Science vs magic -- your views

[Cammy]

Just thought I'd start a new topic for the fun of discussion. If you notice, in most games or films science and magic don't seem to mix. Either it's all strictly hi-tech stuff only, as in Half-Life and System Shock, or it's all strictly magic and fantasy, as in Wheel of Time. Only occasinally do you see a mix of them, as in Quake (I think).

What I want to ask is: do you think they can mix? Or would you prefer they get separated out? In either case, why? Or is it that you don't mind if they come together, but that they should come together only in a certain way? If so, in what way?

Above all, would you like our beloved game (do I have to say what this game is? /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif) to be a mix of science and magic? Meaning that besides all those hi-tech guns, etc., you'll also get weapons and powerups that are magic-based?

More generally, do you think magic exists in real life, or is just a load of BS, to be dispelled by the light of science and reason?

And please -- PLEASE -- don't turn this into a flame war this time. (Rock, I like you, but just try to be a bit more sensitive to others' feelings in your posts. /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif And Mr. Hyde, if you don't like the Rock and he posts here, just ignore him and stay to the topic. Okay? /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif)




------------------
Yoooouuuu wanna daaaannce?...

 

[Zaccix]

What science can't explain, nature can. What nature can't explain, science can. What both of them can't explain, magic can. Well that's what I believe anyway /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

As for games, I don't mind how much of science or magic (or nature hehe) gets thrown into the mix, as long as it works and works well.

 

[Lizard From Oz]

Science invalidates magic.
Magic invalidates science.

There no point in tip-toeing through life to get safely to death.

 

[THE**WRAITH_DS]

Ok cammie, thats taking it to far with a game?? Magic in a rpg game is what brings the game alive, however science as done in ancient times with sorcerers was a way of living for them for example Merlin he formulated his spells using science!!! When it comes down to it their both very much needed or else it would be a waste of time for Merlin chemistry was his favorite subject!!

I am what I am!!!

 

[Cammy]

The line between science and magic can actually be a difficult one to draw, as Wraith hinted! Depending on how you look at it, magic can actually be looked upon as a kind of science. It starts with certain basic assumptions and often works on experimental verification, as science does. Science and magic can actually be seen as two sides of the same coin!

Ah, well, if only today's scientists could be less prejudiced in their attitudes towards those things often termed as magical...

(I didn't know Merlin liked chemistry...)

Creme du Cammy. For soft, tender skin.

 

[Lizard From Oz]

Magic (maj'ik) n. 1. The art that purports
to control or forecast natural events or forces by invoking
the supernatural.

Science (si'ens) 1. The study and theoretical
explanation of natural phenomena.

There no point in tip-toeing through life to get safely to death.

 

[UpYours]

Magic is an incorrect definition. Its either science fiction or....fiction that is supernatural. Period.
There is no such phenomena as magic...only what we define as magic. All "magic" is explainable...if you know the secrets.
On the other hand...all that is supernatural can also be explained....if you know the answers...
How parallel.
"Is the glass half full...or half empty. Either is right...and either is wrong. That cant be. It must revolve around how YOU see it...therfore life and the meaning, purpose and education of life must revolve on how YOU see it...as it unfolds around you.
When you get mad or angry.....not only is it YOUR CHOICE on how you feel about the situation..but it produces self misery. Nobody is happy when they are mad..right? You may get mad at somebody to prove an issue or put them in their place....but YOU feel bad while doing it...so...is getting angry the best course for getting whats good for you?
Yet YOU CHOOSE to be mad....you could just as easily chose to ignore it or consider it below you...but YOU CHOOSE to be angered over it.
Interesting isnt it? You ever wondered why that is?
btw...Im no hypocrit....I get mad too...at things...and after doing so....I feel I didnt win a thing...cause it made ME "not happy" while I was being mad. Dig?

[This message has been edited by UpYours (edited 11-24-1999).]

 

[UpYours]

Now we must ask ourselves......why?
Why did UpYours respond with that post...is he.loony...nuts...informed...physco..spiritual.......
or all of the above....?

 

[L_S]

All talk and no action.....'til now!

