Is there a justification for the nonempiricism of magic?

[waffles]

There's a difference between "the USAF takes it seriously" and "there's one USAF paper about it". They're clearly not taking it seriously enough to do any of their own ezperimetation, nor to find proper references. You can't really dismiss this as "not taking you seriously" - of course, I don't - but that's for lack of evidence, as it always has been.

 

How this actually relates to your "everything is a dream" hypothesis, I don't know. However, you have a very skewed perception of the scientific process. See, when someone makes a new discovery, what they do is write a paper about it. And then other people check that and see if what's written is accurate, and if it is then there's your discovery. That's how it's always happened, and with irrefutable evidence, it's a matter of time. It isn't "let's write a book about it and sell it to fringe amateurs". It's inevitable that every major scientific discovery, however controversial, was published scientifically.

[Zeta]

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?

 

Well, there isn't a justification for it's non-empiricism. But to answer it on my part: I justify my personal belief in magic to my rational brain (which really, really loves science and technology) by pointing out that way, way too many things have happened to me and around me which modern science has no good explanation for (even accounting for what I know of psychology, quantum and regular physics), for me to believe there isn't significantly more to the world than science currently realises or accepts.

 

For me, I notice that after doing something "magical" (Spell, energy work, whatever) I almost always get what I wanted, often in ways which look like Black Swan events. When you see the pattern of "Stuff happens/Do spell to make something else happen/Other thing happens as if it was the only thing in the world that might have happened despite there being no indication on the part of any party involved that it would turn out that way" often enough you eventually just accept that whatever science tries to cram down your throat about 'magical thinking' being in error, there's something odd going on.

 

How does it work? Not a clue, and I don't particularly care so long as I keep getting the results I want. It can all be in my head for all I care, as long as I keep getting the results I want, "how" doesn't matter to me at all.

 

But that's just me. I don't particularly care if anyone else believes in magic, science, religion, Atheism or the like. As long as people leave me alone about my beliefs, I'm pretty happy.

[Slushie]

My point was "here is evidence that the United States Airforce takes the existence of PK very seriously and has for quite some time now." ... The airforce seems to disagree that it leaves no evidence.

I don't see evidence of that. I see evidence that the USAF took teleportation in general seriously enough to commission a preliminary study on the possibilities, and the group they commissioned to do said study included a sketchy, rough, unverifiable section about p-teleportation. If they commissioned follow up studies or experimentation, that would be evidence that they took the concept seriously.

[dillionchurchill]

I fail to understand this.

 

From the start I've been given the following CONSISTENT skeptical response to my claims:

 

1. If magic was verifiable, modern science would have verified it by now.

2. Modern science has not verified it by now.

3. Therefore, magic is non-verifiable.

 

This seems to be the CONSISTENT argument: that it can't be true because science doesn't see it happening.

 

I disagree on major points with BOTH 1 and 2 above, and my point in posting that link AND in referencing The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock was that there are claims that #2 is false.

 

But what is stunning to me is that this entire thread is an exact example of why I believe #1 is also false. Any and every claim to magical principles, no matter how well documented, no matter how thorough, is entirely discarded immediately by the scientific community, PRECISELY how all of my words have been discarded here. Now, the scientific community has good reason to discard all of these claims: because they simply do not fit in the current highly respected scientific model of how reality works. Magic can't be true because there's no place for it in our current reductionist understanding of this world.

 

This sort of confirmation bias to protect our beloved model of the world is exactly why any and every experiment conducted by any scientist regardless of how respected draws instant contempt from the entire scientific community. Is it any wonder it hasn't been proven yet? My claim from the beginning was that with our current cultural attitude it cannot be proven.

 

There are endless personal accounts from people all around the globe, from all walks of life, of mysterious events happening that do NOT fit in that scientific model. I finally began opening up to metaphysics when I realized that the claims of its truth were FAR more prevalent than I would expect them to be if it were false. So what did I do? I found out for myself.

 

Science is NOT about discarding data that does not fit with your model. When I found the vast sea of eye-witness testimonies of supernatural phenomena, I decided to see for myself, BECAUSE SCIENCE. Because science is ABOUT testing those things that don't fit in your model. If you find them wrong, your model is stronger. If you find them right, you expand and adjust and your model is truer. Search for yourself, you'll find endless testimonies of the potency of magical principles, plenty enough to make you wonder how solid that model is. But as I've said from the start, YOU WONT BELIEVE IN IT TILL YOU DO IT YOURSELF.

