Re: Magic vs Science

Actually, in the experiment the two teams finally met on the west coast and
found when they worked together the most extraordinary thing happened. When
setting up an apparatues that would test for the light being EITHER wave OR
particle they noticed that the system behaved erratically. It was one of the
research assistants who suggested that they put their opinions down on a piece
of paper and put them in a hat.
 The number of Wave answers was three higher and the experiment registered
wave. They tried this 16 times (the number of people in the room) counting the
paper votes each time and in each case except one the majority vote went with
the apparatus' eventual reading immediately after the votes were cast.
Subjective reality not subjective perception was their point (although I agree
perception is far more subjective! Ask the witnesses to a traffic accident!)

It sounds like Steve is saying that magic is science as yet undefined as such.
I disagree, but understand the viewpoint. I'm saying that if it is called
magic now because of the process it uses, no matter how scientific or
unscientific, it will always be magic, even if later somone decides to call it
science. The practitioners consider it magic because of the process involved,
not because the people who don't understand it call it so.

Additionally, those same people may later achieve the same thing through
technology (a different route) and say that magic is a science and will still
be wrong because it uses a different process. Even if they come to understand
it. Practitioners have always understood it and still called it magic, even
though they may argue that it is not so unscientific when faced with scoffs.
If you're calling it science because it is often scientific or because someone
makes a science out of it (i.E. Parapsychology or Metaphysics) it doesn't make
the NON-empirical magic a science because again it uses a different process
thet inherently relies on and has always relied upon that process which has
also in turn relied upon that subjective worldview.
-Kurt