Magic or Science?

[paigetheoracle]

Magic (art) is being baffled by something because you do not understand how it works (the speed of the phenomena decieving the eye) - Science is acquiring the knowledge (insight) to control it.

Superstition is another name for magic as learning is for science. People either wish to be entertained by effects (immature) or want to discover causes. This is what divides the world and discloses us as either responsible adult or irresponsible children and this is also where science and philosophy have a common ground - the discovery of truth and the use of it to enlighten mankind (remove the scales of illusion from the eyes of man).

Any disagreements with this? Anything to add by others? Fanatics are not only mystified by the world but addicted to it for this reason - they do not know how the world works and therefore are mystified and terrified by it in equal measure, whereas the mature are relaxed and more liberal in their attitudes because of their wealth of understanding (Only the ignorant are frightened and with good reason. Only the ignorant are violently defensive because they are holding onto what little bit of reality they have a hold of (the past) where the knowledgeable are letting go of their fear and moving on into the undiscovered country of the future).

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

Superstition is another name for magic as learning is for science.

I, and I suspect many science enthusiasts, prefer the definition given by the third of Clarke's three laws: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Clarke’s third law is well known, popular, and applicability in describing real world phenomena such as cargo cults, science fiction ones such as space travelers visiting intelligent but less scientifically advanced inhabitants of other planets, and fringe scientific ones such as Earth having been visited in its remote past by “ancient astronauts”. However, I don’t think it applies well to people in present-day society who have superstitious beliefs. Although such people may not understand the science underlying the artificial technology they use, it’s rare, I think, for them to consider it “magic” – they understand that it is know to some people, and that those people acquired that knowledge through a non-supernatural process of scientific study and practice.

Less rare are superstitious beliefs about non-artificial things, such as biological organisms. Many people believe that biological organisms, particularly human beings, are not described by the same scientific theories as non-living machines and chemicals, but are animated by “spirit”, and cannot be understood through any technology, no mater how advanced.

I find it interesting that, in my experience, some fairly poorly scientifically educated people are not superstitious – that is, though they either do not understand much science, or hold many scientific misconceptions, they nonetheless believe that everything can, ultimately, be explained by sufficiently advanced science – while some well-educated professional scientists and technologists believe in a realm of reality that cannot be explained by any rational, scientific means. This latter belief is, IMHO, the canonic definition of superstition.

[paigetheoracle]

Interesting points CraigD.

Firstly, Clarkes quote about magic is very relevant and explains what I'm saying too. It's where you are in relation to the phenomena that decides if you're overawed by the trick or see it as ordinary and mundane (Zen's stance on the world for instance is that of somebody who has mastered life (a scientist) rather than somebody (a novice) who is baffled by it): Are you like Oscar Wilde, in the gutter staring up at the stars in awe like a little boy or like HG Wells Gods, staring down dispassionately upon the world because you've surpassed its level ages ago? (blase - it's all passe).

The point you make about those in particular jobs and their attitudes to the world again reflects this little boy or adult stance, no matter what your position in society. The superstitious, no matter what their level in society, still see it as a place of mystery - whereas the scientific see it as a matter of fact. The subject you study or the life you lead ignores this orientation but your attitude reflects it.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Less rare are superstitious beliefs about non-artificial things, such as biological organisms. Many people believe that biological organisms, particularly human beings, are not described by the same scientific theories as non-living machines and chemicals, but are animated by “spirit”, and cannot be understood through any technology, no mater how advanced.

Another interesting point - could it be if you look at another of my postings today under Theology Forum, that if you change spirit for energy that neither animals nor machines could be excluded from the same grouping and that under mind, again we all have it but the level of advancement is different and that soul (character)comes from experience and similarly can't be used to discount the connection of one entity from another (Also motive - why are you separating one thing from another and why? If it's just to understand one thing by comparing it with another that's fine but if it's ego based and used as an excuse to mistreat it, human (Nazi's and other sectarianism), animal or plant, (pollution/ factory farming etc) or even mechanical (Artificial Intelligence or even kicking your tractor or computer because it doesn't work i.e. give you the response/answer you want), then it says more about your own inhumanity/stupidity than it does about the universe being inferior: See post about God under Theology forum, coming next.