Re: Magic vs Science

>Perhaps you should define more concretely what you mean by Magic... I get
>the feeling we are saying the same thing but semantics are keeping
>agreement/understanding at bay.
>          ---Steve

I think I need to define science more clearly rather then Magic:)  At
anyrate, while interesting I can't keep this debate up, it's slowed down my
PBEM games and actual work considerably:)

So, final points and definitions:

Science: Natural Phenonemon follow standardized rules which may or may not
be known to the observer but which are all, in theory, discoverable.
"Will", outside the actions and observations of sentient species (and,
according to some social scientists even then), plays no rule in the
workings of the universe.  A rock is a rock (the object itself, not the
catagorical name we applied to it) because of the various physical laws
which cause the materials and energies which comprise it to result in these
specific characteristics.  Not because it wants to be a rock.

Scientific Process: A standardized way of exploring the unknown. An
observational tool.  The method assumes what is beining studied follows the
laws of "science" above but that does not require that what is being
studied must be a science. The tool used for observation cannot logically
force the subject to be what it whishes.

Magic: Phenonemon which, ultimately are solely the result of will.  May
appear regular, even scientific but ultimately do not follow any law except
that of "Will".  Magic is because it wants to be. This process can be seen
clearly, in _theory_, in the Mythopoeic intelectual framework of Ancient
Man.

BTW, I disagree with Tandem's arguements about experiments showing the
world to be an inherently Subjective place, lacking Objective reality. As I
said in another post, the nature of mankind precludes any possibility of us
proving or disproving the objective or subjective nature of reality. Such
proofs are a logical impossibility (the exercise starts with an unprovable
assumption). I personally strongly _believe_ that reality is objective,
but I cannot prove it.  It's a simple question of faith or philsophical
belief (I tend to be a Platonic, myself).

Well, this is my last post on the subject, as I said above, but I would
reccomend Frankfort's _The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man_ to those
who wish to explore the mythopoeic mindset more.

Apologies to all for drifting so far off-topic. I'll make it up with some
SJ material soon!:)

"We look on the same stars,  the sky is common,  the same world surrounds
us.  What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth?  We
can not attain to so great a secret by one road..."
Symmachus,  "Memorial on the Occasion of the Removal of the Altar of
Victory from the Senate House" (392 AD)

Paul Westermeyer,  westermeyer.3@???.edu
Phd Candidate, History, Ohio State
Adjunct Faculty, Humanities Department, Columbus State Community College