Quote from: jhkim on August 02, 2021, 08:37:11 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on August 02, 2021, 08:09:21 PM
The thing is, magic itself is expected to have certain desired results. A rain dance is expected to bring rain, for example. This means you have to do certain things in a certain way to achieve the desired results- same as chemistry or such. In AD&D it's the same thing: certain moves, words, materials...to cast that fireball.

What would be "mysterious" about magic is WHY doing these things would work. That could remain unknown. A cleric may be able to do things because of spells given by deities, but what if one cannot understand deities or their alien motives?

This is assuming that a rain dance works the same way as chemistry. But what if a rain dance instead works like how dancing works to attract a date? In that case, it's not something where the identical moves always have the identical results. A powerful magician might be like Brad Pitt and always be able to get a date, but it's still the case that it's not like laboratory chemistry - but instead like personal chemistry.

Sort of like the "science" of predicting the weather?

Quote from: Wrath of God on August 02, 2021, 08:20:17 PM

QuoteIs there any reason why the scientific method can not by applied to "magick"?

Terry Pratchet covered this quite nicely in his many Witches novels.

Nah, Witches of Pratchett were sometimes using proto-science instead magick. But when they did real magick it was in no way scientific in a common sense.

Thats not true at all.  How do their broomsticks fly using "proto-science"?

How do they possess a swarm of bees using "proto-science"?

QuoteBut overall why not... well that depends of magick type - I guess all vitalist theories can be easily falsified. But it's hard to falsify existence of spirits from different dimension only shamans can reach through astral travel - and spirits that may not look fondly upon being experimented on.

Wizards certainly applied scientific method to magic, for example The Rite of AshkEnte.

QuoteSort of in a way why humane sciences are often half-assed methodically - because to do it as hard science you'd need a lot of experiments on human that are considered immoral and illegal.
But with North Korea like state you could try - with spirits from spirit world you cannot influence in rigid manner - no sorry. Won't work. Simple limits of methodology - only things you can experiment on are really under power of scientific method.

Is it that science can not be applied to human sciences, or that a certain group of people dont like it when science gets applied to human science?

Quote from: jhkim on August 02, 2021, 08:37:11 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on August 02, 2021, 08:09:21 PM
The thing is, magic itself is expected to have certain desired results. A rain dance is expected to bring rain, for example. This means you have to do certain things in a certain way to achieve the desired results- same as chemistry or such. In AD&D it's the same thing: certain moves, words, materials...to cast that fireball.

What would be "mysterious" about magic is WHY doing these things would work. That could remain unknown. A cleric may be able to do things because of spells given by deities, but what if one cannot understand deities or their alien motives?

This is assuming that a rain dance works the same way as chemistry. But what if a rain dance instead works like how dancing works to attract a date? In that case, it's not something where the identical moves always have the identical results. A powerful magician might be like Brad Pitt and always be able to get a date, but it's still the case that it's not like laboratory chemistry - but instead like personal chemistry.

Its funny how money works like magic.

Quote from: Shasarak on August 02, 2021, 08:59:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on August 02, 2021, 08:37:11 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on August 02, 2021, 08:09:21 PM
The thing is, magic itself is expected to have certain desired results. A rain dance is expected to bring rain, for example. This means you have to do certain things in a certain way to achieve the desired results- same as chemistry or such. In AD&D it's the same thing: certain moves, words, materials...to cast that fireball.

What would be "mysterious" about magic is WHY doing these things would work. That could remain unknown. A cleric may be able to do things because of spells given by deities, but what if one cannot understand deities or their alien motives?

This is assuming that a rain dance works the same way as chemistry. But what if a rain dance instead works like how dancing works to attract a date? In that case, it's not something where the identical moves always have the identical results. A powerful magician might be like Brad Pitt and always be able to get a date, but it's still the case that it's not like laboratory chemistry - but instead like personal chemistry.

Its funny how money works like magic.

Money is magic.  So is music.

And Time.

I think you need some kind of way of differentiating technology from not technology.

One method might be can you apply the scientific method to it.

In the case of D&D magic this is plainly the case.

