Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[devek]

Actually you're wrong.

What is natural, true, or real isn't a matter of perspective. Just because someone is wrong, doesn't change reality. Science understands and accounts for this, and it has for thousands of years.

[NW_Kohaku]

Now, you can say "That's not magic, it's science/psychiatry pretending to be magic", but if that's the case ; what was magic supposed to be before D&D invented the concept of the magic missile?

I will say it, it is just psychology

Magic, by definition, invokes the supernatural. Since, by definition, nothing supernatural exists... Magic is and has always been useful in storytelling or fantasy. Without fiction life would be pretty boring. From a practical standpoint magic is also useful for thought experiments or tricking your children into behaving around Christmas.

It depends a lot on your defintion of what we mean when we say "magic" or "science".

I think part of the contention between yourself and Jeoshua in this stems from differing definitions of "Magic" and "Science", since you seem to view those two things as a thought process, whereas Jeoshua is thinking more in terms of whether or not something appears to be magic.

In the ancient world, the Sun was magic - The Egyptians believed that the world was flat, and bounded by very tall mountains, and that the Sun was the boat their god rode through the sky, and during the hours of the night, descended into the underworld to do battle with the forces of Apep, where if the Sun were ever destroyed, Apep would be free to swallow the whole world of the living.

That's all magic, replaced by our more modern understanding of things like gravity.

There's also the sort of magic that takes place in modern fiction.  Consider Mass Effect, where there is a fictional substance that allows heavy objects to become weightless, faster-than-light travel, the ability for people to levitate objects, or make force fields or use powers of their mind to rip physical objects apart.

This is all given a science fiction veneer, but it's functionally the exact same effect as magic.

Even worse is something like Xenosaga, where the characters have "nanomachines" that are just obvious stand-ins for magic in a supposedly technological setting, and even go so far as to have The Four Greek Classical Elements "castable" in nanomachine form, along with standard healing spells.

Then you get things like Final Fantasy 7, where "magic" is basically just gasoline that glows - you can run a truck by pouring magic into the internal combustion engine, and the giant steampunk factories run on drilling an exhaustable supply of "magic" from the ground, where society will collapse if all the "magic" is drilled out.  The good guys want to switch over to technology that doesn't rely upon drilling out the last of the "magic" from the ground before it's too late, and live in peaceful, eco-friendly sustainable villages.  (Nope, no parallels to fossil fuels, here.) 

It's just technology which people have applied a fictional power source to it.

Regardless of how the actual alchemical system is set up, as long as "Component A + Component B ==catalyst=> Product" is true, you're basically talking about "science" in the sense that it is a predictable, explainable reaction, (the way that you have been talking about it, and the way that "magic" exists in Final Fantasy 7). We're just using eyeball grass or mushroom wood that is always 0 degrees Celsius as a component, and the rest is just a semantic argument.

[devek]

Actually, thank you. That helped me simplify my argument. Tell me what you think about this.

Earlier science fiction writers invented the fax machine, they used magic to transfer writings over long distance. It was fantasy.

Scientist thought that was a good idea, and figured out a way to do it using science.

The modern fax machine would be science if it was shown to the earlier science fiction writers, and the science fiction fax machine is still fantasy today.

The status of what is magic or what is science never changed.

EDIT: If we ever figure out how to do the cool stuff in Mass Effect, Mass Effect will still only be a story If time travelers ever came back from the future and showed me how to do the stuff in mass effect, that would be some pretty nifty science.

[devek]

The subject of calling something you don't understand magic, That requires a separate argument I think.

There are many things TODAY we don't understand, but it isn't magic. It is just something we haven't figured out yet.

There are still idiots though, look at "intelligent design". There are those who want to teach our children that life was created magically. They are just as wrong today as they will be the day that the creation of life is 100% understood. 

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, again, this is a semantic argument: Language is inherently arbitrary. 

If you are defining anything that can actually be observed to occur predictably as "science", and that "magic definitionally cannot exist" then arguing with other people is what your personal definition of magic is, which you have arbitrarily defined in a different way than they have arbitrarily defined it.

Since, again, language is completely arbitrary, if you have a different arbitrary definition, you can argue yourself hoarse without convincing anyone of anything, since an arbitrary definition cannot be disproven through any logical argument.

[devek]

But language can't be arbitrary if you ever want to solve problems.... that is why scientist agree on these terms and don't live in fantasy.

