From: dwatson@lookout.uswest.com (Darryl D. Watson)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic & the Scientific Method? (was Re: Ritual Magick Experiences)
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:34:33 GMT
Organization: US WEST Communications

In article <29E8D8E5.6578@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
> >mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes...
> >>1)  Come up with a hypothesis
> >>2)  Conduct experiments.  As a result of those experiments
> >>    alter your hypothesis into a theory.
> >>3) Present your results to the world.  Your results will only be accepted
> >>when other people in other places can replicate the results of your
> >>experiments which back up your theory.
> 
> oispeggy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
> >You don't understand what magick is supposed to be.  You obviously
> >haven't made an effort to find out.  If you can't be bothered to find out,
> >then why bother airing your opinions?  Simply jump to your conclusion that we
> >are deluded and not to be trusted, then get lost.  I can live with that.
> 
> C D Burdorf isn't the only one that doesn't understand what "magick" is
> supposed to be.  I'm another.  I've seen similar claims from people in
> this forum, namely that magick is a scientific endeavor.  Well, all Mr.
> Burdorf was asking for was evidence that you magickians follow the
> scientific method.  So far, no one's said anything that would convince
> me that magick is related to science in the remotest way.
> 
Everyone has their own definition of Magick, whether they
believe it is valid or not.

The claims I've seen here are more like 'Magick is Science',
not 'Magick follows the Scientific Method'.

> I've read a lot of articles about "spirits" and "possessions" and
> "summonings," but I've never seen anyone attempt to use the scientific
> method to explain these things.
> 
Most of the active people here do believe in such entities
as spirits.  Therefore, they don't bother to try convincing
each other.

> I personally have nothing against your belief in the supernatural (or what-
> ever you prefer to call it), but please don't call it science unless you
> can show that you follow scientific methods.
> 
Does a 'science' HAVE to follow scientific method?  More
specifically, does a 'soft' science have to adhere to
'hard' science standards of measurement?  Nahhhh.

A proof you want?  Ok.

I was skeptical about the effecacy of casting a circle.
(If you don't know what is meant by casting a circle,
or you would like to know more about it, there are lots
of books about it; I suggest Magick in Theory and Prac-
tice, by A. Crowley)

I decided to conduct an experiment.  I got a friend who
says she is competent at using scry wires (two L shaped
coathanger wires, which can detect electrical and other
fields)to participate.  We went to an open field on a 
windless day, and checked the field for the scry wires
to see if there were any influences already there.  No,
there weren't.

Ok, my friend turns her back, and I (using circle casting
methods) put up a 'wall' in one part of the field.  I
move to another part, then ask her to find the wall.  She
was able to find the wall time after time with the wires.

Next, I turned my back, and she put up walls.  I was able
to detect them.  Hmmm, seems repeatable to me.

Now, got any questions?