Is there a justification for the nonempiricism of magic?

[mouse]

This is probably a bit off topic, but it probably fits better here than Off-Topic, so I'll put it here.

 

Why is it that so many modern magic users say magic is incompatible with the scientific method? There have been many expirements done and none have come back with any conclusive magic, so how do they justify their belief in it?

What I mean to say is, I've heard claims that magic breaks down under observation, or that it is never the same result twice (if that is the case, is it still predictable?), or that the effects are entirely dependent on belief, &c. Is it internally consistent? There must be some sort of rules it abides by, though, otherwise what would be the point of defining it is a phenomenon? Unless I suppose that one believes that everything they percieve is entirely true...if so, what about hallucinations? Or perhaps they belief the universe is product of our minds and not the other way around? Assuming that'snot the case (or even assuming it is), what is the standard for knowing something is true? In empiricism it's repetition, if it can't be repeated it isn't an actual reflection of reality. (Well, that's not strictly true. If it can't be repeated and is true it means you're using the wrong level of analysis). In logic it's soundness and consistancy.

Is magic a way of gaining knowledge of the world? Certainly, if clairvoyence or astral project were true then it can be used to gain knowledge of the world, but what I mean is, are spells or feats or powers or however they are called the result of the application of some sort of method of knowledge?

 

The reason I'm interested is because I'm interested in self-reinforcing systems of knowledge, like the scientific method, logic, narration, language, religion, ecosystems, memes, &c. I don't belief magic to be real, but it interests me to know if there's a system behind the belief in it.

[Ashikael]

I see "magic" and science as very much compatible. The problem is we just don't have the technology to measure things like astral projection, tulpas, energy work, etc. I see the term "magic" to mean simply "things we can't make sense of with our current knowledge". It was the same throughout history. People considered magnetism to be magic, and further in the past the heavenly bodies were considered magical or even gods, among other things.

 

It can be easy to come right out and say "Oh, none of this magical crap has any basis in reality; there is no quantifiable measurement for them!" but then again, who's to say that one day we won't have the means to measure and observe such forces?

 

On the other hand, I see another branch of "magic" separate from the magic I was describing. For things like tarot cards, psychics, and healing, I see these things as more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you lay out a spread of tarot cards to find the answer to your question, you analyze the meanings of those cards and their positions, and think deeply on your question. Because of this, you wind up putting your own thoughts into order and find an answer in yourself, but place the credit on the cards. The same with psychics. If you're asking a question about your future, you take the "prophecy" you're given and tend to subconsciously work to bring that prophecy to reality, even though you place credit once again on the psychic. Energy healing, reiki, etc, are good ol' fashioned placebos. Not to say that's a bad thing. I think it's great that people can place their own minds in order using these things, and trick their minds into feeling better.

[glitchthe3rd]

The big difference between science and magic is that one is founded on objective fact and can be empirically tested, whereas the other... isn't.

[dillionchurchill]

Magic "breaking down under observation" is not what I would consider a necessary element of magic.

 

In my exploration of typically "impossible" abilities, it has been proven to me time and time again that belief is in itself an active force in our world. This is one of the central principles of chaos magic. Therefore, things of an "impossible" nature can be performed and afterwards observed. However, if your belief system would clash with the observation, THEN we see the break down your talking of.

 

The assumption that beliefs effect reality lead me eventually to the interesting conclusion that when multiple people of the same belief get together, that belief system becomes far more "solid" than if those people were separate. In other words, if you live in a culture where everyone around you believes magic is impossible... to attempt magic would be to directly fight the significant weight that this "belief field" holds. You would be fighting your own beliefs, and you would be fighting theirs.

 

I don't believe magic is incompatible with the scientific method. I believe magic is incompatible with our culture. And as such, magicians are being forced to do what they do in ways that stays WITHIN everyone's belief system. They are forced to play by the rules that millions of people around them create by believing their beliefs.

 

Send a scientist to ancient Tibet, you may have come to a significantly different conclusion.

 

My belief system is NOT that magic only works when no one's looking.

 

My belief system is that human consciousness is deeply involved in how reality acts. That reality is just as pliable as we believe it is. That the placebo effect molds what we experience in a much deeper way than modern understanding thinks. And this, really, is the only reason magic has to "hide" how you describe.

 

And btw, I believe this because of my examination of magic, not in spite of it.

[Enoch327]

There is a story about a physicist and Buddhist monk who debate each other about the universe and then when the debate is over they go have a beer. To me magick and science are compatible and complementary. When science and magick run out of answers, well maybe that is the beginning of Philosophy 101. And facts in science do change, when they get new information. Just in my life comets went from hot rocks to being loosely held together blocks of ice and rock. When I was in middle school, brain cells could not reproduce themselves, now they can. I say let us walk on both legs. The legs of science and magick. And when I get old, hand me the walking cane of philosophy.