You can call an elephant a pineapple, but that doesn't make it so.

[NW_Kohaku]

But language can't be arbitrary if you ever want to solve problems.... that is why scientist agree on these terms and don't live in fantasy.

You can call an elephant a pineapple, but that doesn't make it so.

Actually, yes it does. 

As long as you get people to agree you mean "a grey four-legged creature noted for being the largest land mammal in existence" when you say "pineapple", then that is exactly what "pineapple" means. 

That is the definition of "arbitrary definition", if you'll pardon the tautological nature of that statement.

Likewise, if I declare to all my friends that I am making a new word, and that "Lepabepa" means "I have the particular kind of thirst that can only be satiated by Dr Pepper", and everyone understands what I mean by that, then I just created a new word.

Language is, as I said, inherently arbitrary, and you cannot logically refute a definition because a definition is tautological, and inherently relies upon no logic to make itself true.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go train my war pineapples.

[Dynastia]

that is why scientist agree on these terms and don't live in fantasy.

I can refer you to a medical text (circa 2010, concerning modern medicine, not unproven new-age gobbledegook) with an entire chapter on dealing with magic spells in primitive/traditionalist communities. So it would seem that scientists DO accept that definition of "magic". Not that it really matters what scientists agree to. They're not lexicologists, they're scientists. If the rest of the world calls it magic, they don't get to nullify that by shouting "NUH UH, MAGIC ISN'T REAL". Witchcraft, curses, faith healing, magical assassination etc. are all very much real, and much easier to classify as "magic" than "an esoteric and culturally-dependent branch of psychology".

Seriously, what would you call it if a witchdoctor cast a magic spell on you? A "ritualistic appeal to his non-existent gods which don't actually exist, invoking supernatural forces which aren't real, to shrivel my testicles, which won't happen"? The rest of the world calls it a magic spell, because that's what it's called.

[Neonivek]

I don't see how science and magic are two sides of the same coin anyhow as they are both pretty much around the same thing in concept.

A lot of early "science" involved HUGE leaps of faith in order to function. I mean, Cells were written up LONG before we had the ability to even see them or animals of similar natured things.

Magic isn't always a supernatural force it is often considered to be the "natural" force. Especially evident in animology.

or rather... When dealing with alchemy it is best to just ignore Magic and Science and deal with Alchemy on its own terms and merits.

Especially since Alchemy is by FAR inexplainable with the technology available to a medieval society without something that would seem "Magical" by todays standards (matter being made up of 4 elements for example)

[NW_Kohaku]

That's getting beside the point I was making...

But language can't be arbitrary if you ever want to solve problems.... that is why scientist agree on these terms and don't live in fantasy.

This is the key part.

Scientists can talk about certain terms and know that they will be taken as meaning a certain thing because they agree upon the definition.

When you say "scientist agree on these terms", I also have to punch in a few ^{[who?][Citation Needed]} tags, because not all scientists agree on everything by any stretch of the imagination. 

An agreed-upon definition of a word is only valid among those who actually agree upon the definition. 

If someone else disagrees, and says they have another arbitrary definition that they believe is valid, and refuses to accept your definition, then there is no way to prove your definition more valid than someone else's.

To say that someone else's definition of a word is wrong is like saying that anyone who speaks French is "Speaking English Wrong", and that you can prove that there is only one correct way to speak English because you have a book where people agreed on the way to speak Proper English.

To say that language cannot be arbitrary because then people wouldn't be able to stop arguments over the definition is ignoring the fact that not stopping arguing over the definition is exactly what you people are doing right now.

[devek]

Seriously, what would you call it if a witchdoctor cast a magic spell on you? A "ritualistic appeal to his non-existent gods which don't actually exist, invoking supernatural forces which aren't real, to shrivel my testicles, which won't happen"? The rest of the world calls it a magic spell, because that's what it's called.

As long as people note that a magic spell isn't real, that isn't science that isn't understood yet I, and there is no way my testicles will shrivel, I don't mind calling it magic

The earlier problem is that people believe magic could be another word for things that might be true :/

[Jeoshua]

First of all, I would like to thank Kohaku for understanding my specific point of contention: Magic is just a word for something we don't understand... a placeholder for something we have not yet made into science.  It implies a great many things, but who could honestly say that if the force of will dominating over the rigorous rules of nature, that it would not then be codified and better understood.  People casting magic missile, for example, if they understood the exact mechanics that allowed them to produce this effect reproductively, would not call it magic at all.  In this way, Wizards of Fantasy novels are not using "magic" in the more general sense.  They are partaking in a science of mind over matter, codifiable, testable, and reproductable.  Thereby, by modern understanding of the words, it is a science.  Not magic.

