magic all the time by trying to come up with an explanation for things happening in this world and universe. Students deal with magic the first day of class and are taught that no, it is is not magic, there is a complete physical explanation through the known physical laws of particular happenings. And they learn more and more happenings, as they progress through education, that physical explanations are widespread, but there is much more to learn.

Still, 13 is believed to be an unlucky number.
Does anyone want to live at address 666.
Irrationality.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Science doesn't really work in a way that would give 'magic' writ large a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. What would more likely happen is that an individual 'magical' phenomenon would be observed that can't be explained using current scientific knowledge (walking on water, shooting lasers from your eyes, whatever), and then scientific investigation would take place. Whether the investigation is ultimately able to explain the phenomenon within some sort of theoretical framework that ties in with the rest of our knowledge of the universe is irrelevant: at some point, if the evidence were robust enough, the phenomenon would simply be accepted as happening.

But this happens anyway all the time and we don't attribute it to magic. We have no idea why lots of things with good documentation happen (the solar coronal heating problem jumps to mind). We continue to investigate them, even though there's no guarantee we'll be able to explain them to our satisfaction. So I really don't see how we would simply say "well, magic exists" in one case and not in another. Especially if the magic seemed to follow some sort of logical system (like you often see in books that use magic as a plot device).

I suppose if lots and lots of well-documented, non-replicable macroscopic 2nd law violations started happening completely randomly, we'd have to deeply rethink basic assumptions at the heart of the philosophy of science (the problem of induction jumps to mind).

As an aside, I tend to agree with the folks who are arguing that 'supernatural' as a term is self-inconsistent. If 'natural' encompasses everything existing or possible in nature, then there's nothing left in nature for the supernatural. The only way you could declare something supernatural is if you have the arrogance to believe that you know the laws of nature perfectly and can spot a violation thereof.

 

[AlexCaledin]

- that's just a personal choice - if your beloved one is badly sick, you can pray hard, or you can simply say "it's natural".

 

[kyphysics]

You mean all those well-documented cases of amputated limbs regrowing, or situations where a disease perhaps was misdiagnosed or where spontaneous remissions are possible?

But the thought of a God who arbitrarily heals a few as sort of a tease to the countless others who suffer and die (perhaps as a result of volume of the petitions of others) seems monsterous to me

Regrowing of body parts is certainly a more rare occurrence, but there are cases (some better medically documented than others) that may qualify.

I shall post some examples when I have time to look them up (I know "where" they are, but have to "dig" through a lot to get to them and don't want to spend the time right this moment). In general, it's a strong criticism, because one can argue "miracles" of other sorts are just, as you say, misdiagnoses or spontaneous remissions. A completely regrown body part (or even a significantly regrown one) would seem to have less of a natural cause (putting aside someone arguing it was alien or super advanced technology that we don't know of).

Nonetheless, I think even certain non-regrowing healings/"miracles" can be at least compelling and interesting if the timing occurs instantly (or within a very short time-frame) after prayer (which there are many cases of).

I'm not sure how much of a theological discussion would be allowed here, but I don't find there to be any moral inconsistency between God healing some, but not all who pray for healing miracles. The latter would potentially turn God into a "vending machine" (doing whatever we asked for) and obviate the need for surgeons, personal responsibility, and perhaps the opportunity for moral growth or spiritual maturity in human agents. At a bare minimum, we shouldn't expect God to always heal us when the cause of illness is by another human agent (maybe even ourselves). Moral significance only happens in a world with real consequences (e.g., the decision to pick up a gun and shoot someone out of anger, for example). A more difficult case is understanding suffering that is not man-made, but a result of nature. It's probably one of - if not the top - argument against God's existence in the field of philosophy. But, it's logically flawed (even if emotionally moving), as no one has ever shown that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for allowing "natural evil" (as it's called in philosophy) to occur.

 

[kyphysics]

Faith healing lacks repeatability and causality. It is squarely in the realm of pseudoscience and one of the few remaining specific examples of Sagan's "Demon Haunted" thesis.

This thread can't be a "debunk this pseudoscience" thread. And any way, there are much better examples available in fictional media (Harry Potter was cited previously) to test the logic.

Science is not necessarily the tool to investigate the supernatural (if it exists).