[waffles]

Hold on a second magic supporters. I think the OP was wondering why magic doesn't hold up experimentally: you say telepathy is possible and done, but why isn't there reliable experimental evidence? And so on with most other things. But that has nothing to do with measuring the universal energy field or whatever explanation you might have. It's only measuring the result, and coming up negative.

 

The point is more "Why hasn't anyone ever recorded this stuff in a lab?" when so many claim "We can communicate telepathically".

[Flexionsensor]

I don't think that we need technology to observe something like telekinesis. Just make a pickle float in front of Stephen Hawking and you've proved it.

Science isn't a random process which doesn't make any sense, it is just seeing something, thinking about how it works and attempting to recreate it according to your belief. Boom. Science.

The question which Waffles raised is my interpretation of OP's question as well: Why do all these people claim that they can "Make My Tulpa Visible to Others," and "Affect Psionic Energies," and not go to Mr. Local Scientist and demonstrate their abilities?

[GuessWho]

I must say thanks to Ashikael and dillionchurchill for the interesting read.

[dillionchurchill]

To make what I was trying to say in my first post incredibly simple:

 

1. Believing something makes your reality reflect and embody that belief.

2. When this happens on a large scale with many people, it creates a "belief field" where that belief is a very stable reality therein.

3. The VAST majority of people in our modern culture believe magic is impossible, and therefore

4. It will never, ever be "proven" in any scientific way because the incredible majority of people that believe it is impossible MANIFESTS that it is impossible.

 

With this belief structure, of COURSE it will never be proven. Not in our culture. Not like this.

 

So then, how can anyone possibly believe something that the great almighty scientific method can't prove???

 

Surely, that's madness.

 

The part that you're missing there is that most of us who put our faith in metaphysics tend to do so because we've had experiences that make literally no sense WITHOUT breaking down our rigid understanding of physics.

 

Why does someone believe in telepathy? Most often it's because they've done it before. Maybe it was shaky. Maybe they couldn't repeat it. But it was a real experience that likely shocked and amazed them.

 

The vast majority of us with those experiences can't prove them at all. Not to anyone but ourselves. See, that's how it always happens. It's enough to prove it to ourselves. Never enough to prove it to anyone else. Why? Well, of course, because the entire world has its reality-molding beliefs stocked AGAINST IT BEING POSSIBLE. That's an incredibly dense barrier for any of us to break: to invalidate the belief field of the incredible majority.

 

Why do we believe these things? Because we've done it. And we simply aren't going to argue that, because we know what happened. We know we can't prove it to you guys, but we know what happened.

 

OP asked how we justify believing in this stuff. Because scientifically, empirically, we've experienced it. We have conclusively determined through our scientific reasoning that it exists, because that's the only way what we experienced makes sense.

 

Of course we have reason, same as the rest of you do. It's just that with reality the way it currently is, one can only prove magic to himself. That will stay a law of our world until our cultural beliefs shift to allow magic.

[mouse]

Why do we believe these things? Because we've done it. And we simply aren't going to argue that, because we know what happened. We know we can't prove it to you guys, but we know what happened.

 

OP asked how we justify believing in this stuff. Because scientifically, empirically, we've experienced it. We have conclusively determined through our scientific reasoning that it exists, because that's the only way what we experienced makes sense.

 

Of course we have reason, same as the rest of you do. It's just that with reality the way it currently is, one can only prove magic to himself. That will stay a law of our world until our cultural beliefs shift to allow magic.

 

Shouldn't that knowledge still be verifiable empirically? By surveying groups of people and separating them in to groups of those whose belive in magic and those who don't, or finding scientists who believe in magic to preform the expirements, &c. If reality is belief based, surely it would benefit those who believe it is to spread that knowledge? If the expirements were preformed within an entire group that believed they would work, wouldn't they then be repeatable?

 

I am not an empiricist myself, though. And there are multiple ways to look at epistemology. From a Tibetan Buddhist perspective, belief, emotion, and the senses, are all illusions and have no effect on true reality. 'cogito ergo sum' is a fallacy using this system of logic. Wouldn't that be a system which has a fundamental incompatability with the idea of knowing things through the senses/experience?

 

Hold on a second magic supporters. I think the OP was wondering why magic doesn't hold up experimentally: you say telepathy is possible and done, but why isn't there reliable experimental evidence? And so on with most other things. But that has nothing to do with measuring the universal energy field or whatever explanation you might have. It's only measuring the result, and coming up negative.

 

It was both ways, and both ways have been suficiently answered. Thankyou for your responses all of you, they were thought-provoking.