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

[sophiecentaur]

Plenty of potential for magic in that lot.

The failure to produce a bit of proof / evidence is enough to put most of those to bed.
"Prime mover" is more difficult. But there is no evidence of any interaction we could be having with such an entity. Apart from the 'fact' of our perceived existence, a PM is irrelevant. If and when we have contact with some other conscious individuals, we could change our minds (after an initial PANIC!.)

Magic and religion would seem to be no more than artefacts to enable humans to manipulate other humans - just the same as being bigger and stronger can make you a leader.

 

[valenumr]

I'll reiterate that science is Socratic. It doesn't claim to know anything. It doesn't have feelings or desires (beyond the human desire for understanding, perhaps). Theories are models built from (hopefully) self consistent axioms that work well to describe what we observe. One lesson we have learned is that sound theories must be falsifiable. On the easy side of falsification, the axioms are provably inconsistent, or they they don't match observed reality. On the more difficult side, one can't make up willy-nilly axioms that are impossible to prove or disprove, such as a prime motive. Or Russell's teapot. Another hand-in-hand aspect is that sound theories make testable, repeatable predictions. One should be able to model a problem with the theory, conduct an experiment, and measure how well the theory matches the experiment. Humankind has gotten really good at this, but, sure, we still have unanswered questions. We know better than to ascribe magic to these questions.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'll reiterate that science is Socratic. It doesn't claim to know anything.

That's correct as far as it goes but Scientists are human and only do something approaching Science when they join the Scientists' Club. Then they try to obey the rules (for non-Socratic reasons, like being accepted and praised or because they have had some success with a subject). Inside them there is always a human mind at work with a human nature. If there were ever truly Socratic they wouldn't fight so hard for their particular paradigm. All our scientific heroes were human, which is why some of them take religion and some take to anti-religion so fiercely.
I was wondering if this is going off topic but we are in the lounge so I guess it's ok.

One magical belief that we tend to have is that Maths is actually the answer. We don't know that; we just believe it.

 

[valenumr]

That's correct as far as it goes but Scientists are human and only do something approaching Science when they join the Scientists' Club. Then they try to obey the rules (for non-Socratic reasons, like being accepted and praised or because they have had some success with a subject). Inside them there is always a human mind at work with a human nature. If there were ever truly Socratic they wouldn't fight so hard for their particular paradigm. All our scientific heroes were human, which is why some of them take religion and some take to anti-religion so fiercely.
I was wondering if this is going off topic but we are in the lounge so I guess it's ok.

One magical belief that we tend to have is that Maths is actually the answer. We don't know that; we just believe it.

I don't understand what point you are advocating. It is really easy to sperate scientific thinking and approach from things like philosophy and religion. Science is pretty well defined. Interpretation or meaning really shouldn't come into play. Those concepts are usually roadblocks. In my humble opinion, "why?" is not the question, only "how?". Certainly there is some underlying notion to make everything have a "reason", but that is human nature.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It is really easy to sperate scientific thinking and approach from things like philosophy and religion.

I would not agree. The devil is in the detail, here. While 'Scientists' carry out scientific discussion, that doesn't guarantee that their personal thinking is so disciplined. My evidence is the fact that there have been such hard demarkation lines between pairs of schools of thought about much of Science. If people could actually bring themselves to be totally rational then there would be very few of these conflicts.

In the back of all our thought processes is a 'flaw' (not a quality judgement, you understand and 'it doesn't mean you're a bad person') and that's where all of us have a bit of susceptibility to magic. But that is no proof or disproof of a god; it's just the way we all work.

 

[valenumr]

Suspect. I would argue that proper scientific thinking precludes personal subjectivity. From a very callous point of view, there is no place for it. I see more often personal philosophy injected into scientific discussion. But don't forget that scientists are humans. They have beliefs and opinions. A good scientist won't let that get in the way.