They just don't call it that, probably for flare and shock-value.  What carries more weight. "I am a man of science who understands how to use the hidden rules of reality to send a bolt of energy unerringly towards foes, with which to cause burns and scars: here is the documentation of this effect, how it works, and why" or "I am a wizard and I call upon forces of magic to do in my foes".

One of these phrases is the truth of the matter.  The other one makes people fearful of what else they might be capable of doing.

So it's not a question of the truth of the matter, merely a question of style and how well you can impress your superiority.

Wizards and Alchemists in a DnD Fantasy setting are not truly magicians.  Rather they are the Scientists of the period, using forces they understand in methods whose results they can predict.  The results are reproducible, the information is understood, and the knowledge is transferable.  DnD Wizardly magic is a science, through and through.  The universe merely operates on different principles that make the kind of things that we can't reproduce actually reproductable.

Wild Mages, on the other hand, would be engaging in Magic.  The Wizards of most worlds have an understanding of the forces involved in spell-casting, and see Wild Mages as dangerous.  They are toying with forces they do not truly understand, and therefore are extremely unpredictable and dangerous.  It still does not change the fact that the forces involved are codifiable and understandable... these people merely do not understand what they're doing, operating instead on intuition and hope.

In this game, it would be much better if we focused on the Science of the matter, as it is the Dwarfy thing to do.  Dwarves are rarely given to flights of fancy, piques of inspiration that do not involve some kind appliance, or trust in something that they cannot touch.  For Elves or Humans the situation may differ, but since this is Dwarf Fortress and not Elven Retreat, we might first focus on how the Dwarves would go about mixing different things together to get results.

Of all the races in the game, Dwarves are definitely the most Scientific.

[Grek]

Dwarves are prone to fits of insanity, strange traces, bloodthirty rage, inscruitable moods and violent trantrums. Their greatest works come in a fit of madness and inspiration, where a dwarf demands to be given strange materials for stranger uses and produce works of surpassing greatness that cannot be reproduced by any mundane means. Dwarves are not at all scientific. They are merely prone to fits of genius.

As such, I recomend that dwarven alchemy be the same, and be founded in an alchemist having a strange mood and producing an inexplicable object which allows alchemy to be done. An alchemist might, for example, produce an artifact stone that can be used as a catalyst in a reaction to produce an unnatural venom filled with a potency that dissolves flesh, inflames the nerves and causes the eyes to burst from their skull. Any site that has the item will be able to produce the material in question. Likewise, you could have an item that lets you covert assorted materials into assorted other materials, using unusual reagents as a requirement along with the catalyst. Lead to gold, to use the classic example, but also petrification or turning green glass into bronze or other, more unusual combinations.

[devek]

Do you think gravity is magic?

[NW_Kohaku]

First of all, I would like to thank Kohaku for understanding my specific point of contention: Magic is just a word for something we don't understand... a placeholder for something we have not yet made into science.  It implies a great many things, but who could honestly say that if the force of will dominating over the rigorous rules of nature, that it would not then be codified and better understood.  People casting magic missile, for example, if they understood the exact mechanics that allowed them to produce this effect reproductively, would not call it magic at all.  In this way, Wizards of Fantasy novels are not using "magic" in the more general sense.  They are partaking in a science of mind over matter, codifiable, testable, and reproductable.  Thereby, by modern understanding of the words, it is a science.  Not magic.

This still isn't quite my point...  It goes both ways.

Just as Devek isn't going to convince you that his idea of what "magic" means is correct, you're not going to convince Devek that your idea of what "magic" means is correct.

As language is arbitrary, your two mutually exclusive definitions are both right, and you will never convince the other of your own rightness.

If you want, you can do further reading on the philosophy of language, but for now, just accept the fact that when you are throwing around terms where people disagree on the definitions, you're not going to convince anyone of anything.

If you're going to talk about alchemy, though, just talk about what it does, and not whether it is magic or science or not.  If one person thinks that factory-producing healing poultices that give +10 healing from sun berries and fisher berries is a "science" and another thinks it is a "magic" process, then it doesn't matter what term they think is applied to it, so long as people understand the actual process you are talking about.