You're also right that many faith healings would not be repeatable - often, among other reasons, because it would seem immoral to do so (e.g., reinjuring someone to see if a supernatural agent may heal them again). However, reasonable belief in the supernatural does not rest on whether or not science can prove it to exist. It's not really a question of science and that's okay. There are many things about the world that science cannot prove, but that we're rational to believe things about:

ethics (Is rape wrong?)
metaphysics (Am I a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist?)
aesthetics (questions of beauty)

Heck, even science itself cannot be justified using the scientific method - a position regularly accepted in philosophy of science and epistemology. This is usually understood in two broad ways:

i.) The scientific method itself cannot be proven by the scientific method. Science assumes that the world is governed by timeless laws. But it suffers from a well-known problem of induction. Just because the world is the way it is at the time we investigate and measure it, that does not mean it is always like that. Some scientific phenomenon might give a value of x every time we observe or test it. We can repeat our experiment hundreds, thousands, or even millions of times to obtain the same result. But, what if the world is ordered such that some time in the future and on the billionth try (which we haven't completed yet), the value shifts to y? We could simply be observing a sequence that governs the world, which has not yet shifted. There is no way to know that and this is a classic problem in induction. Yet, science assumes a timeless, consistent patterning of things that we bake into our laws.

ii.) Science is littered with all sorts of assumptions (used to do it), which cannot be proven by science itself - instead, these are taken on "faith." Take, for example, the constancy of the speed of light on a one-way path (only the round trip velocity can be measured), which is assumed to be true by science, but not scientifically verified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

If science is not the best tool for investigating the potentially supernatural, then what is? I think philosophical argumentation, which can be at times supported by scientific facts/findings in the premises, is the main route and what's been done since the foundation of the field a couple thousand years ago.

Probably the most relevant work on miracles (a form of supernaturalism) in the field of philosophy in recent times has been John Earman's*** (University of Pittsburgh), Hume's Abject Failure (2000). He shows where Hume went wrong and introduces the relevant probability calculus for evaluating claims of miracles.

***Earman's not a theist - he's an agnostic.

 

[DennisN]

I'm no expert in neither theology (certainly not!) nor psychology, but I see some similarities between praying/faith healing and affirmations.

 

[kyphysics]

My wife posed a theoretical similar to this last night while watching the show Supernatural. I also was thinking about the concept that technology that is sufficiently advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote referenced there is definitely a powerful thought. I think one rejoinder would be that even "advanced technology" has limits and if some phenomenon violates the laws of physics, then it cannot be of the natural world.

A comeback argument against that line might be that we may simply be mistaken about our understanding of the laws of physics and perhaps some phenomenon that seems to violate its laws is actually not doing so and is operating on some principle we simply don't understand yet.

The more I think about it, the more I see that idea as paradoxical. Understanding that idea fundamentally assigns anything magic to being an advanced technology. So once understanding that, is there anything at all that we could see that would convince us that there is some big fundamental aspect of the universe that we don't understand and can't with science?

Clarke's idea is powerful, but I don't think we necessarily have to accept it. Again, if some phenomenon is shown to violate the laws of physics, that would be a line of argument against it being advanced technology. Some people argue that certain aspects of some UFO phenomena fit this problem.

Here is a hypothetical: Suppose Barack Obama got in front of a live crowd and was also simultaneously broadcast on national TV to a large audience for a speech. In the middle of it, he takes out a sword and chops his own head off. Medical personnel rush to the scene and try to help him on the spot. But, you know, his head is chopped off, so like, there's not much that can be done. Blood loss at the site of the wound is extreme. His heart has stopped beating for an hour, there are no measured brain waves for the same amount of time, and his body is motionless and unresponsive at this time. He's pronounced dead after one hour. All of this is witnessed by a live crowd and captured on national TV. Suddenly, however, Barack Obama's head floats in the air and re-attaches itself to his body and he is showing live vital signs again. Doctors are astonished and verify he now has brain waves and a heart beat again and Obama is even acting his normal self: talking, laughing, moving, etc. He says he had a panic attack, suffers from depression, and regretfully chopped his own head off in a moment of mental instability. But, he says God saved him and brought him back to life.

