Greetings!
>I do however feel rather alienated by the 'skeptic' movement, despite
>admiring James Randi, as I find it is by definition an ideological
>mindset rather than a truly scientific perspective. I thus find myself
>in a quandary. Am I a believer or just someone into fanciful ideas?
>This leads me onto another thought. If magic is 'real', can it be
>proven? By that, I mean can magical events be quantified, can these
>results be falsified and can such findings survive vigorous peer
>review?
For reasons that a sceptic would accept, I think magic thrived (and
continues to be practiced) because it worked, or people had the
perception that it did.
If we consider something as physical and measurable, such as how quickly
a wound heals, there are four factors:-
1) Natural healing ability of the body
2) Drugs that can aid healing
3) Surgical intervention
4) The placebo effect
Thinking back to times when magic was more prevalent, (1) was unchanged,
(2) and (3) could do more harm than good. Magic is the fine art of the
placebo effect. This would be powerful. Modern drug tests have to
quantify it so that it can be factored out as its effect can match a
promising new drug. This when the subjects are being told "we are
experimenting with this new drug, it may not work and you might have
been given a placebo anyway". How much more powerful might the placebo
effect people if people believe saint, a wonderful human being now
living with God, has been called upon by someone with authority to
intercede and aid the healing.
I think related are the powers of a hypnotist, or hypnotherapist, that
would also be accepted by a sceptic. The magician, cunning man, or
witch, could have same abilities. I have wondered how hypnotism
techniques compare to spells and magical techniques. There can be
similarities between the powers attributed to witches and those
displayed by stage hypnotists.
I think magic, spells, talismans and so forth, was particularly
associated with fields if human experience where the placebo effect
would be most potent. Healing (and encouraging illness), affairs of the
heart where confidence can be important and controlling animals.
In other fields the effectiveness of such magical techniques might be
apparent rather than real. Many old seamen and soldiers might have a
charm to which they attribute their survival. The sceptic would agree,
and observe that probably the ones who didn't come back had charms too,
people just never heard about them.
Magic thrived in fields where people wanted to disguise secret
manipulations. A gambler would be pleased to attribute his incredible
success to his talisman, rather than for the losers to start checking
for marked or extra cards. Horsemen did not own the means of production,
but they controlled it to their economic advantage. They were pleased
for their masters to attribute it to secret words of power and
talismanic bones, rather than the secret use of scents, drugs and thin
strings controlling the animals.
I imagine the above would be agreeable to a sceptic.
Personally I could include other factors. A very brief experience years
ago means I know telepathy can occur. Another series of experiences
convinces me that disincarnate intelligences can operate. However, this,
quite rightly, carries no weight for the sceptic. They were not there.
They only have my account and I could be deceitful or a deluded
fantasist. So many accounts of supernatural events are untrue.
My best wishes
Ben
--
Ben Fernee
Caduceus Books
28 Darley Road
Burbage
Hinckley
Leicestershire
LE10 2RL
U.K.
Private premises, visitors welcome by appointment
Telephone 01455 250542 (+44 1455 250542 from abroad)
Fax 0870 0552982 (+44 870 0552982 from abroad)
Skype ben.fernee.caduceus
Web page:- http://www.caduceusbooks.com
|
