Ship of Fools: the language of magic and superstition

Thread: the language of magic and superstition Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020423

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

In the yon re-baptism thread, this happened:

quote:
RdrEmCofE:

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief That's not how "in the name of" works. You are equivocating on the word "name." One can do something in the name of the Crown, or in the name of democracy, or in the name of generosity. Those things don't need a name. That's not what "in the name of" means.
Hmm. The taste of sucked uncooked eggs, yeuch.

Your Freudian slip however reveals the fact that you still think in terms of 'making it work' by using the 'correct' words, the 'correct' way, to perform the efficacious salvific al magic, which God has already declared in scripture, done and dusted for us, at the cross.

Nothing wrong with your using the formula, I agree, but perhaps with dangerously superstitious sacramentalist thinking associated with its use.

The context was a discussion about baptism "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and such things.

Anyway - it made me remember something that I've been stewing on for a while. Isn't it interesting how some Christians loudly deny anything that can be labelled as "magic" or "superstition", whilst clearly talking about things that would, if anyone else talked about them, be magic or superstition.

It confuses me a bit why we have this distinction. Clearly it is being used in an abusive sense - labelling something as superstition is to describe it as the wrong sort of belief and describing something as magic is to call it the wrong kind of supernatural event.

But surely there isn't this clear distinction. Cannot the incarnation, the resurrection, the Eucharist be properly described as magic?

Aren't these weasel words being used to castigate opponents when the instigator is actually exhibiting a belief in superstition and magic?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Superstition and magic are not the same thing.

Magic is when the actor ("the magician") causes things to happen in the external world by sheer force of willpower. Superstition is a credulous belief that external forces (usually but not necessarily described as "supernatural") are at work in certain circumstances.

(I'm never entirely certain what supernatural means though. You'd be better off asking people who use the word as they may mean different things by it).

In terms of - say - the resurrection, it is entirely possible to say that belief in it - in a certain person - may be credulous but not as a form of magic.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Superstition and magic are not the same thing.

Magic is when the actor ("the magician") causes things to happen in the external world by sheer force of willpower.

Mmm. I think there are different understandings of the word "magic", you're specifically talking about the Western concept of a "magic trick" used by a magician for entertainment.

Wikipedia says this on the "magic" page:

quote:
The term magic comes from the Old Persian magu, a word that applied to a form of religious functionary about which little is known. During the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE, this term was adopted into Ancient Greek, where it was used with negative connotations, to apply to religious rites that were regarded as fraudulent, unconventional, and dangerous. This meaning of the term was then adopted by Latin in the first century BCE. The concept was then incorporated into Christian theology during the first century CE, where magic was associated with demons and thus defined against religion. This concept was pervasive throughout the Middle Ages, although in the early modern period Italian humanists reinterpreted the term in a positive sense to establish the idea of natural magic. Both negative and positive understandings of the term were retained in Western culture over the following centuries, with the former largely influencing early academic usages of the word.

It seems to me that this is correct and that there is a wider understanding of what the word means.

quote:
Superstition is a credulous belief that external forces (usually but not necessarily described as "supernatural") are at work in certain circumstances.

(I'm never entirely certain what supernatural means though. You'd be better off asking people who use the word as they may mean different things by it).

I'm not sure quite why then belief in certain actions of the deity wouldn't be included in your definition of a superstition.

quote:
In terms of - say - the resurrection, it is entirely possible to say that belief in it - in a certain person - may be credulous but not as a form of magic.

I don't know - doesn't Arthur C Clarke's law say "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."?

Isn't belief in a complicated event of which one doesn't fully understand the mechanisms behind it - to the extent that nobody fully understands it, because it isn't capable of being understood - part of the definition of (at least one understanding of) magic?

Moreover, when Christians talk about something being magic and/or superstition, isn't this what they mean?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

mr. cheesy wrote:

quote:

Mmm. I think there are different understandings of the word "magic", you're specifically talking about the Western concept of a "magic trick" used by a magician for entertainment.

The concept is wider than that I think, and would include magicians of the Aleister Crowley type as well. But your point is a fair one. Perhaps it might be fairer to have said the historical usage of the word has been different. It might help to draw attention to the fact that usage changes (?) Maybe people are using those older understandings and I haven't picked it up.

quote:
I'm not sure quite why then belief in certain actions of the deity wouldn't be included in your definition of a superstition.

It could be, yes. I was only trying to draw attention to the distinction between the two concepts of magic and superstition. Whether an individual's belief counts as superstitious would have to be determined.

quote:
Isn't belief in a complicated event of which one doesn't fully understand the mechanisms behind it - to the extent that nobody fully understands it, because it isn't capable of being understood - part of the definition of (at least one understanding of) magic?

I don't think so, but then I disagree with Arthur C. Clarke! I might have agreed if he had said it would be indistinguishable from superstition, but that (as you hint at in your parenthetical comment) depends on the definition of magic being used.

quote:
Moreover, when Christians talk about something being magic and/or superstition, isn't this what they mean?

Some might - I suspect (though I can offer you no evidence) that different Christians may be in different places on this. I can tell you what I think on (say) the eucharist, but I'm pretty sure others will think differently.

[ 04. January 2018, 10:31: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

It might be interesting this week in particular to consider what the story of of the magi brings to this discussion. They are essentially astrologers-- peddling and profiting from the exact form of superstitious, magical thinking Christians generally decry. And yet not only are they treated favorably in the text, God apparently rewards their superstition by placing the message of the birth of Jesus "in the stars" (planetary alignment) where they are (superstitiously) looking for it

Of course there are all sorts of meta message reasons why Matthew includes this tale. But it seems intriguing in the way it seems to counter the overall negativity toward magic and superstition

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

This is why history is important. Where you are on the time line affects what 'magic' is.

In the case of the magi, at that period in time astrology and astronomy were exactly coeval. They were the same thing. The two fields would not diverge until the invention of the telescope. The Persians (and also the Chinese, Romans, and other ancient observers) actually supply useful data about eclipses, comet sightings, and so forth that modern astronomers still rely upon. So when we look back at the magi and call them mere astrologers, we're not saying anything useful. That's all that there was at the time; you might as well accuse Moses of not using modern managerial techniques.

I think it is fair to classify superstition as practices that are clearly unhelpful. Like rabbit's feet. I saw one cited the other day -- carrying a mutton bone in your pocket to help with rheumatism. This was a pre-industrial superstition, and I can't help thinking that it was a 'well, it can't hurt to give it a try' kind of thing.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Magic seems to have a spread of meanings, from magic tricks, via Aleister Crowley, the occult, magical realism in the novel, and an insult used by atheists towards theism. Well, that doesn't help really.

I suppose you have to divide the sense of an illusion performed on stage, from the idea of the paranormal, i.e. something inexplicable by natural means. However, even that fails as a definition, since at the moment, gravity is inexplicable, but presumably not considered to be magical.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

I think it is fair to classify superstition as practices that are clearly unhelpful. Like rabbit's feet. I saw one cited the other day -- carrying a mutton bone in your pocket to help with rheumatism. This was a pre-industrial superstition, and I can't help thinking that it was a 'well, it can't hurt to give it a try' kind of thing.

Yes - although I suppose this is how it becomes a form of sneering about other (Christians') behaviours.

It seems to me that the divide between "helpful" and "unhelpful" practices are not clearly demarked. If one is going to suggest that one group is treating the Eucharist as magic and superstition - then someone else could just as easily retort that one's own prayer practices are much the same.

And so the terms lose all meaning.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

An interesting point on the divergence of astronomy and astrology, Brenda. Similar things happened with the other sciences such as chemistry from alchemy. Physics and biology were more diffuse, but perhaps more able to co-exist with different ways of looking at the subject. Maybe the most recent act of separation is in psychology, with the rise of empiricism as against checking grand meta-narratives.

I might quibble a bit with your last statement -

quote:
I think it is fair to classify superstition as practices that are clearly unhelpful. Like rabbit's feet. I saw one cited the other day -- carrying a mutton bone in your pocket to help with rheumatism. This was a pre-industrial superstition, and I can't help thinking that it was a 'well, it can't hurt to give it a try' kind of thing.

It's possible to see some superstitious practices as being (potentially) beneficial. Walking unconcernedly under ladders may be less safe than skirting round them even if the exact reasons given for doing so may have been unconvincing in the past.