This is an obviously ridiculous and extreme hypothetical, but the point is whether it would be reasonable to think something supernatural happened in this case? From everything we know of biology and science, a person isn't going to survive having their head chopped off for over one hour with massive blood loss, no heart beat, and no brain waves, let alone having that head self-reassemble to the body.

One might argue that some form of hoax was involved or an advanced technology. But, if we can reasonably ascertain that everyone involved was sincere and telling the truth (the doctors were honest, the crowd was genuine, the TV production was real, etc.), then at what point would we maybe start to think this was a supernatural event vs. unknown natural science or advanced technology?

 

[BillTre]

Deception might provide a higher probably explanation for some of these weird things.
Future high tech ("indistinguishable from magic") real time special effects seems a more likely explanation to me.
Perhaps some kind of programmable projection hologram.

 

[kyphysics]

Deception might provide a higher probably explanation for some of these weird things.
Future high tech ("indistinguishable from magic") real time special effects seems a more likely explanation to me.
Perhaps some kind of programmable projection hologram.

I am bolding "for some," because I think I would agree. In general, I think we ought to exhaust all probable naturalistic explanations for things, before moving on to consider the supernatural.

However, there can be times when naturalistic explanations are so convoluted and ad hoc as to be actually more improbable than a supernatural one to me. In those cases, I would actually favor a supernatural one.

The advanced technology explanations can sometimes require a lot weird stuff too. It feels some would essentially posit aliens (which we have no evidence of existing - although, certainly possible) having this advanced technology and using it in interactions with humans, as it would be difficult to imagine humans having certain levels of extreme advanced technology.

Here's a "weird" case for people's evaluation:
Dr. Richard Gallagher (M.D.)
Columbia University (Center for Psychoanalytic Training & Research) - Faculty Member
https://www.psychoanalysis.columbia.edu/people/faculty/richard-gallagher-md
New York Medical College (Clinical Psychiatry) - Professor
https://www.nymc.edu/faculty/direct...-bmsgsbms/psychiatry-and-behavioral-sciences/
Yale University School of Medicine - M.D. Psychiatry
Princeton University - A.B. Classics

featured in the Washington Post and CNN, among many other news outlets:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...tal-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/ (2016)
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor/index.html (2017)

The purpose of establishing his background (Gallagher is also a Catholic, by the way) is to show that he is at least capable of rational thinking and well-educated - not just a random crazy or illiterate person off the street with no understanding of science and modern knowledge. Part of his job is to actually diagnose medical psychiatric problems, so he is very familiar with how those cases present. A "weird" and compelling case he's often discussed in various interviews (see YouTube) and in both mainstream and more niche publications is that of a patient named, "Julia" (not her real name):

Among the Many Counterfeits: A Case of Demonic Possession
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0308-gallagher

Julia was a member of a Satanic cult - a self-professed High Priestess within it - and sought help for her various problems tied to it. Gallagher says Julia knew she was possessed and partly wanted out of the Satanic cult, but also partly wanted to stay. In any case, he speaks of clearly paranormal things associated with her presence:

--secret knowledge (of things she couldn't have possibly known of team members treating her)
--bodily levitation (for about 30 minutes, as witnessed by 8 people in the room)
--flying objects (things on shelves would fly off in her presence)
--extreme temperature changes in the room during exorcism
--ability to speak in unknown (to her) foreign languages
--abnormal physical strength
--aversion to religious symbols and objects
--unnatural - practically "animalistic" - sounding voice emanating from her
--psychic abilities

HIPAA laws would prevent a random person from accessing another person's medical files, so that Julia's detailed knowledge of people's medical conditions (even of family members) within the team may be difficult to explain (without resorting to very ad hoc and convoluted means) under naturalistic means. Yes, this assumes we believe the witnesses when they say Julia revealed this hard-to-know private information. But, assuming they are telling the truth, this is something that cries out for an explanation.

Unless Julia was eavesdropping (maybe with binoculars from across the street if their window blinds happened to be open?) on Gallagher and his wife inside of their bedroom at 2-3AM the night before they first met, it may also be hard to explain how she knew their cats went crazy and attacked each other (something she mentioned upon their first meeting). And the list goes on of things Julia would have a tough time knowing simply through naturalistic means. Some of these were revealed in real time from a far distance (hundreds of miles away) and confirmed by Gallagher (via calling the person Julia was describing).

...I'll leave you all to play with this case.