From: bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Magic & the Scientific Method? (was Re: Ritual Magick Experiences)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 17 Apr 92 07:39:09 GMT

dwatson@lookout.uswest.com (Darryl D. Watson) writes:
>Does a 'science' HAVE to follow scientific method?

Yes, by definition.

>More specifically, does a 'soft' science have to adhere to
>'hard' science standards of measurement?  Nahhhh.

What's a soft science?  Science is science is science.  Scientists
follow the scientific method.  If "magick" does not make use of
the scientific method, don't call it science.  Call it something
else.

I have the utmost respect for those people who responded to my article
claiming that they don't believe magick is a science.  I admire their
honesty and respect their devotion to magick.  I don't share it, but
I'm sure that's no skin off their noses.

What I cannot respect is the claim that an "art" or an untestable
set of beliefs is science.  I've seen a couple of articles posted
here, trying to water down the definition of science, saying that
"magick is a science" in the same way that "gardening is a science"
or "skiing is a science."  I personally don't like this flippant
use of the term science to describe something that really isn't
science at all.

>[A bunch of stuff about casting circles and messing with L-shaped
> wires deleted].

Reminds me of divining rods, crop circles and haunted houses.

Wandering into a field and carrying coat-hangers around is not
science.  First you need a theoretical basis that explains
what you've observed.  You need to try other experiments, ones
that are less prone to error than a human carrying a couple
wires.  If you really think you're setting up electric fields,
why don't you test it out by trying to measure a current in a
wire?  Science is precise.  No respectable scientific journal
would publish a report that used the following as evidence:

	"Well, my friend walked around a field with a couple of
	 L-shaped wires, and they repelled one another whenever
	 she entered the area that I cast the spell on."

Science requires data.  It requires a theoretical basis.  It requires
multiple, accurate observations.  It requires repeatability, not just
by you, but by peer scientists.  It requires detailed analysis.  It
requires falsifiability.

I think I can safely conclude that magick is not science (from what
I've seen, read and heard so far).  That does not mean, however, that
I think it is somehow inferior to science.  Someone asked me if I felt
that there were things that could not be observed or described by
science.  My answer is, "I don't know."  My own feeling is that science
will eventually describe almost every phenomenon known to humans, but
of course there is no way I can prove that.  It's just an opinion.

As things stand now, magick does not fall under the scientific paradigm.
Calling it science demeans both science and magick.

--
bvickers@ics.uci.edu | "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there
brett@ucippro.bitnet |  is the danger of oppression." - James Madison