From: mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:33:57 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

In article <1wi9iB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> saracen@netlink.cts.com (Ann Olson) writes:
>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
>
>From: mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf)
>

>
>>Atomic Power and Black Holes are pretty stong evidence to back up
>>Einstein's theories.
>
>but they still have not been proven or disproven...one can have all the
>evidence in the world but unless it can be shown that the Theory is
>true in every possible case it will not be considered Law.

Yeah sure.  We can really nitpick here if you want to and say that
all proofs are invalid, because they are based on definitions that
we don't agree with.

>
>More what I was thinking of was his -theorum- (another one of those theorums
>that can never be truly proven because it describes an infinite set (all
>axiomatic systems...including those yet to be created)...it can
>only be disproven)...that all axiomatic systems are incomplete. The
>Scientific method is an axiomatic system and therefor can not be complete by
>this theorum...but who knows, someone may yet disprove Godel's Theorum.
>

I was talking more about proof based on experimentation, rather than
axioms.  I'm not for one minute suggesting that the existence of magick
can be proven axiomatically.  

>>How then do
>>you propose that we determine whether someone is telling the truth or not?
>
>I don't...and -I- (and I myself, you don't have to) rarely worry about it..
>I just look out for the case in which someone may be lying to me...so that
>I am not harmed by it.

Exactly.  How then do you look out for a case for when someone is lying?
Usually, you look for evidence to back up what they are saying.

>
>>The scientific method has been used to prove the existence of psychic powers.
>>Why shouldn't it be able to prove the results of magick as well.  All you have
>>to do is have a series of rituals and show that the desired result was
>>acheived at a consistency that substantially exceeds the laws of
>>probability.  That's how they did it with psychic powers.

>
>Again...evidence does -not- equal proof (no matter how much of it you have
>because evidence can -not- include every element of an infinite set...in
>this case the infinite set of variables involved with the human mind).
>Also how do you measure this since quite often the results are extremely
>subjective. Evidence is very useful in convincing someone of the validity
>of an hypothesis/theorum, but it is not proof.
>

Depends on your definition of proof.  If you mean a mathematical proof,
then I agree with you.  I mean the kind of "proof beyond a resonalbe doubt"
kind of proof.  The theory of evolution is rather widely accepted, because
the evidence backing it up is rather overwhelming.

>I, myself, use magick on a daily basis (not ritual magick...still working
>on that) but most of that is extremely subjective and also very personal...
>and I can't really see any particular reason why I should subject the
>entire net to my ramblings :}... that and after seeing the ferocity
>and frequency of Auto-de-fe's about these parts I really don't want
>to open myself up to becoming the next chef's special simply because my
>definition of magick may not coincide with others :}.
>

WIMP!