/sci/ - Science & Math

>chungus poster
>believes in magic
checks out

>>10878052
>>10878069
bugs...easy on the carrots

>>10878052
What's the difference between science and magic?

t. mage with a degree in engineering physics.

>>10878100
Magic twists laws of nature to achieve something. Science merely tries to do something while following said laws. Therefore, magic is better.

>>10878114
If you think magic defies the laws of nature then you are seriously deluded regarding either 'magic' or 'the laws of nature'.

Both seek to understand universal patterns and exploit them.

>>10878122
What a brainlet post. Kek

>>10878123
I got dubs twice in a row, you haven't gotten dubs once.

Your magic is pathetic.

>>10878128
>kek magic is pathetic
Begone redditor.

>>10878052
"Magic" probably comes from the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction "magh-" meaning something along the lines of "to be able to."
If a predatory animal has more success catching and killing its prey by taking more care to remain still and quiet before pouncing, then that for example could be a helpful association for it to pick up (quiet and motionless --> reward of food).
This behavior is generalized and not specific to any one particular scenario like the quiet and motionless hunting example. If it were specific and not generalized it would be too limited and inflexible of a trait and the animal subject would not be able to learn how to respond to all the other scenarios of life or death importance it will encounter on a regular basis.
As a consequence of associative behavior acting generally and not case-specifically, *faulty* associations can be (and are) made. B.F. Skinner made famous observations about these faulty associations in his study of pigeons. The pigeon test subjects would repeat arbitrary body movements they happened to have been engaging in when they were fed in the past, effectively behaving as though a coincidence were a cause and their body movements could create another feeding event. The common term for this idea of course is "superstition."
Similarly with our own species, we have a history of people using body movements or performing rituals like sacrificing an animal, behaving as though such actions could create what are in reality not causally connected outcomes such as having a good harvest ("lottery in June, corn be heavy soon") or curing a sick child.
Magic is a collection of faulty associations where the practicing party believes their rituals cause desired outcomes.
Science in contrast is the system of formally testing and documenting apparent associations so we can reliably manipulate natural phenomena for concrete results e.g. the harnessing of electricity and telecommunications networks that allow you to read this.

>>10878100
Mages are employable

Magic depending on context is either unexplained science or for all intents and purposes science. Either way it isn't

>>10878052
Then go back to watch the Disney channel

>>>/m/agicisnotreal

my MEGA-magic > magic > science
Too bad only one element in this set exists, though.

>>10878052
>What now, sciencecucks?
now GTFO /pol/itard
>>>/pol/catalog

>>10878052
some anon already had some long ass explanation about magic, where's yours assmuncher?

>>10878052
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

>>10878052
Pure magic is the birth of my kids, I've seen shit that'll shock your eyelids

>>10878526
holy cringe

>>10878531
Recognize miracles.

>>10878173
If magic doesn't do anything and is a waste of effort then why did cultures that believed in magic survive over cultures that didn't?

>>10878540
Fucking magnets.

>>10878173
The problem with this analysis is that it assumes everything we refer to as 'magic' was faulty association and everything referred to as 'science' is accurate association.

I put it to you that this is not anywhere close to the case, as even psychological effects such as placebo mean that otherwise causally meaningless rituals can in fact yield results.

If you did not believe your computer capable of transmitting messages to a wide audience, you wouldn't attempt it.

>>10878052
nice science or math post fag

>>10878052
shut up rythian get out of my castle

>>10878576
>If magic doesn't do anything and is a waste of effort then why did cultures that believed in magic survive over cultures that didn't?
You mean why did animals who engage in superstitious behavior survive while those who don't, didn't?
I addressed that already. It's because the behavior of learned associations is generalized. It's easier and more useful for an indefinitely increasing number of new applications to have a generalized behavior vs. one that's locked down to only ever apply to very specific associations like "plants with thorns cause pain."
The consequence is that this allows for learned associations that aren't legitimate, like the pigeons engaging in body movements to try to make food appear.
>>10878608
>The problem with this analysis is that it assumes everything we refer to as 'magic' was faulty association and everything referred to as 'science' is accurate association.
It doesn't. I explicitly wrote "apparent associations" when talking about what science covers. "Apparent" doesn't mean "everything referred to as 'science is accurate association'.
And insofar as you call something "magic" and it involves a genuine association between a cause and an effect, then that's no longer magic. It's just natural phenomena. e.g. The idea of human flight used to be a magic specific topic, but flight in airplanes certainly isn't magic because it operates in terms of explicable physical principles.

>>10878576
>>10878634
PS: If instead you mean human civilizations with magic beliefs perform better / survive longer, that's definitely wrong because ALL civilizations have magic beliefs. That was the point with bringing up B.F. Skinner and the pigeons. Superstitious behavior predates even the origin of our own species. All moderately complex animals engage in superstitious behavior, again because it's easier and more useful to have a generalized trait of learned association even though this means falling victim to faulty associations because having only a specific trait of association for one scenario would be cripplingly overspecialized.
Also it doesn't really cost much to an animal for it to practice superstitious behavior. If it turns around in circles or bobs its head up and down due to a faulty association between that and getting food, all that's lost is a negligible bit of energy expended on an unhelpful body movement.