 

And that's science. These responses showcased in this thread are exactly why every published case of metaphysics study is shot to pieces until it's considered garbage. Of course it will never be proven like this. I believe because I experimented, and I found the truth for myself. You can find an arbitrarily large number of testimonies, and you can find endless science claiming to utterly debunk them all. But in the end, the ever-present existence of those cases [including this source I've linked and many others] weigh much more to me than a community trying to defend its model.

 

I fail to understand, how you can proclaim the scientific method against these endless claims, and not be incredibly curious as to why the claims ARE endless. Scientific curiosity brought me here, and since it doesn't fit in the generally accepted model, that means it's obviously anti-scientific.

 

I suppose I understand if that's not enough for you. I was plenty for me, to make me question, because as is a quality of true science, I wanted to know why.

[Chupi]

Having been on both sides of this myself, I must say that neither complete belief nor complete disbelief is entirely logical. Believing all claimed abilities possible is accepting something as true without evidence, and there are many frauds out there. Believing none of it is possible also assumes without evidence, and possibly rejects good evidence to protect your current belief.

 

---

 

For most of my life I've been on the complete disbelief side. I believed the universe can be understood, although there are still unknowns. I saw both religion, magic and superstition as old tools developed to explain what was not known. As science advances and explains more things empirically, reproducibly and provably, the realm of the old tools shrinks.

 

Diseases once thought to be caused by evil spirits or energy imbalances are now known to be the work of bacteria and viruses. Prayers and spells sometimes appear to cure them, but inaction does too and at pretty much comparable rates. Meanwhile antibiotics and vaccines do it far more reliably, to the extent of all but wiping out some diseases.

 

The list of comparisons goes on and on. The old ways produce illusions and small effects explainable by confirmation bias; science produces cures, computers, airplanes and rocketships. So, I followed what the scientific community says. They seem to know what they're talking about -- look at all the things they've accomplished. And they say that things like magic, ESP, telepathy, telekinesis, etc. are impossible; and how could they be possible? The brain doesn't contain an antenna for any known form of energy, much less a way to manipulate matter outside of itself directly (apart from by moving the body, obviously). Of course I also subscribed to the argument in this thread: If it works and we've known about it for thousands of years, why hasn't it been proven yet?

 

Knowing a bit about stage magic and special effects showed me ways that just about everything could be faked convincingly. Mirrors, misdirection, sleight of hand, having someone in on the trick, cold readings, etc. Videos demonstrating something paranormal could easily be faked with a little editing where normal in-person trickery couldn't pull it off. Many times, randomly occurring odd combinations of light, shadow, dust and so forth can make someone think they've seen something out of the ordinary, and even capture it on film.

 

So, this sets up strong beliefs as to what is and is not possible, all reinforced by statements from trusted authorities, hard evidence (lack of people doing impossible things), evidence of ways most of it could be faked, and logic. Sure, I'd heard some claims of odd things happening or people who could do stuff I'd deemed impossible. When I would hear about one such claim, I would try to figure out the logical explanation. If there wasn't one, either I was missing some trick, missing some of the facts, someone was crazy / deluding themself, or it was a lie. All of these were easier to believe than that something this impossible had happened. As Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

 

In short, I completely shut out any evidence that went against my beliefs, under the guise of thinking logically.

 

---

 

Only recently have I come to accept these things as possible. I still believe a lot of the world can be understood and that science is the best tool with which to do it. But so much is still unknown, especially about ourselves, that we can't legitimately say something is impossible. A few things brought me over to this side:

• Tulpae and science; even DID/MPD are still fairly controversial. I already knew science wasn't infallible, but being able to create something that's definitely here but that few even acknowledge as remotely possible, really drove the point home in a personal way.
  
