Hello Jake and all,
Thank you for the tip! Anything to lessen the pain she feels.
All to briefly, we seem to agree completely although coming from opposite sides of the spectrum. "Claiming the authority of science for either [religion and magic] is fallacious". Exactly.
On the other hand, claiming the authority of science for *science* seems quite appropriate. Thus your statement "science is not the final arbiter in all things, and all things do not have to fit a scientific worldview in order to justify themselves; and in many cases they cannot and should not" is very true, *except* when science is actually invoked in claims to authenticity and legitimacy. And that is exactly what a lot of magicians, psychics, esotericists and gurus do, hence the skeptics. Science is not (solely) empiricism, it is not (solely) a methodology, it is a separate domain of inquiry and communication like art or religion.
And of course all idealist philosophizing in these matters should remember to reconnect to politics and power that infringe upon or even determine religious and scientific claims anyway. In essence, it is precisely the middle, the common ground, the balanced position that is most coveted and thus most powerful. Hence the intense recruitment to "scientific" skepticism aka "common sense" and "spiritual" skepticism aka "openmindedness" to "conquer" the middle (just like in chess, when you have the middle, you control the game). On this "battlefield", science sees the other as emptyheaded and itself as common sense, whereas religion sees the other as dogmatic materialist and itself as openminded. An understanding of the hows and whys of both positions seems to me the best way to achieve balance. This and dropping the recruitment from either side; we can live with a tempered schizophrenia perfectly well.
Best,
Jesper.
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jake Stratton-Kent
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Magic & Empiricism.
Hi Jesper and all,
firstly wishing speedy relief to your daughter, ear infections are horrid (btw dryness in the ear has very similar symptoms, and responds speedily to a simple dab of fine olive oil).
There is indeed no clear dividing line between religion and magic - or no-one has been able to draw one successfully anyway! At the same time my feelings on claiming the authority of science for either are that it is fallacious. Much as I don't see the relevance of Randi or Geller to magic, either pro or anti. ESP, telepathy, telekinesis etc. are essentially scientific not magical theories, even when advanced in relation to magic. A specialist in parapsychology or debunking same is not a magician, nor really an anti-magician. Both are working solely within a scientific paradigm, whether they do so well or not doesn't matter, from a magical perspective they are simply involved in something else. I'm reminded too of efforts to fit Pythagoras and Empedocles into a scientific strait jacket, or to divide aspects of their careers; which were really a unified whole in another discipline entirely.
This is the problem really in seeking empirical evidence for magic, it is like asking science to ratify the artistic qualities of Michelangelo. Science is not the final arbiter in all things, and all things do not have to fit a scientific worldview in order to justify themselves; and in many cases they cannot and should not. Given that the line between religion and magic is vague at best, the problem with asking science to determine magic's validity involves more problems, if less pain, than the old heresy trials. Magicians and Inquisitors may have shared some beliefs and practices, even though of course this sharing was determined largely by historic and geographic proximity; it is not a requirement of all magicians that they share such with 'the other side'.
With science and magic there is no such common ground, at least, not in my opinion, or my approach to magic. This notwithstanding that the fabled bezoar stone might actually have a scientifically measurable property of protecting from arsenic poisoning. This and similar positive lab-measurable 'results' do not reduce the theoretical gulf, nor the differences in goals and intentions. Science is not in a position to say 'bezoar stone = good magic, line of brick dust across threshold = bad magic', simply because one 'fits' with science and the other doesn't. It is what fits with magic -constituting good technique and/or traditional procedures - which determines that.
ALWays
Jake
On 8 July 2010 13:02, Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> Although I have only read this latest interesting summer thread in
> passing (a small girl at home with an ear infection needs attention),
> I feel at least some arguments/opinions need a comment.
>
> In both "camps" of the science/religion divide (and for the sake of
> this argument, there is no sharp division between religion,
> spirituality and
> occultism) there are of course fundamentalists. But most of us inhabit
> the middle regions and find straw man arguments little useful. Most "moderate"
> skeptics feel fine about arguments like Jake's: "A long chain of
> coincidences, often bearing deep personal significance, is capable of
> being a gratifying life without constituting - or trying to constitute - 'proof'.
> More often than not it is the experiential process that really
> interests the magician, rather than the results or proving it is
> responsible for them." In other words, use crystals, homeopathy,
> ceremonial magick, humanism or whatever as you wish.
>
> It is when religious actors claim the *authority* of science in the
> public realm through harmonizing or intergrative arguments, or claim
> political authority to reorient the secular nature of democratic
> debate, a "skeptical community" forms to counter these claims.
> Remember that skeptics come in informed and tourist versions, as do occultists and other religious folks.
> The informed skeptics have actually weighed pros and cons through
> intensive studies and thus discard new evidence a posteriori, not a
> priori. Not the knee-jerk "no, because I'm an atheist"-argument of the
> tourist, but a statistical "not likely given the 1000 previous
> experiments discarding the theory".
>
> As to the use of science: The understanding of the heterodoxy and
> multiple developments of magic and esotericism seems developed on this
> list, so perhaps I should remind you that generally, the same is true for science.
>
> Science is polyvocal, with many disciplines and specialized languages.
> This is even more so in academia as a whole, with the famous two
> cultures of science and the humanities. Nevertheless, a common
> language and a common field of play has been developed, because
> science is *not* democratic. Or, it is in principle on the level of
> access and participation (everybody is invited to contribute), but not
> on the level of argument and theory (you need to know what you're talking about and present it the right way).
> Skeptics are among those who "patrol" science and public discourse to
> reveal fallacies and inconsistencies, not because science needs it,
> but because they want to.
>
> Personally I find their work very useful, even the more radical ones
> like Randi, Penn & Teller and Dawkins. While they all reveal a lack of
> understanding the subleties of religion, they do point out some
> potentially dangerous thought-patterns *on both sides*. And angry men
> are funny. When they miss the substance of religious claims, they also
> mirror pro-psychic fundies' lack of understanding science. For
> example, biology is *not* Darwin or the theory of evolution. It is not
> even Watson and Crick and DNA. It has progessed far from these fine
> starting points into genetics, chemistry and ecology. Similarly,
> physics is not Kepler or Newton. It is not even Einstein, Bohr and
> Schrödinger. Again, physics has progressed from these fine starting
> points into quantum field theory, experimental sub-particle physics
> and speculations on dark matter and energy. So the very vocal
> minorities on both sides have a very limited understanding of the contemporary intricacies of the other.
>
> As for Uri Geller, whom I have very little knowledge outside
> second-hand presentations, he might be a very capable magician. But to
> quote the only absolute authority in this aeon, Dr. Phil: If you see
> one rat, it generally means 50 more. In other words, I do feel that
> revealing trickery with Blavatsky, mediums or Geller discredit their
> "acknowledged successes" (to quote Marie). Which by the way seems
> acknowledged only by a limited group of tests. I agree that we should
> not dismiss anything out of hand, but we should be so open-minded our brains fall out either.
>
> Summer greetings from
>
> Jesper.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Jesper Aagaard Petersen
> Research Fellow, Dept. of Archeology and Religious Studies NTNU,
> Dragvoll
> NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
> Tlf. 0047-735-98312
> email: [log in to unmask]
--
Jake