Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9610904" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Personally, I think it should not stand in for science--for exactly the same reason that, IRL, magic and science were effectively twins...and one did not survive. Specifically, the fundamental difference between &quot;magic&quot; and &quot;science&quot; as they came to be defined in the Renaissance and early modern period, very much was the difference between esoteric secret knowledge and public-accessible data. Magic required initiation, or at least some kind of special knowledge to &quot;unlock&quot;. As what we call &quot;science&quot; (originally, &quot;natural philosophy&quot;) grew stronger and bolder, what we call &quot;magic&quot; became taboo--seen as (at best) obscure and implausible fringe theories, rather than rigorous study. There's a reason Newton both seemed to value his alchemical and prophetic/Bible-interpretation studies...and kept them secret from most others, so that his work was only known to a select handful until decades after his death.And this difference is clearly reflected in how Hermetic-style &quot;mages&quot; treated their knowledge, vs how &quot;natural philosophers&quot; treated theirs. Natural philosophy--and its descendant, &quot;science&quot;--created a culture of &quot;publish or perish&quot;, of wishing to be widely known as a luminary or visionary staking out new territories on the field of knowledge, beating back the darkness of ignorance. Hermetic-style practitioners, which are pretty much the source of &quot;wizardly&quot; magic, absolutely did not want this. If you made any true &quot;discoveries&quot;, you kept them to yourself, you inscribed them in secret tomes, maybe you shared them with one or two other people whom you trusted and with whom you had an occult correspondence--in the hope they would do the same with you. Initiation, obscurantism, mystery--the whole point of magic was to be impenetrable to anyone who was not &quot;enlightened&quot;.Science was, and has always been, much more &quot;democratic&quot; and &quot;republican&quot;, in the ancient senses of those words: a thing for all peers (all men of learning, not just those who have been inaugurated into a secret society), and very specifically the Public Thing (res publica) to which any could contribute.It's perfectly fine for the D&amp;D Wizard to stand with a foot in each world on this one. As noted with Newton, and many people both before and after him (consider Darwin's obsession with fairies!), there were practitioners of &quot;science&quot; who were 100% also practitioners of &quot;magic&quot;. But the two really are different, despite being (effectively) fraternal twins.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9610904, member: 6790260"] Personally, I think it [I]should not[/I] stand in for science--for exactly the same reason that, IRL, magic and science were effectively twins...and one did not survive. Specifically, the fundamental difference between "magic" and "science" as they came to be defined in the Renaissance and early modern period, very much was the difference between [I]esoteric secret knowledge[/I] and [I]public-accessible data[/I]. Magic required initiation, or at least some kind of special knowledge to "unlock". As what we call "science" (originally, "natural philosophy") grew stronger and bolder, what we call "magic" became taboo--seen as (at best) obscure and implausible fringe theories, rather than rigorous study. There's a reason Newton both seemed to value his alchemical and prophetic/Bible-interpretation studies...and kept them secret from most others, so that his work was only known to a select handful until decades after his death. And this difference is clearly reflected in how Hermetic-style "mages" treated their knowledge, vs how "natural philosophers" treated theirs. Natural philosophy--and its descendant, "science"--created a culture of "publish or perish", of wishing to be widely known as a luminary or visionary staking out new territories on the field of knowledge, beating back the darkness of ignorance. Hermetic-style practitioners, which are pretty much [I]the[/I] source of "wizardly" magic, absolutely did not want this. If you made any true "discoveries", you kept them to yourself, you inscribed them in secret tomes, [I]maybe[/I] you shared them with one or two other people whom you trusted and with whom you had an occult correspondence--in the hope they would do the same with you. Initiation, obscurantism, mystery--the whole point of magic was to be impenetrable to anyone who was not "enlightened". Science was, and has always been, much more "democratic" and "republican", in the ancient senses of those words: a thing for all [I]peers[/I] ([I]all[/I] men of learning, not just those who have been inaugurated into a secret society), and very specifically the Public Thing ([I]res publica[/I]) to which any could contribute. It's perfectly fine for the D&D Wizard to stand with a foot in each world on this one. As noted with Newton, and many people both before and after him (consider Darwin's obsession with fairies!), there were practitioners of "science" who were 100% also practitioners of "magic". But the two really are [I]different[/I], despite being (effectively) fraternal twins. [/QUOTE]

Verification