From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic & the Scientific Method? (was Re: Ritual Magick Experiences)
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:22:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: PA.1992Apr13.163129.7399
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In Article 3182, Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu) comments on 
the claim made by some people that magical practice can follow scientific 
method :

BV>... isn't the only one that doesn't understand what "magick" is
BV>supposed to be.  I'm another.  I've seen similar claims from people in
BV>this forum, namely that magick is a scientific endeavor.  Well, all Mr.
BV>Burdorf was asking for was evidence that you magickians follow the
BV>scientific method.  So far, no one's said anything that would convince
BV>me that magick is related to science in the remotest way.

I'd like to make a few distinctions that might be of some value here.

Without them (or something intellectually equivalent), there may well be no 
way to resolve the questions around 'scientific magic.'

First, there is the creative cultural activity we call science, which is 
largely based on what is known as scientific method, or the forming and testing
of hypotheses, usually with the end result of producing theories of systematic 
explanatory and predictive power.  

Second, there is the creative personal and 'subcultural' activity of magic, 
which can certainly be considered in some respects to involve scientific
method as well, in the form of building and testing personal hypotheses.

I'd like to divide the question about whether magic is scientific into 
at least two parts :

1.  Can magic be studied scientifically, to understand its operations
	and effects, from the perspective of the detached observer ?

2.  Can magic be performed scientifically, such that the individual
	ritualist observes strict canons of scientific procedure as observed
	in other sciences ?   (With the possible exception of publishing
	and comparing theories in existing scientific literature, which
	many 'scientific magicians' seem to consider unfairly biased).  

#1 is the approach taken in general by the Anthropologist, whose concern is
understanding humanity through study of its diverse practices.  Much of the
classic work about magic, including much of the basis for many actual rituals
comes from Anthropologists.  Their interpretations of what is going on,
of course, may not be accepted by the ritualists, as it is more often than
not very skeptical.   

#2 is the more interesting question to the ritualist.  The answer hinges on
whether they can define their results well enough to be able to test their
hypotheses and integrate their theories.  

Some seem to come close to doing this.  

The obvious question then is what do they gain in coming up with
a separate, parallel set of theories about reality ?

Is a magical universe inherently more personally satisfying than any that 
that the mainstream scientists could possibly build ?  

Or does it reveal a powerful technology (aside from psychological manipulation)
that the mainstream scientists could not duplicate withoug extensive magical 
training ?  (Meaning a practical technology for weather manipulation, and so
on).

So far, I think the answer to the first is likely yes for many people, 
and this is most of the motivation behind its practice.

The second seems a much weaker argument, which is the basis behind a lot of
the skepticism.  There is almost undeniably (from my research) a great deal of
powerful technology within magic for altering personal perception of
reality  --  but whether this in turn also translates to the ability
to manipulate the object world in specific and systematic ways is
more difficult to establish (and I tend to be skeptical).

>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.

There are numerous scientific theories around these things, but of course
most of that is parapsychology more precisely than magic.

>ever you prefer to call it), but please don't call it science unless you
>can show that you follow scientific methods.

Ok, that's a fair challenge.  But remember that it must apply to specific
individuals in specific cases.  As in 'can we follow the reasoning from
premise to conclusion, given some common asumptions ?'  I don't think
it is very worthwhile to solve the problem in general on philosophical
grounds, other than as a language exercise.  

In article 3187, Peggy Brown (oispeggy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) replies to
Brett's skeptical reply with her own :

BV>I personally have nothing against your belief in the supernatural (or what-
BV>ever you prefer to call it), but please don't call it science unless you
BV>can show that you follow scientific methods.

PB>Do you believe that *everything* can be reduced to the scientific method?
PB>I really would like an answer here.

For my part, I believe in the weak form of scientism, which says that 
the best explanations available so far as we know for physical phenomena will 
probably eventually come from systematic (and creative) applications of 
scientific method.  

The strong form of scientism says that the only tool that can ever reveal
truth is scientific method.   Making that distinction helps distinguish
the metaphysical agnostics from the true metaphysical skeptics, who
generally consider the more pejorative connotations of scientism a
compliment.  And also helps to point out the modern ambivalence of
belief.

							todd
Newsgroups: alt.magick