User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 71

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Analyze the validity of that sentence.
    It is saying that science is a subset of "magic". the subset is "the part that actually works". I would argue that magic that doesnt work isnt actually magic at all. For magic to be magic it has to work as magic contains 2 parts. "The affect" and "the lack of understanding from the person who experiences it". Magic that doesnt work loses the affect there making it "not magic"

    So in essence since science is a subset of magic that works and magic that doesnt work isnt magic, then using math here science is equal to magic as the part that isnt magic was just subtracted and all we have left is science is nothing more then magic.

    Thereoms can be used to prove anything when you create the statements that theorems are based off of

    edit: if science IS nothing more then magic then magic can be more, but not always. Then "science" is subset of magic. Now what the subset is is still up in the air. So this statement is valid since science is based on understanding which means that it can be more, but may actually be equal to science. We will always have people who dont understand so we cant have science without magic as the thing that is science will always start with magic.


    Magic according to webster:
    1mag·ic noun \ˈma-jik\
    Definition of MAGIC
    1a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
    2a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment
    Bolded is the key word in this definition.
    Im out, its been fun

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Star trek is science and not magic because all the research was done to attempt to explain how all the technology works. Its believed to be understood. Then we have a simple teleportation spell thats magic, where all we focus on is the use and affect not the understading
    Im out, its been fun

  3. #43
    Senior Member Thisica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    There is a big difference between science and technology. It's not splitting hairs.
    What about chemistry? It's a technology that has become scientific.
    “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.”—Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to the Opticks (1704) by Newton.

    What do you think about me? And for the darker side, here.

  4. #44
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Smile

    Science is based on evidence and reason, while magic is based on illusion and gullibility.

    On the other hand, magic is based on the suspension of disbelief which underlies all art and religion.

    So take your pick - evidence and reason or the suspension of disbelief?

  5. #45
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Science is based on evidence and reason, while magic is based on illusion and gullibility.

    On the other hand, magic is based on the suspension of disbelief which underlies all art and religion.

    So take your pick - evidence and reason or the suspension of disbelief?
    Ah, but for the scientific method to work, we have to suspend our disbelief that the world has rules, and is knowable. Then, we get to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which at its core, states that the universe has no rules, but tendencies, and is ultimately unknowable. At the end of the line, evidence and reason point out that there is no evidence, nor is there reason.

    So you can see why magical thinking never truly went away.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Thisica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    384

    Exclamation Assumptions about science and its connection with ignorance

    That the universe works uniformly by the descriptions that we have by physics is a conclusion we draw, not an assumption that we make.

    The real assumptions in science that we make are:
    1) the world exists outside of our own subjective experiences
    2) we can understand how the world works, to some degree

    Anything else is up for grabs.

    More to the truth: it's technology, rather than science, that is "nothing more than magic that actually works".

    I honestly think that the words "science", "technology" and "magic" have been either mangled to the point of meaninglessness, or that no one seems to get the distinction. Science is not a something that one can use in the same way you can with technology. It's a set of methodologies that we use to understand the world in a coherent, rational and empirical manner. One can stretch the meaning of science so as to involve technology, but then why mention the word "science" in the first place?

    As for magic...what constitutes magic? It does seem to have a moving goalpost definition, as I have seen in the posts in this thread.

    Ah, but for the scientific method to work, we have to suspend our disbelief that the world has rules, and is knowable. Then, we get to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which at its core, states that the universe has no rules, but tendencies, and is ultimately unknowable. At the end of the line, evidence and reason point out that there is no evidence, nor is there reason.

    So you can see why magical thinking never truly went away.
    You're more wrong than you think. The universe may act counterintuitive to how we think it should work, but hey! We're supposed to understand how the world works with as little prejudice as possible. Otherwise, how can we even state Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? If the universe had, as you said, "no rules, but tendencies, and is ultimately unknowable", then what makes science possible? It can't be magic, right? And how do you know that the universe "ultimately unknowable"? It does sound pretentious, to be frank. Simply because we don't know stuff doesn't mean we throw in the towel.

    Richard Feymann was semi-joking that "no one understands quantum mechanics": he knew that we know about it...it's that we don't have an intuitive feel for it that makes us say that we don't understand it. The ultimate reason we don't have a feeling for quantum mechanics is that our ancestors lived in environments that didn't require such understanding. Evolutionarily speaking, our ancestors would have been toast if they had this knowledge competing with the environment.
    “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.”—Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to the Opticks (1704) by Newton.

    What do you think about me? And for the darker side, here.

  7. #47
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thisica View Post
    Richard Feymann was semi-joking that "no one understands quantum mechanics": he knew that we know about it...it's that we don't have an intuitive feel for it that makes us say that we don't understand it. The ultimate reason we don't have a feeling for quantum mechanics is that our ancestors lived in environments that didn't require such understanding. Evolutionarily speaking, our ancestors would have been toast if they had this knowledge competing with the environment.
    He wasn't joking. He was stating specifically that quantum mechanics makes no fucking sense, and that the best we can do is describe it. Then, with these descriptions, the best we can do is make predictions of probabilities. When the last hundred years of science was about how it makes the world predictable, making the admission that the best we can do is come up with probability is a pretty big statement.

    We have a model for quantum mechanics. It works pretty well, most of the time. Yet, we still have that huge gap between quantum mechanics and space-time.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Thisica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    384

    Default

    But we have always predicted things with probability and are willing to say that we don't know, after all. Hence the use of error bars and statistical analysis in research papers. We always say in science that some prediction is accurate within some uncertainty.

    It may be just a fact that the universe is fundamentally unpredictable. But it's just a fact. Nothing much implies from that. If anyone reads too much into this fact, then it's an indication that they don't understand how science works: we don't stick values onto how the universe works. The universe just is...and our interpretation [which would not be scientific] is limited by our natural history [i.e our personal and evolutionary past].
    “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.”—Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to the Opticks (1704) by Newton.

    What do you think about me? And for the darker side, here.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Maybe the products or applications of science are magic, I agree with the statement.

  10. #50
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Nature is nothing more than magic that actually works.
    Fixed for you.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Do NFs focus on what is said more than most people?
    By JFrombaugh in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 03:01 PM
  2. [NF] INFJ-INFP relationships: share and discuss tools/insights that actually *work* for us
    By Werebudgie in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-12-2014, 04:21 PM
  3. continental philosophy nothing more than poetics?
    By velocity in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 10:11 PM
  4. Ethics is nothing other than...
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 07:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO