Actually the quote is:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

His inclusion of “sufficiently” negates most of your post.
To answer your question, the “world of science” can only be convinced of “supernatural” explanation for something if they were first convinced that anything supernatural actually existed in the first place. In order to do that there would have to be scientific evidence of something being supernatural. There isnt, ergo the “scientific world” would never posit a supernatural explanation.

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.

E.g. (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 telling us, for instance, what the afterlife is like or (x) ... Any of those, I imagine, would convince scientists of "magic" or "the supernatural" so long as they could repeat the observations.

In Paul Galico's The Man who was Magic, the trick performed was to un-beat an egg.

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

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.

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

What would happen if something happened that is not scientifically explicable? is your question.

I chalk it up as wishful thinking by the religious. It has never happened yet; to our knowledge. You could also ask, "what if nothing will ever happen that will disprove science?" with the same logic and intuition.

To rely on the faith that something that has never happened and likely never will, but is going to happen is the strength of religion.

As DingiJones pointed out science and the supernatural are by definition mutually exclusive, so non of the events you mention would change the mind of the scientific world. It would result in a frenzy of new scientific and conspiracy theories.

I definitely agree that 'magic exists in the eye of the beholder.' What once appears as science fiction becomes a living reality. Think about how different the world is today from a hundred years ago. Even going back 25 years ago, we did not have smartphones and change is taking place at an incredible pace, due to the 'magic' of science.

The question is what will come next. We have the possibilities of transhumanism. However, while there are ideas of making the individual human as 'immortal', there is still the question as to what extent human beings have power over nature. We believe that we have mastery over it, but not fully, especially with climate change and, the pandemic has left the world struggling, in spite of vaccines. I think that we need more 'magic' and some new shamans to look for new healing potentials for humanity and planet earth.

'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum physics' ~ Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

And yet, this very computer relies on it to work. As if by magic.

. (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

Interesting that those are all anthropocentric examples. Perhaps the stars and quarks do spell out those messages, but we have not yet learned the language.

What is "magic" anyway except an alternative causal schema? Any system in which a causes b according to some rule c is equally comprehensible, whether it is magic or physics.

Of course the examples are anthropocentric, the OP refers to "the world of science", which is presumable human, and not "the world of beaver dam-building". And I'd go further and say "magic" is a fiat schema (ideational sans mechanism) rather than a causal schema (mechanical).

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. — DingoJones

science fiction — Jack Cummins

The Peter Poppof Problem! How poetic?!

Featuring:

1. Gullible people as The Sentinel Tribe (Andamans).

2. Peter Poppof as the unscrupulous, technologically-enhanced magician. (Cyborg?)

3. James, The Amazing, Randi as Newton, the scientific skeptic.

Well, any magic I have ever heard about has involved performing some non-arbitrary action or ritual in order to engender a result. What you have described is just causing something to happen by virtue of thought alone, nothing magical about that!

Read some Aleister Crowley (re: imagination+will) or stories about djinn granting wishes and the old pagan myths. "Results" are just ex post facto rationalizations (i.e. bad science, video game / D&D "spells") as every good stage magician will tell you. :smirk:

I do agree with you that magic is seen as a 'different causal schema' to the explanations we take for granted. The anthropologist James Frazer, in, 'The Golden Bough' speaks of the developments in understanding as magic, religion and science. I believe that he hints that there may be a possibility beyond the final one of science and I am curious as to what that might be.

Well, the possibility at least exists that there are such causal schemas, perhaps only partially overlapping the boundaries of the world we inhabit with our current abilities and understanding. Hence the analogy between magic and advanced technology. viz also my lounge post on the realms of the amoeba and the human. Carlos Castaneda's books all revolve around this premise.

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

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.

The same issue recounts a modern-day martyr, who blew himself, and a city block of Nashville, to kingdom come with a fertilizer-filled van. He left behind treatises declaring that his self-martyrdom was grounded in the faith that lizard people were running the country, and the world. As science-fiction, the notion of disguised reptoids taking-over the world might be amusing, as in the TV series "V". But as a belief to sacrifice your life for, it sounds insane to us enlightened skeptics. But the article notes that 12 million Americans believe the government is run by lizard people. Apparently, they don't think of that worldview as magical, but factual. So, it seems that facts are also in the eye of the believer. :gasp:

Given sufficient time (much longer than the age of the universe) the egg could unscramble itself 'naturally..however. There are instances of man-made unscrambling. The German intelligence service
managed to unscramble the shredded STASI file.

