Do You Believe in Magic?

[CleverNickName]

For the sake of argument...

There is no physical reason that a sugar pill would help people recover from certain illnesses, yet there are thousands of cases where a sugar pill does exactly this. The placebo effect has no physical proof...it is truly "all in your head"...yet it exists. Same thing for the nocebo effect, self-fulfilling prophecy, mass psychogenic illness, the Pygmalion effect, etc. These things can be measured, observed, and predicted...but not with physics or mathematics.

Perhaps what our ancestors called "magic" is something similar...it may be "all in your head," yet it affects your body and your environment all the same.

I'm not a psychologist or a psychology student, and I'm sure that either one of those could destroy my argument in short order. And I really don't believe that magic exists, even hypothetically. But this discussion thread is just too interesting for me to sit here quietly.

 

[Umbran]

These things can be measured, observed, and predicted...but not with physics or mathematics.

Yes, but physics and mathematics are no the only sciences. Chemistry, biology, and psychology all have their places, too - and they are not commonly considered "magic"

 

[Walknot]

Could be that magic does exist, but not such as we have seen proof recently. That's one reason to vote "maybe"; simply being open to the possibility that magic could happen sometime in the future.

Anything you can imagine is possible. If you say that magic is impossible, maybe you can not imagine it? Or, could be a "realist" will discount the highly unlikely as simply impossible, to keep things tidy?

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, but physics and mathematics are no the only sciences. Chemistry, biology, and psychology all have their places, too - and they are not commonly considered "magic"

Aren't chemistry and biology subcategories of physics? They all boil down to particles and energy, after all.

I'm not sure about psychology, though...it is an odd science. It isn't the study of particles or energy; it is the study of behavior and learning. And while I know that behavior can be changed in response to a physical stimulus (like medicine), we can't quantify the behavior of a living creature as easily as we can the "behavior" of particles or energy. Which suggests that there is more to living creatures than the sum of their particles.

I don't think that psychology is a form of "magic," at least not according to the definition in my original post. But as far as we know, much of psychology exists outside of the physical realm of particles and energy. I think that is fascinating.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Aren't chemistry and biology subcategories of physics? They all boil down to particles and energy, after all.

I'm not sure about psychology, though...it is an odd science. It isn't the study of particles or energy; it is the study of behavior and learning. And while I know that behavior can be changed in response to a physical stimulus (like medicine), we can't quantify the behavior of a living creature as easily as we can the "behavior" of particles or energy. Which suggests that there is more to living creatures than the sum of their particles.

I don't think that psychology is a form of "magic," at least not according to the definition in my original post. But as far as we know, much of psychology exists outside of the physical realm of particles and energy. I think that is fascinating.

Chemistry started with statistics, IIRC. Putting varius ingredients together and measure what happens, eventually figuring out relationships between masses and elements.
So does psychology. There are also areas where psychology and biology (neurology) are combined and give us insights into the real thought processes. Also, psychology on a larger/generalized scale also seems to work to some extent - cognitive theories that explain how people learn, or how people react to user interfaces (physical or digital), reaction of groups of people, and so on.
There is still a lot unexplored, and I wouldn't count on psychiatrists analyzing your brain waves and neuro-transmitters in an average session, but that's something we might end with in a few decades.

It is definitely science.

 

[Umbran]

Aren't chemistry and biology subcategories of physics? They all boil down to particles and energy, after all.

In one way, yes, in another, no. Physics can tell you the basic structure of atoms, and therefore imply the basic structure of simple molecules.

However, as the number of interacting particles goes up, the straight up physics equations become insoluble - even when you're dealing with gravity, the equations to deal with three general masses cannot be solved analytically. Even figuring out the folding of one real major protein can be the work of a physics doctoral thesis.

we can't quantify the behavior of a living creature as easily as we can the "behavior" of particles or energy.

Nobody said doing science correctly was easy.

Which suggests that there is more to living creatures than the sum of their particles.

"The sum of their particles" is a bit misleading, because it hides the complexity. Living things may be the sum of their particles - but that sum is very, very large...

 

[Ranger REG]

Chemistry, biology, and psychology all have their places, too - and they are not commonly considered "magic"

What about alchemy?

Should magic be applied, tested, and written out scientifically?

 

[WhatGravitas]

Should magic be applied, tested, and written out scientifically?

If it can be applied, tested and written out and is predictable, then it's a science, not magic.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Ranger REG]

If it can be applied, tested and written out and is predictable, then it's a science, not magic.

So, is it a matter of belief, or one would scientifically classify an event or incident as an "anomaly"?

 

[megamania]

Yes but it's not as cut and dry as the open and very broad definition gives. I do believe we can INFLUENCE events but not change them specically. Believe (faith) is included in this.