Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Magic vs Science Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 15:23 |
It's a weird question, I know. But I've been talking about with some people, and the debate got interesting. Your thoughts?
|
Join us.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 09:53 |
It always seems to me that to talk about 'magic' vs 'science' is a categorical mistake. The differences are between religion and science in one field and magic and technology (engineering) in another.
Magic and technology are instrumental activities - aimed at controlling the universe (or as much of it as possible), and their relative success can only be assessed by comparing their effectiveness in producing results.
Religion and science on the other hand are expressive activities - concerned with developing and expressing beliefs about the universe.
To a magician or a technologist it is irrelevant if his beliefs are right - as long they work. To a religious person or a scientist the rightness of his beliefs is all.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 21:13 |
Magic can be scientific, indeed.
A good contemporary "Magician" or "illusionist" is able to apply science to create wonderful tricks. He/She doesn't fool anyone, but entertain and amazes everyone.
Pinguin
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 21:41 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
It always seems to me that to talk about 'magic' vs 'science' is a categorical mistake. The differences are between religion and science in one field and magic and technology (engineering) in another.
Magic and technology are instrumental activities - aimed at controlling the universe (or as much of it as possible), and their relative success can only be assessed by comparing their effectiveness in producing results.
Religion and science on the other hand are expressive activities - concerned with developing and expressing beliefs about the universe.
To a magician or a technologist it is irrelevant if his beliefs are right - as long they work. To a religious person or a scientist the rightness of his beliefs is all. |
Seems to be a clause missing from the second half of this statement, to make them equivalent. Surely it should be,
To a magician or a technologist it is irrelevant if his beliefs are right - as long they work. To a religious person or a scientist the rightness of his beliefs is all - regardless of whether they work.
If I might presume to speculate it.
Glad to see after all this time you're finally leaning towards the ranks of us nihilists. I wonder where we fit on the above example.
Edited by Paul - 30-Apr-2007 at 21:43
|
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 11:24 |
Originally posted by Paul
Originally posted by gcle2003
It always seems to me that to talk about 'magic' vs 'science' is a categorical mistake. The differences are between religion and science in one field and magic and technology (engineering) in another.
Magic and technology are instrumental activities - aimed at controlling the universe (or as much of it as possible), and their relative success can only be assessed by comparing their effectiveness in producing results.
Religion and science on the other hand are expressive activities - concerned with developing and expressing beliefs about the universe.
To a magician or a technologist it is irrelevant if his beliefs are right - as long they work. To a religious person or a scientist the rightness of his beliefs is all. |
Seems to be a clause missing from the second half of this statement, to make them equivalent. Surely it should be,
To a magician or a technologist it is irrelevant if his beliefs are right - as long they work. To a religious person or a scientist the rightness of his beliefs is all - regardless of whether they work.
If I might presume to speculate it.
|
I can take that. I thought I had implied it.
Glad to see after all this time you're finally leaning towards the ranks of us nihilists. I wonder where we fit on the above example.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by a nihilist. Even the Nihilists weren't nihilists.
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 20:03 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Magic can be scientific, indeed.
A good contemporary "Magician" or "illusionist" is able to apply science to create wonderful tricks. He/She doesn't fool anyone, but entertain and amazes everyone.
Pinguin
|
I meant magic based on Harry Potter novel... not clever illusions...
|
Join us.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 20:39 |
Only the magic of clever illusionists exist...
Harry Potter is just fantasy :)
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 23:50 |
Poll question was...
If the war between the muggles and wizards begin, who would win?
Hence, we assume Harry Potter magic is real...
|
Join us.
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Jun-2007 at 11:22 |
Muggles. They'll use human wave tactics.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2011 at 03:01 |
science started as magic!
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2011 at 08:47 |
If you understand how something works, it's science. If you don't, it's magic.
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|