The place of Science in Fantasy settings

[Angel Tarragon]

And here your entire argument crumbles. Magical thinking is not demonstrable magic. Magical thinking conflates correlation with cause and effect in the same way you conflate magical thinking with the concept of working magic within a fantasy setting. Demonstrable magic demonstrates causes effects. That is precisely not what the concept of magical thinking criticizes.

You see, I don't understand this level of thinking. Here is the way I have it; Magic & Technology happen in cycles. An advancement in one could either be good or bad. Either way, the one effects the other.

A major leap in one area could revolutinize the other. This is what has happened in my homebrew. Advancement in science led to a wave of change theat affected magic. So much so, that now cantrips are no longer a class feature, but instead can be created by anyone with the aptitude (selection of a feat and proper INt score) for it. This led to a leap in technology wherein the civilized lands saw immediate growth (physical and intellectual) and has brought the truly civiliazed lands on par with Earths' Victorian era.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

If magic existed and followed a set of laws and rules then it could be part of science.
Wizard-Scientist would study magic in experiments just like any other part of nature.

In fact the other parts of science couldn't be understood wholey with out studying magic.

 

[tomBitonti]

Science vs. Technology

Hi,

So ... do we mean "Science" as in the application of the scientific method for the advancement of knowledge, or "Technology", which could be based either on the application of physical principles derived from scientific methods, or could based on rules developed by other means, including, for example, divine inspiration?

I can see technology being available without their being very much science at all.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Wizard-Scientist would study magic in experiments just like any other part of nature.

Heck, given that wizards do spell research and are presumed to be experimenting with new spells all the time, it's not unreasonable to think they're almost practicing scientists. While they may not know of or use an analogue to the scientific method, they're likely close.

Now, conditions that allow for the study of wizardry (i.e. agricultural efficiencies freeing individuals' time to pursue other professions) may well lead to natural philosophers as well. As long as someone keeps asking "Why?" and has the time and resources to devote to asking questions and Figuring Things Out, technology will advance.

I doubt the availability of magic would stifle innovation, either. It's never common enough in a setting to replace technology. In fact, I imagine that magic and technology would synergize well...natural philosophers and savants taking inspiration from magic, and vice versa.

Brad

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I wrote an entire gaming book about this, about combining magic and technology; Mechamancy. Lord willing and the creek don’t rise, I’ll write a revised version in a couple of years to go with 4th ed. In any event, the notion that magic and technology are incompatible seems to be at best a tire cliché of the medium (RPG games) and at worst a self-perpetuating handicap of blinkered vision and hobbled thinking. For all the self congratulatory notions of RPG fostering imagination it is still locked into old rules and ideas both stated and tacit.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I stole shamelessly from The Timelines of History for my homebrew - the sciences crept forward, much in the way they did in our own. Knowing when grained black-powder came into use was particularly handy, since it was within the scope of the campaign.

The Auld Grump

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I’ve always found it interesting, and disappointing, in how so many people are so adamant that there can only be one or the other. There can be magic and no science or there can be science and no magic. There are exceptions – Rifts, Urbis – but for the most part people (and the settings they create) all clench their teeth, demand it be one way or the other and essentially tell people to like it or lump it.

That's one of my pet peeves, too. I mean, I'm a scientist, and those "magic is incompatible with science" settings often don't seem to get what science is all about. Magic doesn't seem to be a demonstrable phenomenon in our world, and thus it's not a field of science (other than psychology, maybe...). But in a world where magic is a demonstrable phenomenon, then of course it would be covered by science... at least, by any definition of science I am aware of.

Some settings which mix magic and technology are moderately tolerable, such as in Shadowrun, where magical forces seem to be a side-product of the biosphere and there are some explanation why the two don't mix easily. And then there are settings like "Mage: The Ascension" where the self-professed "Guardians of Science" want to eradicate magical forces because they don't fit into their world-view... never mind that such attitudes would disqualify them as scientists in the first place!

One of other rare exceptions to this is GURPS Technomancer, in which magic returned to Earth when the first nuclear bomb was detonated in 1945. In it, magic is fully compatible with technology - there are enchanted bullets, necronium reactors, one-shot programs that act as "scrolls", and so on. It even goes into magical theory - magical particles behave somewhat similarly to radiation. I fully recommend checking it out.

 

[Mark Chance]

And then there are settings like "Mage: The Ascension" where the self-professed "Guardians of Science" want to eradicate magical forces because they don't fit into their world-view... never mind that such attitudes would disqualify them as scientists in the first place!

No, it wouldn't. I just makes them people. There are plenty of scientists running around right now that want to eradicate certain systems of knowledge/belief because they don't fit into their world-view. Some of them are making a pretty penny churning out very poorly reasoned diatribes to that effect, many of which score high on the NYT bestseller list.

I believe it was Robert Heinlein who advised us to never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Scientists as a group are not holy, blameless creatures who approach all questions with a thoroughly open mind unshackled by preconceived notions and pet prejudices. In the real world, they have often been downright vicious regarding perceived threats to their favored explanations. They've engaged in slander, deceit, and scientific fraud in the past, and undoubtedly will do so in the future. In a fantasy world, there's no reason to assume the same sorts of things wouldn't happen.

I'm suddenly reminded of the quip above about medieval guilds jealously guarding trade secrets against rivals being raised as a point against scientific innovation. As if companies today don't engage in the same sorts of protective practices.

 

[prosfilaes]

But in a world where magic is a demonstrable phenomenon, then of course it would be covered by science... at least, by any definition of science I am aware of.

It may be covered by science in an abstract sense, but that doesn't mean that people would develop science to deal with it. The core of science is physics, chemistry, and biology, in that order. Science doesn't deal with economics and psychology in such an easy way. Magic from D&D or GURPS (core systems, that is) will translate fairly well to science, as will alchemical type magics--though that doesn't mean people will develop them. But worlds where people arise that shape the world in unique ways by the power of their will alone isn't conducive to scientific exploration. In game terms, any system that has a lot of GM interpretation isn't going to be conducive to scientific exploration, which assumes there's nice simple laws behind things.

 

[Mark Chance]

It may be covered by science in an abstract sense, but that doesn't mean that people would develop science to deal with it.

Sure, they would. A science is a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study. Knowledge is systematized in order to explain causes and effects, meaning, et cetera. Consider that...

[t]he core of science is physics, chemistry, and biology, in that order.

(We'll ignore that you left out mathematics.)

Each of these sciences systematizes knowledge about a particular subject. So, too, do economics, psychology, history, philosophy, theology, et cetera. Limiting science to that which employs the scientific method is reductionist and unnecessary.

But worlds where people arise that shape the world in unique ways by the power of their will alone isn't conducive to scientific exploration.

Of course it is. The first question children love to ask is, "Why?" Unless you've conceived of a fantasy world in which no one needs to ask this most basic of questions, there will always been an impetus toward departments of systematized knowledge.