Do You Believe in Magic?

[Ranger REG]

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.

So, in order for something to be called magic it should change the event, not influence it, or does influencing count with a shade of gray (or doubt)?

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Um, no. That's my point. You cannot say that Astrology cannot work. That'd require a negative proof.

Real science admits that there are mechanisms in the Universe it doesn't know yet. Failing to admit that you don't know everything is dogma, not science. Science is about seeking out those mechanisms of which you're ignorant.

You can say that science cannot (yet) explain how Astrology could work. You might do a study and show that correlation between astrological prediction and actual outcome is at or below what you'd expect from random chance. For any particular event, you might be able to show that events can be explained without invoking astrological influences.

But none of those actually say Astrology cannot work.

I disagree.

I’d like to think that I’m not being dogmatic.

You say: “You might do a study and show that correlation between astrological prediction and actual outcome is at or below what you'd expect from random chance.” It has been done. Astrologers work on inaccurate and outdated star charts and cannot even agree amongst themselves.

This Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology is a great site. Check it out, get sceptical.

 

[Merkuri]

Not to be picky, Gurmpy, but the stuff you've mentioned proves that astrology is likely not to work, especially as it is practiced now, but it does not (and cannot) prove that it will never work. Some people might point to the outdated star charts as a reason why it hasn't worked so far - because we don't have it right yet.

I'm not saying I believe in astrology, just that we're incapable to scientifically prove without a doubt that it will never work.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Not to be picky, Gurmpy, but the stuff you've mentioned proves that astrology is likely not to work, especially as it is practiced now, but it does not (and cannot) prove that it will never work. Some people might point to the outdated star charts as a reason why it hasn't worked so far - because we don't have it right yet.

I'm not saying I believe in astrology, just that we're incapable to scientifically prove without a doubt that it will never work.

The inability to prove that something doesn't work similarly doesn't mean it does work in any way. And that's a sentance and a half, right there...

Note: Actually, I've just caught up with the rest of the thread and I realise I'm going over ground that's already been covered. Ahem. Don't mind me.

I don't believe in magic, though.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree.

Your agreement is not required. Science does not do negative proof. It provides evidence, and you make up your own mind - big difference.

I’d like to think that I’m not being dogmatic.

No offense intended here - but you sound that dogmatic. If you actually aren't, then somewhere between your brain and my brain there's a disconnect. Not unusual, in the text-only medium.

You say: “You might do a study and show that correlation between astrological prediction and actual outcome is at or below what you'd expect from random chance.” It has been done. Astrologers work on inaccurate and outdated star charts and cannot even agree amongst themselves.

Yes. That evidence would, to most rational people, indicate that it is highly improbable that astrology works. It is the basis for a belief, but it is not proof that astrology cannot ever work.

For example, the jury is still out on whether our universe is deterministic - some forms of string theory still allow that. If it turns out to be true, then there's no such thing as "unrelated events", as all events would be related to the one event that started the Universe, and many forms of "divination" become possible. This would not be "spooky action at a distance", but simple correlation of events, a fundamental interconnectedness of all things. Not that this would matter much, as in a deterministic universe you cannot change the future, so knowing it would be kind of moot. But the point still stands.

This Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology is a great site. Check it out, get sceptical.

Dude, I'm a physicist. I am a skeptic, and I don't believe in astrology. However, as a scientist, I know the bounds of what I can and cannot say - I can say I don't believe that it works, but I cannot say that it cannot work.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Well, I'm firmly in the 'No' camp.

This 'definition', however, is a bit odd or at least incomplete. What does 'invoking the supernatural' mean?

Does 'supernatural' mean something for which no natural explanation is known? If so, the question gets more tricky because I think there may be a few things which cannot be explained satisfyingly yet.

I do not doubt, though, that a natural explanation for everything exists.

I admire the faith demonstrated in your last statement.

 

[Relique Hunter]

This Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology is a great site. Check it out, get sceptical.

Wow. That was a great read; many thanks.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Only in a young girl's heart....

What?

 

[Whitemouse]

Only in a young girl's heart....

I'm a young girl....

Well, woman anyway.

 

[ssampier]

You'll always have a friend with big red shoes.

What?