From: oispeggy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic & the Scientific Method? (was Re: Ritual Magick Experiences)
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <29E8D8E5.6578@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@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.  

Disclaimer:  I speak only for myself.  
               I'm a novice and a skeptic too.

>I've seen similar claims from people in
>this forum, namely that magick is a scientific endeavor.  

You should address these people directly.  Don't lump us all together.  We 
never agree on anything anyway.  

I made no such claims about magick being a scientific endeavor.  It is very 
easy to delude oneself with magick, so trying to be "scientific" (IMO) means 
having a healthy dose of skepticism.  

>Well, all Mr.
>Burdorf was asking for was evidence that you magickians follow the
>scientific method.  

You magickians?  *giggle*

I don't follow the scientific method.  In fact, I don't follow any method.  
Don't even like methods.  "Method" implies an organized process or system.  

>So far, no one's said anything that would convince
>me that magick is related to science in the remotest way.

I'm convinced magick is *not* related to science in the remotest way - 
practically speaking.  Philosophically they are related.  (Of course, you can 
relate anything you want to anything else philosophically.)

   I have no reliance
   On virgin or pigeon
   The method of science
   The aim of religion.
                     [or something like that]  A. Crowley
> 
>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.

You probably caught the ouija board nonsense and the tarot-scare nonsense.  
There has been a lot of crap posted lately.

> 
>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.
> 

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

The "great work" in magick is to raise ones' awareness (and to help others 
raise theirs too).

Rumour has it that its possible also to "bend chance."  Note, I make no 
claims about this.

I don't know exactly what you meant by "your belief in the supernatural," but 
my beliefs are nothing like what you imagine.  (I'm not going to explain them 
to the net either, so don't ask - find your own.)

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

Skeptic too,

- Peggy -