hello Alexander,

I don't know how obvious it is, but this is a VERY
sore point in the history of academic study of
magic. up until at least the turn of the 20th 
century when anthropology really started to get
under way, the dominant paradigm appears to have
been represented by and culminated in such work
as Lynn Thorndike's 10 volume summary: 
"History of Magic and Experimental Science".

adding to the complexity of the picture and
complicating "skeptic" postures was the rivalry
within esoteric and stage magic subcultures that
served to apparently show some up as "frauds"
while others used implications of skills or
abilities to promote their entertainments.

with that as an explanation which follows....

Alexander Hay <[log in to unmask]>:
> As someone from an arts/humanities background, 
> I've had an interest in the occult for quite 
> a while. On the other hand, I'm also a big
> supporter of the scientific method and proof 
> through application..... 

instead of 'proof through application', I would 
prefer 'demonstration of principles learned by 
examples of their application and predictable 
outcomes these bring'. too often the term 
'proof' is taken as culminative whereas
its challenging and exploratory components
are at times completely lost.

> 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. 

others have mentioned Richard Dawkins alongside.
I have had several conversations with those such
as i who can sympathize with the project but not
the approach of these individuals. the usual 
defense is that a snide or harsh disputation, 
bringing emotion into one's presentation, is 
valuable so as to dissuade frauds and shysters 
who will thereafter seek to avoid being so
publically ridiculed. 

I feel this type of emotional tweaking and 
public ridicule has no place in civil scientific 
pursuits, whether this is an examination of 
religion and gods, or of occultism and spellcraft.
I also understand that instances of this type of
social resistance to perceived quakery have been
numerous, and are arguably expedient, short-term,
due to the barriers placed before outlandish 
views, requiring them to clearly demonstrate 
their sound foundations.

the problem with the issues surrounding Mr. Randi,
however, are far more socially complex, since he
was and still is part of the same social milieu
*as* Mr. Geller, having himself been a performer
and entertainer. the dynamics of interaction 
between these two men in the public sphere are 
a fairly novel development on account of the 
potentialities of celebrity and media presence.
simply put, Randi is occasionally accused within
circles of mentalism (a style of stage magic) of
unfairly sabotaging a fellow performer's career.
Randi's argument seems to be that Geller's 
presentation was non-standard, and yet *this is
not the sole instance of mentalist/magician strife*.

> Am I a believer or just someone into fanciful ideas?

if you have a creed to which you adhere then you 
are a believer. outside that, never mind it. keep
on your toes and be on the look out for axiomatic
truths which cannot be questioned or tested.

> If magic is 'real', 

here is part of the problem with your inquiry,
and why it is completely rational to dismiss that
"Skeptics", parapsychology, and psychic powers 
have anything at all to do with magic or its
evaluation: categories of magic's description.
within the parameters of 'magic as energy to 
be used or discerned as real or fictional' i'm
fairly convinced that you'll find next to
nothing in response to your challenge 
here which will be of value to you.

that said, there is a hefty materia magica 
that anyone with an interest in the subject 
can discern as quite real. once you expand that
category to an activity rather than just to an  
energy, what you mean by 'magic is real' quickly
changes to something easily supportable. 
 
> 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?

my strong interest in the sciences during the
period of my education gave me reason to 
regard with distaste the manner with which 
magic and religion were treated, supposedly
examining and evaluating them as vacuous of
relevance where knowledge was concerned.  

my instincts in rejecting these biased and
slanted evaluations were sound, as i would
later learn in revising ethnocentric notions
such as by Lowie, when evaluating societies 
and the faux "progress" presumed consequent 
to the society in which he resided.

this same sort of slant informs those who
study religious phenomena (my tentative
conclusion is that, after Jaynes, of gods 
as internal developments in the maturation 
of consciousness); it is unsound of 
scientists to proclaim what seems to me 
the outrageous claim that 'gods don't
exist', rather than to ask what they are),
as well as those who have at least until
recently done the same with occult arts
(magic and divination particularly).

whereas the slant was askew, the testing
was not, and refinement toward notions of 
mysterious subtle influence on probability
(metaphysical), on consciousness (psychology),
and on group dynamics (sociology) *all* have 
a place in the evaluation of its real effects,
these latter two with some theory and studies.

your question is primarily about the first of
these, however, and especially as it proceeds 
from a notion of cause, reasoning to conclusion 
as to the nature of the effect and the mechanism
by which such an effect might be replicated
(comparable to evaluations in physics, 
chemistry, or biology). 

what has become apparent is that there is 
absolutely NO reliable immediate effect that
is demonstrably related to the magical cause
in question, lest it be, by convention of at 
least language, divisively recategorized as 
something else (e.g. medical, chemical, 
social, psychological, etc.). 

what remains are, to my mind, the arenas of
discourse and investigation pertinent to the
understanding of a manipulation of symbolism  
with a desired outcome in mind, and by use of
principles (after Frazer and others) clearly
identified within social traditions and 
scientific expression (Laws of Magic).

that the symbolism and the principles of 
manipulation both exist is readily apparent.
that people become, for whatever reason,
convinced of their efficacy in producing even
wondrous results is also quite clear. how
this might be evaluated given the techniques
and principles involved is anything but plain,
especially as we move away from a consideration 
of a kind of immediate pyrotechnics featured as
part of works of fiction such as The Sorcerer's
Apprentice, Bewitched, I Dream of Genie, the
Harry Potter series, or in roleplaying games.

once we begin to restrict both the formatting
(say, to ceremonial rituals or spellcraft) and
the considerations to how magic "works", then 
what is being affected so *as* to "work", and 
what might be identified in order to replicate 
this desirable outcome may be properly evaluated
(a science of magic thus ensuing). 

until then, confusions of category, disputes 
of professional discourtesy, and pursuits of 
religious (or anti-religious) agendas may serve 
to disrupt clear and consistent analysis of 
the phenomena ostensibly under consideration.

thanks for asking this question,

nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director 
  YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
----------------------------------------------------- 
  *Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
   and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
-----------------------------------------------------