 

[sophiecentaur]

A good scientist won't let that get in the way

I would put that a different way. 'A competent Scientist will always attempt not to let it get in the way' but never succeed completely. The best tools we have for this are Maths and Logic but they are not the only factors in our decisions and they can only be used too respond to models and ideas that we concoct within our human minds.
These discussions take us to the very edge of understanding ourselves. We can never get there completely but does that really matter? Should we feel that we have failed? I don't think so; we can just accept our limitations with good grace.

 

[hutchphd]

The best tools we have for this are Maths and Logic but they are not the only factors in our decisions and they can only be used too respond to models and ideas that we concoct within our human minds.

Yes and in these sorts of discussions it is sometime useful to consider predicates. I often rely on Feynman's wry socialogical definition::

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

and recall the evolution of science from the predicate natural philosopy. These two ideas, IMHO, are sufficient to direct us (with some help from Sextus Empiricus and Isaac Newton) to modern Physics and its handmaiden, mathematics. We have all reaped the astonishing benefits of this serendipity

But don't forget that scientists are humans. They have beliefs and opinions. A good scientist won't let that get in the way.

I would turn this on its head. The most terrifying aspect of the past decade is forgetting that we as humans individually are scientists.
Given some expert proclamation, fearful humans seem perfectly happy to accept that the sky is red. The pipeline is full.
Having sown the wind we shall now reap the whirlwind and I have become the fearful human.

/

 

[pinball1970]

Mind you, this 'natural' is not the same 'natural' as 'known laws and workings of the universe, together with our expectations'.

The failure to produce a bit of proof / evidence is enough to put most of those to bed.
"Prime mover" is more difficult. But there is no evidence of any interaction we could be having with such an entity. Apart from the 'fact' of our perceived existence, a PM is irrelevant. If and when we have contact with some other conscious individuals, we could change our minds (after an initial PANIC!.)

Magic and religion would seem to be no more than artefacts to enable humans to manipulate other humans - just the same as being bigger and stronger can make you a leader.

Scientists are a tricky bunch to convince of anything let alone magic, regular people however are little more accessible to these things.
I found some examples from my own back ground (western/catholic) of claimed supernatural events.
Both “miracles” are disputed, I think of the two, the Fatima event is more interesting because it involved 1000s of people from different backgrounds.
We were taught these things in school as fact but not every teacher was convincing or convinced from memory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun (Children of Fatima)

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

In terms of scientists not only being not convinced but aggressively opposed to such things, you can understand why reading the below.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/aug/04/religion.world

Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, Steve Jones, Stephen Hawking and of course Richard Dawkins have all spoken out on this sort of thing.

James Randi is linked to a discussion below on magic and fraudulent claims - pay wall is £29 so I do not know the detail but I have read articles on him exposing “magic/miracles”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24301874/

 

[Rive]

They have beliefs and opinions. A good scientist won't let that get in the way.

One belief I often run across is that 'natural' is what we supposedly know, expect and got used to already.

So, although it would take quite some sweat to convince me of magic, given the history of the subject: it's equally difficult to accept this kind of 'lesser natural' as a hard limitation, other than a kind of 'so far it is so'.

 

[pinball1970]

One belief I often run across is that 'natural' is what we supposedly know, expect and got used to already.

So, although it would take quite some sweat to convince me of magic, given the history of the subject: it's equally difficult to accept this kind of 'lesser natural' as a hard limitation, other than a kind of 'so far it is so'.

Natural for me is simply an existence and process without the need for divine/magical intervention.
So the big ones to consider: origin of the universe and everything in it; the eventual fate of the universe; abiogenesis and evolution of life on earth.
I know a bit about the last part and next to nothing about the first three parts but however that all works, I now believe it to be a natural process.

 

[Rive]

Natural for me is simply an existence and process without the need for divine/magical intervention.

For an anthill, my intervention with the bug repellent might seem 'divine', but regardless their opinion it's still natural.