There's also an interesting current example of biodynamics in food and wine production. This involves a whole range of stuff such as burying cow-horns packed with dung, and undertaking obscure activities by phases of the moon etc. The main aim being to harness "telluric forces". Certainly for wines, there is evidence that the end-product benefits, though it's much more likely to be because of the obsessive attention in the field that the process requires. Another reason for citing this one is that it provides a current example of superstition where no belief in supernaturalism is required.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

There's also an interesting current example of biodynamics in food and wine production. This involves a whole range of stuff such as burying cow-horns packed with dung, and undertaking obscure activities by phases of the moon etc. The main aim being to harness "telluric forces". Certainly for wines, there is evidence that the end-product benefits, though it's much more likely to be because of the obsessive attention in the field that the process requires. Another reason for citing this one is that it provides a current example of superstition where no belief in supernaturalism is required.

I can vouch for this. I once visited an incredible biodynamic farm in the Middle East. Much of it was/is complete bollocks scientifically, but the attention to detail is astonishing, and as a result the farm is extremely well run.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, it is clear that experimentation is what divides superstition from an actually helpful (however obscure) practice. A lot of the 'folk medicine' discoveries have shown that sometimes old wives really do have hold of something. A good double-blind test of the value of rabbits' feet over a number of years would settle the issue one way or the other. I doubt that any medical facility has ever tested the mutton bone idea, but sure, give it a try.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Magic seems to have a spread of meanings, from magic tricks, via Aleister Crowley, the occult, magical realism in the novel, and an insult used by atheists towards theism. Well, that doesn't help really.

It is also used as an insult by some theists towards other types of theists. It is often more an improper noun than a real differentiation.
There is no functional difference between performing a spell and saying a prayer, if one expects results at the end of it. Much of how many Christians act is no different to magic.

As, indeed, mr cheesy said in the OP.

quote:
Anyway - it made me remember something that I've been stewing on for a while. Isn't it interesting how some Christians loudly deny anything that can be labelled as "magic" or "superstition", whilst clearly talking about things that would, if anyone else talked about them, be magic or superstition.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

I would distinguish between magic and miracles rather than magic and superstition.

All of these rest on the assumption that unseen spiritual forces can produce results or changes in the physical world.

This is, of course, one of the underlying assumptions of all religions. [Paranoid]

The key to magic is the idea that a person can somehow manipulate these unseen forces to produce a physical result. It may be simply force of will, but more commonly it is that will expressed through some symbolic action or artifact. Whether the waving of a wand, the ingestion of some food, or the articulation of words, the person doing the magic does something, and the results then show themselves. Symbolism is at the heart of it.

Miracles work on the same principle, except that they reflect the will of God rather than the will of a magician. The result of the miracle symbolizes something supremely good, and is therefore used to illustrate God's power to bring good into the world. Healing sickness, overcoming poverty and hunger, defeating the forces of evil, all represent good things that are easily understood as representing the power to bring peace and happiness to the world.

The difference, of course, is that miracles are good and magic is not.

All of it, though, rests on the universal assumption of every religion, which is that there is an unseen spiritual force, such as God, that somehow interacts with the physical world.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Several of us were having a bit of an argument about this in Kerygmania recently.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The key to magic is the idea that a person can somehow manipulate these unseen forces to produce a physical result. It may be simply force of will, but more commonly it is that will expressed through some symbolic action or artifact. Whether the waving of a wand, the ingestion of some food, or the articulation of words, the person doing the magic does something, and the results then show themselves. Symbolism is at the heart of it.

I think there's a useful word to cover this that's missing from the discussion so far:

sorcery.

I would extend it to cover more than physical outcomes, and add the caveat that while the sorcerer may be able to explain the mechanics of the invocation, they cannot explain the reasoning behind why it "works".

As far as "magic" goes, I stick with "there are more things on heaven and in earth than dream'd of in your philosophy"; to live in an awareness that there are things we don't know and science doesn't have the last word about.

At the same time, I utterly repudiate sorcery (as I've defined it above), not all of which has "magical" trappings as such.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

At the same time, I utterly repudiate sorcery (as I've defined it above), not all of which has "magical" trappings as such.

