Science is nothing more than magic that actually works.

[Poki]

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.

 

[Poki]

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

 

[Thisica]

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.

 

[Mole]

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?

 

[onemoretime]

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.

 

[Thisica]

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.

 

[onemoretime]

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.

 

[Thisica]

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].

 

[Lark]

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

 

[Octarine]

Nature is nothing more than magic that actually works.

Fixed for you.

 

[Arclight]

Magic is nothing more than science that can't yet be explained.

Existence is magic..

 

[RaptorWizard]

Science is one form of magic that gives us control of the living Force of Creation, focusing the flow of the luminous waters thereof into the shapes of our dreams and then to have it manifest into physical form.

 

[rhinosaur]

Magic implies supernatural to me, and hence not science.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Science is one form of magic that gives us control of the living Force of Creation, focusing the flow of the luminous waters thereof into the shapes of our dreams and then to have it manifest into physical form.

One day a cybernetic Esfp with augmented pheromones is going to have her way with you

 

[sprinkles]

Furfnagle is nothing more than boonstop that actually lefticates.

By furfnagle I mean a rultisicious protzlebop which hapdationalizes via an extended process of hrapdotionalated reftitiftiniffany.

The boonstop is, of course, just blue. Yellow boonstop is absurd and everyone stops believing in it after the age of five.

 

[ygolo]

Magic is illusion. The illusion is maintained by not knowing the secrets of how the illusion was created.

Science "works" if it give explanations that can be used in many contexts. I believe there is a physical basis for all the phenomena that are studied.

Technology "works" if it functions reliably.

See my previous comment about our lack of understanding of the technology we use every day. So, in a sense, there are illusions that technology maintains because of our lack of understanding of the "secrets" involved.

 

[Qlip]

Magic is a historical practice of not completely understood processes to produce an effect.
Magic is a current day practice of illusion to entertain people.
Magic is a manipulation of symbols to affect mental changes.
Magic is a way to describe something wonderful.
Magic is a device used in fantasy, sometimes used as a metaphor, sometimes used as a cool mechanic.
I'm sure there's more.

 

[KDude]

Science is more defined by being a self-correcting method of investigation. It's not defined by what it accomplishes ("magic that works").

 

[swordpath]

What's "magical" about science?

 

[RaptorWizard]

What's "magical" about science?

It controls the Forces of nature at will. Magic is to cause change at will. Both are forms of power over creation by virtue of knowledge, knowledge being power.