From: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Allen Kampe)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Scientific basis for magic. (FAQ material?)
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:29:35 GMT
Reply-To: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo.west.sun.com

> However, as I replied to others in the past, I am
>not interested in the 'rigors' of modern Science because it has become
>a one-worldview circus of materialism.  

	If you are not interested in the rigors of modern science, 
	then why did you offer your thesis in the rogorous form of
	a proof? 

	If you are not interested in the rigors of modern science,
	then why do you want to prove that your magickal researches
	constitute a modern science.

	Either "be a modern science" or "don't be a modern science".
	Decide which you want to be and then do it.

> I tried to
>stave off this objection by stating that 'Science' and 'Magick' ought
>be seen in their historical meanings.  Perhaps this is insufficient,

	One of the keys to successful communication is to speak
	the same language that your audience does.  To use words
	with other than their commonly understood meanings is not
	conducive to good communication.

>yet I would like to see your proposal for an 'open-ended corroboration'
>which does not negate subjective science.

	The notion of independent corroboration is applicable to
	clean predictions.  Science makes many such clean predictions
	and they are routinely tested.  Magickers seldom make such
	predictions and so are not often subject to simple test.  I
	feel that this has more to do with the nature of "human
	skills" than it does with the nature of "magick".

	Let me give you two examples of esoteric skills, one arcane
	and one mundane:

		My father has been able to invoke evil spirits
		to cause unpleasant neighbors to move out of their
		home.

		I am able to reliably write efficient massively
		parallel multi-threaded code with very limited
		use of exclusion.

	In each case, detailed instructions can be written down,
	and students can study it.  In each case, the students will
	be unable to reproduce the master's feat?  Is this because
	the instructions were humbug?  No, it is because the power
	was not in the words, but in the practicianer who spoke them.
	
	Human skills are acquired, developed and exercised under
	very complex situations that do not admit of controlled
	experimentation.  In the end, it is not the "ritual" but
	the experience, discipline, aptitude and skill of the
	practicianer who determine the outcome of an experiment.

	This does not violate any laws of science, but it is not
	particularly subject to scientific inquiry.

>It sounds like your are
>simply supporting 'social-reality' and therefore not speaking about
>true Science at all.

	I did not attempt to impugn your thesis by likening your
	claims to some stupid doctrine, or saying that you didn't
	know what you were talking about.

>Which 'TSM' are you speaking of here?  I'd like to know what type of
>phenomena is NOT studied using the TSM *I* defined (really a theory
>of learning, which is imperative to ALL study).

	I was speaking of TSM whose steps you elaborated in your
	proof.  Many intelligent students of phenomenology have
	used less rigorous approaches.  The Aristotelians, for
	instance, utterly rejected the premise that experiment
	and observation were valid means for evolving and pruning
	scientific theories.  They were "idealists" who believed
	that "only the mind" was capable of discerning the true
	nature of the universe, and that our world was corrupt
	anyway, so experiments on this world had no bearing on
	the true ways of things.

>Remember, this is my pet theory you're critiquing.  I'm bound to fight
>very fiercely before admitting inadequacies in it.  I feel that you
>have an advantage, but that your position is failing quickly.

	I have no desire to "fight" with someone who is "fiercely"
	defending a "pet theory".  Getting you to "admit inadequacies"
	will not help me down my own path.

	If you want to discuss questions like "what is scientific
	inquiry" and "pragmatic world views that can encompass
	arcane pursuits" I am very intested.  If you want to defend
	your pet theory, I suggest that you just declare a victory
	and have done with it.
Xref: sparky alt.magick:4945 alt.pagan:10229 alt.religion.all-worlds:82