Intriguing stuff, but what has it to do with the subject?

So, it seems that facts are also in the eye of the believer. :gasp: — Gnomon

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.

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

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.

By their own admission, in surveys, millions of Americans believe in "weird things". So, the article concludes, "the reality is clear : when we talk about 'fringe believers', we're actually talking about most people. . . . skeptics are the outliers." Moreover, some modern-day politicians, pointing the finger at "fake news", practice the very false-fact dissemination that they preach against. And are avidly supported by almost half of the US voting population. Obfuscating smoke & mirrors are essential to Magic, and to Advertising, and to Politics, and to Sophistry..

Ironically, most posters on this forum are strongly skeptical about some ideas, and are well-trained in Critical Thinking. And yet, we vociferously disagree on some dearly-held beliefs. And that's not due to ignorance or stupidity, but to the shades of gray surrounding some of the most important philosophical issues --- topics that are still debated after 2500 years of philosophical and scientific analysis. So, it seems to be a Mexican stand-off, between My Truth and Your Falsehood.

That's why I have adopted the BothAnd Principle to monitor my own beliefs, and of those I dialog with on this forum. Belief systems typically have a true/false hard core and maybe-yes/maybe-no soft edges, or fringes. If we disagree about the core issues, there's nothing to be done, except agree to disagree, or to step-off 20 paces. Yet, if we can find some common ground on the mushy-maybe terrain, perhaps both sides will get a little closer to big "T" Truth. :cool:

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature. . . . ambiguity as a natural fact of life to be dealt with rationally and pragmatically.

We All Believe in Magic :
The widely spread view on magical beliefs in modern industrial cultures contends that magical beliefs are a bunch of curious phenomena that persist today as an unnecessary addition to a much more important set of rational beliefs. Contrary to this view, in this article, the view is presented, which suggests that the belief in magic is a fundamental property of the human mind. Individuals can consciously consider themselves to be completely rational people and deny that they believe in magic or God despite harboring a subconscious belief in the supernatural. Research also shows how engagement in magical thinking can enhance cognitive functioning, such as creative thinking, perception and memory.
The Belief in Magic in the Age of Science
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244014521433

Yes, that's interesting. I don't reach for the word 'fact' very often which is why I priviledged the term belief. I am more interested in looking at specific beliefs themselves and asking if the belief is reasonable and how is it justified. We can examine any given belief - much better than taking on all of epistemology.

In order for one to take sufficiently complex technology as magic, one would have to believe in magic. Were you or I to find a device left behind by a visiting alien civilization, and it made things disappear when you pointed it and pushed the button, we would not think it magic. We would think it amazing, horrible, fascinating, repellant, super or dangerous or whatever--but we wouldn't think it was magic. We would ask, "How does this work?"

If we believed there were no other beings in the universe, we'd have to believe it was secret human technology which had been hidden from us.

To suppose that something was of divine origin, one would have to believe that the divine existed.

Do you believe in magic? Miracles? The divine? Aliens? Technology you don't understand?

I suppose it all comes down to belief in the existence Divine=GOD. I think that the strongest argument for Hos existence is our inability to prove his non-existence. I think that the Black Swan principle should apply here. It takes just one black swan to prove that not all swans are white. It needs just an extraordinary event that is unquestionable supernatural to prove the existence of GOD albeit in an inductive logic way. I think that many dentists derive their beliefs in a deductive way. However, that is not the position of the world's dominating religions whose claims to authority os based on 'Miracles'

indistinguishable from magic — Jacob-B

Anything beyond the mind is "magic".

Anything beyond the senses is "spiritual".

I am hard-pressed to imagine something that is 'beyond the mind'
As for our senses, they are continually amplified by scientific instrumentation.