I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing where you've defined it.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

To do something in the name of someone else basically means you are taking the action on behalf of the other person.

Thus, when I present the flag of my country on the name of the president of the United States on behalf of a grateful country, I am telling the family of the deceased (at a military funeral) I am telling them since the president cannot be here I am doing this for him on behalf of...

No magic is involved here. Moving on.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

At the same time, I utterly repudiate sorcery (as I've defined it above), not all of which has "magical" trappings as such.
I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing where you've defined it.

More or less what Freddy said, with the caveat I added.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The key to magic is the idea that a person can somehow manipulate these unseen forces to produce a physical result. It may be simply force of will, but more commonly it is that will expressed through some symbolic action or artifact. Whether the waving of a wand, the ingestion of some food, or the articulation of words, the person doing the magic does something, and the results then show themselves. Symbolism is at the heart of it.

Miracles work on the same principle, except that they reflect the will of God rather than the will of a magician. The result of the miracle symbolizes something supremely good, and is therefore used to illustrate God's power to bring good into the world. Healing sickness, overcoming poverty and hunger, defeating the forces of evil, all represent good things that are easily understood as representing the power to bring peace and happiness to the world.

Not all magical traditions posit that magic is inherent in the magician / sorcerer / witch / whatever. A good number of magical traditions postulate the working of magic by otherwise ordinary people cajoling supernatural entities to do them a favor (or trade favors). The witch's familiar. A djinn from a bottle. A contract with the devil. This is not so different than making covenants with God or trying to influence His actions through prayer. The only difference is the nature of the supernatural entity involved. If we're willing to classify Faust as a "magician" or "sorcerer" for entering into a pact with Mephistopheles it seems like hair splitting not to apply the same label to someone bargaining with God over the fate of Sodom or a cancer diagnosis or to find a good parking spot.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Did somebody call?

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... at the moment, gravity is inexplicable, but presumably not considered to be magical.

Gravity has been adequately explained since Newton’s apple injury, and was very accurately described by Einstein in his General Theory a century ago. If you find it in any way inexplicable I cordially propose you read up on it or conduct some simple experiments for yourself (but do be careful if working at height).

[ 04. January 2018, 20:42: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'll just leave this here.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I see superstition as the belief that an act will inevitably bring about good or bad luck, so that one's own life will be affected positively or negatively. I know someone who thinks that by rubbing a certain herb in his hands, he will come into some money. He sees himself in control of what happens through this act.

Prayer to God does not assume that the person praying is in control of the outcome, but that God is.

Similarly, with magic. To ask God for supernatural intervention, by which I mean going against what we see as the norm in our physical world, is not the same thing as someone claiming to perform such acts in his own right.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not all magical traditions posit that magic is inherent in the magician / sorcerer / witch / whatever. A good number of magical traditions postulate the working of magic by otherwise ordinary people cajoling supernatural entities to do them a favor (or trade favors). The witch's familiar. A djinn from a bottle. A contract with the devil. This is not so different than making covenants with God or trying to influence His actions through prayer. The only difference is the nature of the supernatural entity involved. If we're willing to classify Faust as a "magician" or "sorcerer" for entering into a pact with Mephistopheles it seems like hair splitting not to apply the same label to someone bargaining with God over the fate of Sodom or a cancer diagnosis or to find a good parking spot.

Renaissance magic seems to function by bullying the demon into doing the actual work by means of lots of impressive-sounding Latin and Hebrew.

I think there is a difference in that magic (of this kind) seems to be a battle of wills in which the magician comes out on top, whereas prayer isn't supposed to be able to control God, although in practice some Christians act as though it did.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Gravity has been adequately explained since Newton’s apple injury,

No, that's down to natural selection. Trees that produce apples that fall upwards don't have offspring. [Razz]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It might be interesting this week in particular to consider what the story of of the magi brings to this discussion. They are essentially astrologers-- peddling and profiting from the exact form of superstitious, magical thinking Christians generally decry. And yet not only are they treated favorably in the text, God apparently rewards their superstition by placing the message of the birth of Jesus "in the stars" (planetary alignment) where they are (superstitiously) looking for it

Of course there are all sorts of meta message reasons why Matthew includes this tale. But it seems intriguing in the way it seems to counter the overall negativity toward magic and superstition

Likewise there appears to be, at the beginning of his eponymous book, an uncritical description of Daniel and his friends' immersion in the astrology and divination of the Babylonians.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

C.S. Lewis was not an evangelical, but as a conservative and orthodox Christian he was quite happy to use the term "magic' in passages such as the Christ-figure Aslan's explanation to the girls of his "resurrection": "...though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a deeper magic still which she did not know".