• My battle against tulpa doubts, which has led me to examine how I process doubt. I can get an occasional response that's so alien feeling that it's definitely not me, yet shortly after I still feel those same nagging doubts from deep inside as to the strength and realness of my tulpae. The moment of realization came when I looked back at a memory of seeing my first tulpa fully imposed, if only for an instant. This happened without trying to see her, and went counter to a long-held assumption: that I perceive what is physically there. The doubt process and the fact it went against a strong subconscious assumption made the memory of it feel fake and logically false, in the same way that claims of weird happenings feel like BS. I've therefore begun to question this form of "logic" that appears to value what I know over what even I myself have experienced. (Now that I see it work like this, it doesn't seem very different from those people I can't stand who reject mountains of evidence that go against the unsubstantiated claim they believe in.)
  
• Forge. He shifted my view of claimed metaphysical abilities from "this is something a select few can do with years of intense training", to "this something you can do pretty easily". Rather than choosing whether to take someone's word on it or try to get enough people with legit abilities to do a study proving it, it became something I can try out on my own without too much difficulty. I've always liked do-it-yourself experiments.
  

 

At present, I haven't practiced meta stuff enough to have any definite evidence, even anecdotal personal evidence. When I have good focus, I can move energy around inside me and make parts of the body feel warmer. I'm pretty sure that at least some of the time it's real heat, but this could just as easily be attributed to subconscious control of metabolism rate and circulation. If I push energy to one hand or the other, it tingles in an odd way I haven't felt before, but again, could be a placebo effect. I tried astral projection (or rather Lyra did and brought me) without being given too much on what to expect. I experienced some odd effects that I was later informed practically everyone gets when doing it, but I didn't go someplace I can prove is in a shared astral realm. I could just as easily have gone someplace weird in my wonderland.

 

So, in the absence of personal evidence that this is real, and having discarded the way of thinking that convinced me it can't be, I am left with a definite "I don't know".

[waffles]

1. If magic was verifiable, modern science would have verified it by now.

2. Modern science has not verified it by now.

3. Therefore, magic is non-verifiable.

I'm sorry, could you quote me on that one? I have said that before, but I don't think I did here or to you.

It's not about disproof. It's about burden of proof. Magic is currently non-verifiable because of the lack of reliable evidence for it.

 

I disagree on major points with BOTH 1 and 2 above, and my point in posting that link AND in referencing The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock was that there are claims that #2 is false.

I'll try to be fair, and I'll get hold of a copy to see what you're talking about. However, David Wilcock is not a physicist; he has a BA in psychology from New York University, which is alright I guess but not what I would be after. A career history on Wikipedia doesn't tell me anything about working in research institutes, but he is apparently quite the TV personality, with appearances in Coast to Coast AM, and Ancient Aliens. I can't see anything for papers written by him, but he has written "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?", and the upcoming "The Synchronicity Key". Which brings me to my last point. This guy claims to be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce.

I'm not really trying to smear his character, and I will take a look at what he has to say, but just bear in mind that he is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

But what is stunning to me is that this entire thread is an exact example of why I believe #1 is also false. Any and every claim to magical principles, no matter how well documented, no matter how thorough, is entirely discarded immediately by the scientific community, PRECISELY how all of my words have been discarded here. Now, the scientific community has good reason to discard all of these claims: because they simply do not fit in the current highly respected scientific model of how reality works. Magic can't be true because there's no place for it in our current reductionist understanding of this world.

Why don't you pass me some of these well-documented claims. Don't blame the failings of your evidence on other people; being critical is important, and if your evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny then that's your evidence's fault. 

 

This sort of confirmation bias to protect our beloved model of the world is exactly why any and every experiment conducted by any scientist regardless of how respected draws instant contempt from the entire scientific community. Is it any wonder it hasn't been proven yet? My claim from the beginning was that with our current cultural attitude it cannot be proven.

I'm just wondering what you call 'dismissal'. See, calling something unreliable because it is is perfectly valid criticism. There are major paradigm shifts in most disciplines fairly frequently. Take a look at physics around 100 years ago, when the model of the atom kept constantly shifting. Did Rutherford et al. ignore evidence that contradicted the (then) current model?

 

There are endless personal accounts from people all around the globe, from all walks of life, of mysterious events happening that do NOT fit in that scientific model. I finally began opening up to metaphysics when I realized that the claims of its truth were FAR more prevalent than I would expect them to be if it were false. So what did I do? I found out for myself.