If I have a Wall of Iron spell I can test it out using the scientific principles.  Does it weigh anything?  Can I conjure it mid-air or only on a solid surface?  Is it phyiscal or can you make a save to walk through it?  Some of these things may require a GM ruling, but the expectation is that the GM ruling should be consistent.  If the GM ruled last session that I can make a Wall or Iron appear in the air and fall to the ground I should be able to take advantage of that this session.

Quote from: TJS on August 02, 2021, 09:11:56 PM
I think you need some kind of way of differentiating technology from not technology.

One method might be can you apply the scientific method to it.

In the case of D&D magic this is plainly the case.

If I have a Wall of Iron spell I can test it out using the scientific principles.  Does it weigh anything?  Can I conjure it mid-air or only on a solid surface?  Is it phyiscal or can you make a save to walk through it?  Some of these things may require a GM ruling, but the expectation is that the GM ruling should be consistent.  If the GM ruled last session that I can make a Wall or Iron appear in the air and fall to the ground I should be able to take advantage of that this session.

But can you explain it using naturalistic explanations only?

I mean we can explain how and why a new species appears, why this hummingbird has a long curved beak while that other hummingbird has a shorter straight one by looking at the plants they extract nectar from.

Darwin famously predicted a moth/butterfly would be found with a proboscis with a certain lenght based on a flower.

So now take a piece of fur and a piece of quartz and explain naturalistically how those produce a Lightning bolt X Feet away of Y feet width and Z feet length.

What is the inherent mechanic that makes the wizard be able to throw lightning bolts from his finger tips?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 02, 2021, 09:19:19 PM
So now take a piece of fur and a piece of quartz and explain naturalistically how those produce a Lightning bolt X Feet away of Y feet width and Z feet length.

What is the inherent mechanic that makes the wizard be able to throw lightning bolts from his finger tips?

Being able to answer this is probably why wizards are an extra 1d6 years older than fighters at level one*. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 02, 2021, 09:19:19 PM

Quote from: TJS on August 02, 2021, 09:11:56 PM
I think you need some kind of way of differentiating technology from not technology.

One method might be can you apply the scientific method to it.

In the case of D&D magic this is plainly the case.

If I have a Wall of Iron spell I can test it out using the scientific principles.  Does it weigh anything?  Can I conjure it mid-air or only on a solid surface?  Is it phyiscal or can you make a save to walk through it?  Some of these things may require a GM ruling, but the expectation is that the GM ruling should be consistent.  If the GM ruled last session that I can make a Wall or Iron appear in the air and fall to the ground I should be able to take advantage of that this session.

But can you explain it using naturalistic explanations only?

I mean we can explain how and why a new species appears, why this hummingbird has a long curved beak while that other hummingbird has a shorter straight one by looking at the plants they extract nectar from.

Darwin famously predicted a moth/butterfly would be found with a proboscis with a certain lenght based on a flower.

So now take a piece of fur and a piece of quartz and explain naturalistically how those produce a Lightning bolt X Feet away of Y feet width and Z feet length.

What is the inherent mechanic that makes the wizard be able to throw lightning bolts from his finger tips?

I don't think that's the distinction that matters, and least for the purpose of discussing whether something feels magical.

Otherwise there's nothing to discuss here at all.  If it's outside the laws of science it's magic and that's all there is to it. 

But it's worth stopping and considering how much magic in game systems and novels tends to piggyback on modern scientific understanding.  D&D is actually not even close to being the worst here.  Think of all those systems with 'mana' ie you need an energy system to perform feats of magic (because that seems like common sense in the scientific age).

But conversely, what's a better design for making a flying ship?  Is aerodynamics the prime consideration or should it be kitted out like a sailing ship because magical flight works via sympathetic magic and therefore you need to treat sailing through the sky as metaphorically linked to sailing through the sea, so you need a ship.  A house would sink in the ocean, so it's a lot harder to make it fly with magic - the metaphor doesn't work.

Quote from: TJS on August 02, 2021, 09:48:27 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 02, 2021, 09:19:19 PM

Quote from: TJS on August 02, 2021, 09:11:56 PM
I think you need some kind of way of differentiating technology from not technology.