I have the feeling that this 'magic is natural' thing had not been properly explained. From my point of view 'magic' is just the failure of our sense of 'natural': accepting that/if any 'magic' actually happening is natural is about correcting (expanding) that sense.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

magic means the manipulation of supernatural forces and supernatural means outside the natural world. Science is a methodology for describing the natural world. Therefore, if the methods of science can describe a phenomenon it is no longer supernatural and not magic

Suppose the methods of science are delayed in finding a clear and repeatable/reproducible meaningful understanding of a phenomenon? During this period of delay, perhaps a very long delay, is such a phenomenon correctly designated as "magic"?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Suppose the methods of science are delayed in finding a clear and repeatable/reproducible meaningful understanding of a phenomenon? During this period of delay, perhaps a very long delay, is such a phenomenon correctly designated as "magic"?

The designation would be by the local 'magic / religion authority' or the local Science authority who may have a strong faith that claims there is no such thing as magic / miracles.
Thing is you just can't rely on witnesses. Evidence can only be relied on when supported by a lot of repeatable measurements but people just don't want hard evidence. Seeing is believing and the camera does not lie.
They want magic.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi @sophiecentaur:

My previous post was about my lack of confidence about what BWV said. Some people believe that magic exists as phenomena unexplainable by science, and others do not share this view. Those that do not may include some that like to use "magic" as a metaphor. It seems likely that attempts to nail down a consensus about what "magic" means are doomed to failure.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Jarvis323]

Some people believe that magic exists as phenomena unexplainable by science,

It's important to realize that, technically, nothing is fully explainable by science. Science is just able to give us approximate understandings and predictions. So if unexplainable by science is the criterion, then in the most precise description, literally everything is magic by definition.

Even if you lower the bar, and say that things which are approximately explainable by science aren't magic, then you would still have to accept that everything that isn't magic is made up of things which are magic.

It pretty much boils down to that either everything is magic, or nothing is magic, there isn't really much room for anything in between.

 

[sophiecentaur]

literally everything is magic by definition

I think Magic would have to involve someone making something happen by a means that's unexplainable by Science. The idea of an agency has to be there as well as 'ignorance' about the mechanism. Also, real magic would need to be repeatable, which is where miracles and aliens etc. all have failed so far.

 

[Jarvis323]

I think Magic would have to involve someone making something happen by a means that's unexplainable by Science.

I agree within a certain limited context. We can try to precisely define what we mean by magic in the limited context, but even then we have to make a subjective choice. I guess the best one is based on historical usages of the word, or what people tend think we mean by the word magic. But then if we try to extend the meaning to an absolute global context, without leading to an inconsistency, we end up having to say that either everything is magic or nothing is, IMO.

 

[Jarvis323]

Suspect. I would argue that proper scientific thinking precludes personal subjectivity. From a very callous point of view, there is no place for it. I see more often personal philosophy injected into scientific discussion. But don't forget that scientists are humans. They have beliefs and opinions. A good scientist won't let that get in the way.

I wouldn't fully agree. Science is guided by philosophical thinking because we have to choose what to work on. If science is reduced to just filling in gaps in what we can predict, without considering what is important or interesting to us, then we could just as well spend most of our efforts working on problems that nobody cares about and nobody benefits from, and we could use models that nobody understands or tries to understand.

The role of science in satisfying curiosity or benefiting the world is formalized only through philosophy.

Besides giving direction and reason to science, philosophy is used to justify how we think science should be done.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

It's important to realize that, technically, nothing is fully explainable by science.

Hi @Jarvis323:

I agree with your post above. I will try to correct my statement as follows.
Some people believe that magic exists as phenomena not even tentatively explainable by science...
Scinece does create explanations, but not with complete confidence. The more frequently evidence re-confirms an explanation, the greater that the confidence is correct, but the confidence never reaches 100%.

 

[PeroK]

Dislexia, Gulf war syndrome, ME have had similar scrutiny and CI is only a few years old.

Shouldn't that be dyslexia?

 

[pinball1970]

Shouldn't that be dyslexia?

Yes. I feel foolish now.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

After a Mentor discussion, the thread will remain closed.