>>10878634
>And insofar as you call something "magic" and it involves a genuine association between a cause and an effect, then that's no longer magic

Again, you say anything that works is by definition not magic. I apologize for misrepresenting your opinion that everything in science is accurate, but here you are clearly defining 'magic' as inherently false.

I would say human flight using a machine was not magical, it was science fiction, until it became scientific fact.

Human levitation has always been magical, but I believe it possible for people who are highly trained. If you will entertain this possibility for a moment, I would say if it is possible, it is fully explicable in terms of electromagnetic phenomenon and bioelectric fields. This is why earlier in the thread I said there is no true difference between science and magic. They are merely different languages for doing the same thing, much as multiple mathematical notations can exist for the same calculus.

>>10878646
>you say anything that works is by definition not magic
Anything that can be explained in terms of natural physical phenomena has no reason for being called "science."
>They are merely different languages for doing the same thing
Do you have an example of an actual / established physical thing people do in terms of a "magic" language where using that language is as helpful as using scientific language?
I doubt any exist. Which is my main criticism for "magic." Insofar as you're dealing with real natural phenomena, I'm pretty sure it's always more helpful to have the scientific language explaining how it works as opposed to a bunch of magical incantations, but if you can think of an established case that has both where either one would be equally helpful in allowing someone to know how to perform the task for the first time then I'd like to hear it.
If you don't have an example like that then magic language isn't really functioning as a true language at all since it isn't really helpful for communication of the way something works and/or the way you can engage with it and harness it constructively.

>>10878646
>you say anything that works is by definition not magic
Anything that can be explained in terms of natural physical phenomena has no reason for being called "magic."
>They are merely different languages for doing the same thing
Do you have an example of an actual / established physical thing people do in terms of a "magic" language where using that language is as helpful as using scientific language?
I doubt any exist. Which is my main criticism for "magic." Insofar as you're dealing with real natural phenomena, I'm pretty sure it's always more helpful to have the scientific language explaining how it works as opposed to a bunch of magical incantations, but if you can think of an established case that has both where either one would be equally helpful in allowing someone to know how to perform the task for the first time then I'd like to hear it.
If you don't have an example like that then magic language isn't really functioning as a true language at all since it isn't really helpful for communication of the way something works and/or the way you can engage with it and harness it constructively.

>>10878668
>Anything that can be explained in terms of natural physical phenomena has no reason for being called "magic."

>Anything that exists is by definition not magic

>If you don't have an example like that then magic language isn't really functioning as a true language

>true language

See? You're defining scientific language as true.

You don't want to see, so why should I force it on you?

>>10878669
>See? You're defining scientific language as true.
You're confusing language with topic. A true language is one that actually serves the purpose of communicating something. You can express a mistaken idea in a true language. In contrast something isn't a true language if it's not really expressing anything at all.
Still need that example by the way.

>>10878672
Are you saying modern 'scientific' research isn't filled with jargon that is completely impossible to navigate for 99% of people? Is that not a common criticism of today's research? Is that not something that has been all but proven in some examples?

Your example can be found in the millennia of technological and medical progress made before Kepler (I'll say modern science started with him). Or do the potions from ancient manuscripts tested by modern science not count?

>>10878052
DATLL HOLD IM ALWIGHT

>>10878681
>Are you saying modern 'scientific' research isn't filled with jargon that is completely impossible to navigate for 99% of people?
Not that I was saying that, but also it's definitely nowhere close to true it's "completely impossible" for "99% of people" to understand scientific research jargon. What's really the case is most people wouldn't care to try learning about it in the first place because they don't find it entertaining or interesting.
>do the potions from ancient manuscripts tested by modern science not count
They don't count because potions aren't a language and because you aren't providing any specific example of anything at all even if they did count and are instead vaguely gesturing towards massive swaths of nondescript history. I'm asking you to show a specific example of one case (as in "this link shows the specific instance of magic language that was used to help ancient people harness electricity") where the "magic language" you're talking about actually functions usefully as a language.
I'm suspecting you can't do this, but if you can I'd like to see it.

>>10878715
>What's really the case is most people wouldn't care to try learning about it in the first place because they don't find it entertaining or interesting.

But this wouldn't apply to you learning the language employed in old alchemy.

>I'm suspecting you can't do this, but if you can I'd like to see it

There's no reason to, as you will just say the language isn't magical, but ancient egyptian, celtic, etc. You've clearly demonstrated you will define away anything inconvenient, as evidenced by dismissing old potions written in what many would describe as magic books as 'not counting'.

You're correct, if you define something as not real, then it must not be real, tautologies are always true.

science is magic
read Mage the Ascension (oWoD Revised)