One method might be can you apply the scientific method to it.

In the case of D&D magic this is plainly the case.

If I have a Wall of Iron spell I can test it out using the scientific principles.  Does it weigh anything?  Can I conjure it mid-air or only on a solid surface?  Is it phyiscal or can you make a save to walk through it?  Some of these things may require a GM ruling, but the expectation is that the GM ruling should be consistent.  If the GM ruled last session that I can make a Wall or Iron appear in the air and fall to the ground I should be able to take advantage of that this session.

But can you explain it using naturalistic explanations only?

I mean we can explain how and why a new species appears, why this hummingbird has a long curved beak while that other hummingbird has a shorter straight one by looking at the plants they extract nectar from.

Darwin famously predicted a moth/butterfly would be found with a proboscis with a certain lenght based on a flower.

So now take a piece of fur and a piece of quartz and explain naturalistically how those produce a Lightning bolt X Feet away of Y feet width and Z feet length.

What is the inherent mechanic that makes the wizard be able to throw lightning bolts from his finger tips?

I don't think that's the distinction that matters, and least for the purpose of discussing whether something feels magical.

Otherwise there's nothing to discuss here at all.  If it's outside the laws of science it's magic and that's all there is to it. 

But it's worth stopping and considering how much magic in game systems and novels tends to piggyback on modern scientific understanding.  D&D is actually not even close to being the worst here.  Think of all those systems with 'mana' ie you need an energy system to perform feats of magic (because that seems like common sense in the scientific age).

But conversely, what's a better design for making a flying ship?  Is aerodynamics the prime consideration or should it be kitted out like a sailing ship because magical flight works via sympathetic magic and therefore you need to treat sailing through the sky as metaphorically linked to sailing through the sea, so you need a ship.  A house would sink in the ocean, so it's a lot harder to make it fly with magic - the metaphor doesn't work.

If you ask me the less explanation the better, the weirdest the better too.

So I'm all for flying ships a la Flying Dutchman.

Conversely some spells on D&D seem superfluos IMHO, and should be collapsed into a single spell that the caster can make more powerful as he grows in power.

Then again I don't use vancian magic but my own points based magic system.

Why does magic demand details but not real life?

How many people know how a plasma-screen television works?

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on August 02, 2021, 10:35:24 PM
Why does magic demand details but not real life?

How many people know how a plasma-screen television works?

Thats silly, you cant know how a plasma-screen television works, you can only say the magic words, do the magic dance and plug it into the magic wall socket before you can watch your magic programs.

I think the point is taken - not knowing how something works doesn't make it magic.  Nor does it really make something feel like magic.

Hell, if someone doesn't know that being bitten by a radioactive spider can't give you spider powers, then I guess it's possible they might think Spiderman is halfway scientifically plausible.

It's because we know it's not that we recognise that it's magic.  And if we know something about magic we may even recognise there's an element of sympathetic magic there.

Magic is rooted in the concept of secret, hidden knowledge.

If I dropped a small piece of a certain mineral into a container of water, and you witnessed a violent chemical reaction in the water; you might very well assume that it was sorcery.

If you had never seen a cell phone before, and I took your photo and showed it to you; you might very well assume that it was sorcery.

"Magic" is just a placeholder word for anything someone else knows how to do that you don't.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 02, 2021, 11:42:43 PM
Magic is rooted in the concept of secret, hidden knowledge.

If I dropped a small piece of a certain mineral into a container of water, and you witnessed a violent chemical reaction in the water; you might very well assume that it was sorcery.

If you had never seen a cell phone before, and I took your photo and showed it to you; you might very well assume that it was sorcery.

Well I wouldn't obviously.  As I live under a scientific paradigm, I would assume it fit within my existing frame of knowledge just in some way I am not currently aware of.

And a medieval person would fit it into their existing frame of knowledge and perhaps assume it was magic and bring with them certain assumptions of what magic is.

Magic is not a word that means "anything outside of my current experience".

If you're mobile phone gets you tried for witchcraft it's not because the witness doesn't know what you are doing but because they think they do.