 |
 |
Hi, From reading the problems Rupert Sheldrake had, I personally wouldn't respect Randi, his science is apparently not honest. "Uri Geller has become a multi-millionaire by dowsing for oil and mineral companies." Quotation from 'Beyond the Occult' by Colin Wilson. I have also read about Geller taking part in successful experiments, influencing such things as geiger counters. He was universally discredited after being caught doing some minor tv trickery, but that shouldn't affect his acknowledged successes. There must exist a line between open mindedness and scepticism, that line is drawn by those seeking knowledge and understanding; closed minded, dishonest scepticism, takes you nowhere. All the arguments posed regarding magic and empiricism, will be very similar to proof of god arguments, which you can find all over the internet. Though religion generally disapproves of magic, they are essentially in the same boat. A quote from The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley regarding ESP - "Apparent examples of it are constantly turning up in ordinary life. But science is almost impotent to cope with the particular case, the isolated instance. Promoting their methodological ineptitude to the rank of a criterion of truth, dogmatic scientists have often branded everything beyond the pale of their limited competence as unreal and even impossible. But when tests for ESP can be repeated under standardized conditions, the subject comes under the jurisdiction of the law of probabilities and achieves (in the teeth of what passionate opposition!) a measure of scientific respectability." p36 of 1946 copy. Need I say more? RM Anderson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Caduceus Books" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Magic & Empiricism. > 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