Well done for doing your own testing. However, there are thousands of UFO sightings every year. About 400 a year in the UK alone. This is anecdotal evidence and not necessarily reliable.

 

Science is NOT about discarding data that does not fit with your model. When I found the vast sea of eye-witness testimonies of supernatural phenomena, I decided to see for myself, BECAUSE SCIENCE. Because science is ABOUT testing those things that don't fit in your model. If you find them wrong, your model is stronger. If you find them right, you expand and adjust and your model is truer. Search for yourself, you'll find endless testimonies of the potency of magical principles, plenty enough to make you wonder how solid that model is. But as I've said from the start, YOU WONT BELIEVE IN IT TILL YOU DO IT YOURSELF.

From what I've gleaned from conversations with so-called psions, most of what they do is more towards things like energy field manipulation and the like. That's not something verifiable in any aspect. I was looking for telekinesis but apparently that's all fishing wire. I think there was some vague telepathy too.

What exactly do you mean here by "it"? What did you do to find out, and what did you find out?

 

And that's science. These responses showcased in this thread are exactly why every published case of metaphysics study is shot to pieces until it's considered garbage. 

You mean because they are usually too unreliable, one way or another, to be acceptable?

 

Of course it will never be proven like this. I believe because I experimented, and I found the truth for myself. You can find an arbitrarily large number of testimonies, and you can find endless science claiming to utterly debunk them all. But in the end, the ever-present existence of those cases [including this source I've linked and many others] weigh much more to me than a community trying to defend its model.

 

I fail to understand, how you can proclaim the scientific method against these endless claims, and not be incredibly curious as to why the claims ARE endless. Scientific curiosity brought me here, and since it doesn't fit in the generally accepted model, that means it's obviously anti-scientific.

Like I said, there are UFO sightings aplenty. That doesn't make me wonder if there are UFOs.

[dillionchurchill]

I'm sorry, could you quote me on that one?

 

It seemed more or less implicit. Most of the time, the argument given to me was "science has no evidence of this." Those 3 statements I listed represent the argument implied by that statement. Do they not?

 

David Wilcock is not a physicist

 

Fair enough, though he will tell you himself that his is the work of synthesis. Wilcock did not perform the experiments or document them. His goal was to assimilate as many different sources as he could that seem to defy modern understanding of reality and put them all in one spot. His goal was to try to establish a theory of how and why all this was happening. And yes, he does claim to be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. But take a walk in his view of how reality works before you judge that statement too much. Things get wild.

 

Why don't you pass me some of these well-documented claims. Don't blame the failings of your evidence on other people; being critical is important, and if your evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny then that's your evidence's fault.

 

...I'm just wondering what you call 'dismissal'. See, calling something unreliable because it is is perfectly valid criticism. There are major paradigm shifts in most disciplines fairly frequently. Take a look at physics around 100 years ago, when the model of the atom kept constantly shifting. Did Rutherford et al. ignore evidence that contradicted the (then) current model?

 

Both of these remarks miss my point. No matter how you dismiss the validity of any particular claim, the persistence of the NUMBER of claims to paranormal instances out there remains a potent motivator in my opinion, to question the validity of the science that "disproves" them.

 

From what I've gleaned from conversations with so-called psions, most of what they do is more towards things like energy field manipulation and the like. That's not something verifiable in any aspect. I was looking for telekinesis but apparently that's all fishing wire. I think there was some vague telepathy too.

What exactly do you mean here by "it"? What did you do to find out, and what did you find out?

I've always liked do-it-yourself experiments.

 

If they were in fact "psions", then yes, by definition, those are people who explore energy field manipulation. Though it actually MAY be verifiable in some form. I'd be curious to see if there was any electromagnetic/lightwave phenomena going on in parallel to the energy field.

 

Yes, telekinesis is easy to fake. It didn't take me long to realize that looking for video proof meant nothing. There's no way to prove on the internet that you moved something with your mind alone. In the end, your belief in telekinesis has to lie either in your faith in others' stories... or in experimenting for yourself in an environment you know WASN'T fake. So, if putting faith in the claims of someone else is too much of a stretch, you gotta go make a psi-wheel, put it under glass, and give it some time. That's what I did. I even got it on video. It's a shame, but as evidence, the video is worthless to everyone except those who simply believe I didn't fake it.