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Did somebody call?

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... at the moment, gravity is inexplicable, but presumably not considered to be magical.
Gravity has been adequately explained since Newton’s apple injury, and was very accurately described by Einstein in his General Theory a century ago. If you find it in any way inexplicable I cordially propose you read up on it or conduct some simple experiments for yourself (but do be careful if working at height).

The effects of gravity have been explained since Newton's day and are able to be calculated. What has not been explained at all yet is how gravity works, what it is and so forth.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The effects of gravity have been explained since Newton's day and are able to be calculated. What has not been explained at all yet is how gravity works, what it is and so forth.

Similar to what we call "life." We know that things live and we understand the properties of life. But there is no way of identifying exactly what "life" is.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... at the moment, gravity is inexplicable, but presumably not considered to be magical.
Gravity has been adequately explained since Newton’s apple injury, and was very accurately described by Einstein in his General Theory a century ago. If you find it in any way inexplicable I cordially propose you read up on it or conduct some simple experiments for yourself (but do be careful if working at height).

Newton described gravity, as an attractive force between two bodies proportional to the product of their masses. He didn't explain why it was that way.
I don't know what simple experiments you're thinking of: the simplest I can think of requires sensitive equipment and proximity to a suitably isolated small mountain. Newton himself relied upon a half century or so of accurate astronomical observations and a new branch of mathematics he invented for the purpose.

[ 05. January 2018, 00:39: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Accordingly, a person who believes in God is likely to believe that God is the unseen force behind all of these phenomenon. The alternative is to simply see the actions of fields, forces and life itself as inherent properties with no explicable origin.

Either way it makes no difference as far as science is concerned. They are constant, predictable, measurable, observable - so there is no need to speculate about their ultimate nature. But magic and miracles are different.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Some interesting posts here. I was taught that science is instrumental, that is, it works! In other words, it is not addressed to issues of truth and reality. Curiously, this makes it not inimical to religion.

Isn't it correct that gravity has been described, but not explained? But then this raises the question as to what level of explanation we require for anything.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Nicely put! That is just what I think, and it is an excellent question. What level of explanation is actually adequate?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One issue here is that 'explain' is ambiguous. For example, a scientific theory explains a certain set of data, and predicts further observations. In other words, it can be tested.

But 'explain' also has a popular usage, which is less stringent, rather as 'theory' does. How do you explain the sorrow in life? I don't, actually.

There is a nice film on Youtube, where the genius that is Feynman, describes the important function of guessing, much to the audience's amusement. But the guesses have to be tested!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One issue here is that 'explain' is ambiguous. For example, a scientific theory explains a certain set of data, and predicts further observations. In other words, it can be tested.

But 'explain' also has a popular usage, which is less stringent, rather as 'theory' does. How do you explain the sorrow in life? I don't, actually.

There is a nice film on Youtube, where the genius that is Feynman, describes the important function of guessing, much to the audience's amusement. But the guesses have to be tested!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Just a small tangent: have you read 'Surely you're joking, Mr Feynmann?'?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not all magical traditions posit that magic is inherent in the magician / sorcerer / witch / whatever. A good number of magical traditions postulate the working of magic by otherwise ordinary people cajoling supernatural entities to do them a favor (or trade favors). The witch's familiar. A djinn from a bottle. A contract with the devil. This is not so different than making covenants with God or trying to influence His actions through prayer. The only difference is the nature of the supernatural entity involved. If we're willing to classify Faust as a "magician" or "sorcerer" for entering into a pact with Mephistopheles it seems like hair splitting not to apply the same label to someone bargaining with God over the fate of Sodom or a cancer diagnosis or to find a good parking spot.
Renaissance magic seems to function by bullying the demon into doing the actual work by means of lots of impressive-sounding Latin and Hebrew.

