Re: Magic vs Science

I think I'm on the magic=will side if thats not too nutshelled. Eventually,
they may achieve the same results. But always a different route. This is why
psionics (an even occaissionally gifted clairvoyant, or similar gifted
person...) often achieve the same results as magic. One is a scientific,
arguably organic ability that seems to be capable of being trained, and the
other seems to be on the philosophical belief system and yet also requires
training. You may get a race of beings out (perhaps mankind someday or
Illithids) there who are capable of external psionic feats and are trained,
but the magi does it when his race doesn't have the ability and he does it
through philosophy. Even sometimes combining the abilities if he is capable of
doing both, as arguably one is an inherent ability in the species' organs and
the other is something he trains himself to do beyond his physical limits.

This brings up the idea of only wild talent psychics learning and doing magic,
which I would disagree with, but might be an idea for a campaign world, and I
would prefer to think of it in those cases as a talent. (This is what stats
are for already). I personally have rewritten the psionic AND magic rules IMC
and now any psionic talents can be used to boost or provide an exceptional
talent in magical arts, but are not required.

I think what I'm saying in symbolic logic is closer to...
if a+b =c, but if d+e also =c it doesn't mean that a,b,d or e are equal or
related to each other, other than in the givens. (Be forgiving, my last class
in this was 14 years ago and remains pretty unused till now!) Different route,
not outcome.