Newton believed in the occult. Who knows what he would have thought a TV was. Well, I suppose a psychic might know. A psychic who can read the minds of the dead.Now, by way of analogy, let us suppose that Issac Newton came across a working TV set. He would, no doubt, be stunned and bewildered, but would he consider it as magic? I don’t think so. His scientific bent would result in him recognizing the TV set for what it is. — Jacob-B
Your conclusion is the same as mine albeit better expressed. However. I wonder what would happen faced with a phenomenon that can not be explained in even the most speculative way.
I think that the explanation of it being created by 'sufficiently advanced civilization must have its limits. — Jacob-B
. (i) observing that stars had realigned themselves to spell M-A-G-I-C or (ii) using the most powerful planck scale imaging device to discover G-O-D-S-W-O-R-K spelled out in quarks in a (every) hydrogen nucleus or (iii) a live severed head of person able to speak see hear think etc — 180 Proof
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. — DingoJones
science fiction — Jack Cummins
The current issue of SKEPTIC magazine has an article debunking the modern-day belief that Giordano Bruno was a martyr to Science, as opposed to myth-based religion. In fact, his notion of many other inhabited worlds out there, was at the time, not Science but science-fiction, since he had no evidence to support that imaginative scenario. Ironically today, a primary focus of "scientific" off-world exploration is to discover tangible evidence of life on other planets, such as Mars. And the faith that life is ubiquitous & cheap, rather than rare & precious, remains an article of motivating faith in search of facts. Bruno's mistake was not in speculating that stars might be suns with solar systems of their own, but in stubbornly insisting on that 17th century fiction as a matter of faith, for which he was prepared to die.Or is it? I think the above needs to be qualified and that It is a case of the magic being in the eye of the beholders — Jacob-B
Yes, but the problem with any true/false dichotomy is "who says", and "whose facts". The current issue of SKEPTIC magazine has a Conspiracy Theory article entitled : "The fringe is mainstream". Professional skeptics have been struggling for almost 60 years to definitively define the Paranormal (weird, but not exactly super-natural), and to draw a line between fringe (presumably false) beliefs, and Normal/True/Mainstream worldviews.Or is it more accurate to say that some people have false beliefs. I wonder if using the word facts here blurs the issue. There have always been people who held false beliefs, assuming them to be facts. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.