I think there is a difference in that magic (of this kind) seems to be a battle of wills in which the magician comes out on top, whereas prayer isn't supposed to be able to control God, although in practice some Christians act as though it did.

Not always. Sometimes it's a trade instead of bullying or dominating via willpower. Anything from a dish of milk for the pixies to handing over the magician's immortal soul. Again I'm not sure there's a big difference between this and having an entity bestow blessings in exchange for worship or change wine into blood if you perform the correct ritual.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it correct that gravity has been described, but not explained? But then this raises the question as to what level of explanation we require for anything.

This seems like a semantic quibble.

A difference in electric potential causes electrons to move. When these electrons move across an electrically resistive filament some of their energy is expended overcoming the resistance, causing the filament to heat up enough to radiate in the visible spectrum.

Is that a description of how an incandescent light bulb works, or an explanation of how an incandescent light bulb works?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Croesos wrote:

quote:
:Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it correct that gravity has been described, but not explained? But then this raises the question as to what level of explanation we require for anything.

This seems like a semantic quibble.

It's very far from a semantic quibble - quetzalcoatl has hit the nail on the head. Newton's law of gravity is phenomenological. It doesn't explain what gravity is. For that you will need an ontological theory of gravity. The nearest full theory to that uses Einstein's theory of General Relativity, but that cannot be tied in to the other three fundamental forces. Hence work in the area of quantum gravity, but we're not there yet.

You can, I'm sure, now work out why Ohm's law (in your second example) doesn't describe what resistance actually is. At least with that one we have quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics to help. Good luck with those second-order differential equations.

[ 05. January 2018, 20:49: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Renaissance magic seems to function by bullying the demon into doing the actual work by means of lots of impressive-sounding Latin and Hebrew.

I think there is a difference in that magic (of this kind) seems to be a battle of wills in which the magician comes out on top, whereas prayer isn't supposed to be able to control God, although in practice some Christians act as though it did.
Not always. Sometimes it's a trade instead of bullying or dominating via willpower. Anything from a dish of milk for the pixies to handing over the magician's immortal soul. Again I'm not sure there's a big difference between this and having an entity bestow blessings in exchange for worship or change wine into blood if you perform the correct ritual.

I don't think I'd call leaving a saucer of the milk out for the fairies magic. Likewise, when Faust summons Mephistopheles he does magic. When having summoned Mephistopheles he makes a bargain with Mephistopheles he doesn't.
I may of course be projecting my D&D playing sensibility into the past.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it correct that gravity has been described, but not explained? But then this raises the question as to what level of explanation we require for anything.
This seems like a semantic quibble.

A difference in electric potential causes electrons to move. When these electrons move across an electrically resistive filament some of their energy is expended overcoming the resistance, causing the filament to heat up enough to radiate in the visible spectrum.

Is that a description of how an incandescent light bulb works, or an explanation of how an incandescent light bulb works?

As a first attempt, I would I think say that a description uses more accessible or apparent features of the situation, and an explanation uses less accessible or apparent features.
Or more precisely, if you call it a description you're modelling it on a situation where you use more accessible features, and if you call it an explanation you're modelling it on a situation where you use less accessible features.

As every explanation has potentially further explanations, something that is an explanation at one level will be a description at another level.
Therefore I think it's definitely an explanation of how an incandescent light bulb works. It's a description of what goes on inside the filament since that specifies that you're looking at a level that's not immediately accessible. You're presupposing that your audience finds the concept of electrons overcoming resistance intuitive.

[ 05. January 2018, 21:25: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

You have a car. It probably has a catalytic converter in it. I could not describe how the catalytic convert in my car works if you held a pistol to my head. Who among us could? But in spite of our united and steely ignorance, it is not magic. It's just science.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But in spite of our united and steely ignorance, it is not magic. It's just science.

That's right. Anything that can be reliably repeated, tested, examined, and described step-by-step is science not magic.

If someone could explain the mechanism behind Harry Potter's exclamation of "Expelloramus" while simultaneously pointing his wand, causing other people's wands to go flying out of their hands, then that would be science too.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0