 

My favorite when I was first getting into metaphysics was chance-manipulation, since it was so easy to do myself. I do recommend it, Chupi. If you don't know whether to believe in metaphysics, simply go grab a quarter and start flipping it. Or play with a random number generator. Try to use your intentions or emotions or anything mental you want, to choose a particular outcome. This never proves anything solid, but the fact that any outcome is possible makes it much easier to bypass your doubt, meaning your influence over the object is more easily observed. You'll see it in BOTH success and failure. You'll see the coin respond positively to your positive emotions, and negatively to your negative ones.

 

The obvious downside of doing this yourself to find out the truth is that these experiments are only conclusive if they succeed. In the case of chance manipulation, it's technically never conclusive. If you fail, you haven't proved or disproved anything. I didn't care, personally. I wanted to know, one way or another.

 

Turns out, it WAS conclusive for me. Go make yourself some anecdotes! Like Forge told you, Chupi, none of it is actually that hard. You just have to do it!

 

Like I said, there are UFO sightings aplenty. That doesn't make me wonder if there are UFOs.

 

Actually, I DO wonder at the persistence of these reports. Though for me, I tinker with more consciousness-based explanations than the concept of aliens visiting Earth. To each his own.

[waffles]

It seemed more or less implicit. Most of the time, the argument given to me was "science has no evidence of this." Those 3 statements I listed represent the argument implied by that statement. Do they not?

No, they don't. Let me make it clear then:

• Science has no evidence
  
• There is no reason to believe this
  
• Burden of proof Mr. Occam etc. so why believe in magic?
  

That's all there is to it. I should clarify that when you bring in personal experience, this argument ceases to be universal. Nevertheless, that's what I intended, and what I thought was obvious.

 

he does claim to be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce

He is great. I'm sure he's just having a laugh on that one anyway, so I won't pay too much attention to it.

 

Both of these remarks miss my point. No matter how you dismiss the validity of any particular claim, the persistence of the NUMBER of claims to paranormal instances out there remains a potent motivator in my opinion, to question the validity of the science that "disproves" them.

Not really. If you bring up a load of claims and I can dismiss them, then if anything that makes me think that the rest of the claims are going to be similar. I'm aware that there are a lot of 'crazy' people out there however you define crazy, so there being so many claims doesn't pique my interest so much.

 

play with a random number generator. Try to use your intentions or emotions or anything mental you want, to choose a particular outcome

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll try this.

 

Actually, I DO wonder at the persistence of these reports. Though for me, I tinker with more consciousness-based explanations than the concept of aliens visiting Earth. To each his own.

Oh, you would love this paper.

[dillionchurchill]

Not really. If you bring up a load of claims and I can dismiss them, then if anything that makes me think that the rest of the claims are going to be similar. I'm aware that there are a lot of 'crazy' people out there however you define crazy, so there being so many claims doesn't pique my interest so much.

 

What gets me about these "loads of claims" though is not whether they are any sort of hard evidence. What I see there is that those many many people all must have SOME reason to make these claims. If they are straight up lying, then perhaps they are seeking attention. But it always seemed like that wasn't enough. My investigations into metaphysics were prompted by the incredible number of claims, because this implied to me that there had to be SOMETHING motivating these people to make claims they KNEW would be considered outrageous.

 

Of course the number doesn't PROVE anything, but it DID make me highly curious, even to the point of skepticism in the scientific rigidity with which we dismiss all those claims. As I have said, my curiosity was rewarded.

 

I'm aware of the mass of crazy people. But to me, that wasn't enough, especially since many of these people seemed entirely sober in all other respects.

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll try this.

 

I wish you luck as you go to practice luck! Anyone can do it... I believe we always ARE doing it. I'd be curious to hear how it goes, though I think you know well enough to give it a good few tries before you call anything conclusive. Even if it works with astonishing accuracy for you on the first try, you're still gonna have doubts about it. Best to play it casual and have fun with it.

[Slushie]

Of course the number doesn't PROVE anything

You're right, it doesn't. It's not empirical evidence. Which is what the topic of this thread is.