<A HREF="http://members.xoom.com/longshaft/oops.htm"" TARGET=_blank>Science vs Magic results</A>

Quite an upset if you ask me.

I dont feel like retyping my sig damn it.

 

[Damphir]

Most political views on science revolve strictly around a mechanical level. There are other types of science that Cammy could be speaking of.
There are so many levels of science and it usually revolves around the resolution of magic. Think about it.
Is it magic that the apple fell from the tree on Netwon's nugget? Maybe back then...to some...but isn't it really science?
Science can coexist on MANY MANY different levels.
Mechanical
Cellular
Metaphysical
Physical
Universal
etc
I think even if a game could plot the idea...it might work.
However..there are so many things that spark the attention in our feeble 10% brain usage.
One...something that appears so realistic...it almost SEEMS like magic
Two...something that is so outlandishly ridiculous or non passe, that it's uniqueness alone, attracts that attention.

I've always been a realist myself...one that basis alot of what happens..solely upon science....but again...isn't science the pursuit of something that may appear so odd or out of reach..that it almost resembles magic??

There is symmetry in death.

 

[Cammy]

LOL, Liquid-Sin! Were you inspired by this thread into playing a multiplayer game?

UpYours(heavens, why must you use a nickname like this?), I can see the point in what you said on magic being wrongly defined, but in the later part of the discussion... Uhhh, are you unhappy about something?:0

Damphir, what you say is most interesting. Many like to think that science explains things. But when you come to think about it... what has ever been explained? The truth is that science itself has to start from all sorts of basic assumptions which have to be unconditionally accepted. So what makes scientists think they are anywhere smarter than, say, witch doctors? /~unreal/ubb/html/biggrin.gif

Creme du Cammy. For soft, tender skin.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Science is Magic without the mystery.

/~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

"There is no point in tip-toeing through life to get safely to death."
"Whom ever sacrifices freedom for security get's nor deserves either."

 

[Cammy]

Correction, Liz:

Science is magic trying to pretend to have no mystery. /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

Creme du Cammy. For soft, tender skin.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

The difference between Science and Magic is the degree of faith required.


Science And Truth

Two conceptions of science embody two
different valuations of scientific life
and of the purpose of scientific enquiry.
According to the first conception, science is
above all else an imaginative and exploratory
activity, and the scientist is a person
taking part in a great intellectual
adventure. The alternative conception
suggests that science is above all else a
critical and analytical activity and the
scientist is pre-eminently a person who
requires evidence before he or she delivers
an opinion, and when it comes to evidence is
hard to please (Medawar, 1991: p. 30-31).

In the first conception, truth takes shape in
the mind of the observer: it is his
imaginative grasp of what might be true that
provides the incentive for finding out, so
far as he can, what is true. This viewpoint
is supported by other scholars of science.
For instance, Greenwald, et al. (1986) argue
that: "One's preliminary hypotheses have a
decided advantage in the judgement process."

According to the second conception, truth
resides in nature and is to be got at only
through the evidence of the senses:
apprehension leads by a direct pathway to
comprehension, and the scientist's task is
essentially one of discernment (Medawar,
1991: p. 30-31).

Inasmuch as these two sets of opinions
contradict each other flatly in every
particular, it seems hardly possible that
they should both be true; but anyone who has
actually done or reflected deeply upon
scientific research knows that there is in
fact a great deal of truth in both of them.
For a scientist must indeed be freely
imaginative and yet skeptical, creative and
yet a critic.

What are usually thought of as two
alternative and indeed competing accounts of
the two successive and complementary episodes
of thought that occur in every advance of
scientific understanding. This general
conception of science which reconciles the
two sets of contradictory opinions is
sometimes called the 'hypothetico-deductive'
conception (Medawar, 1991: p.32-33, p. 231;
Popper, 1959).

Besides these two accounts of the purpose of
cientific inquiry, there are two other
[mutually competing] conceptions that provide
direction to the process of scientific
inquiry: consensual view of science and the
dissension view of science.


Don't make me get metaphysical on yo A$$!

"There is no point in tip-toeing through life to get safely to death."
"Whom ever sacrifices freedom for security get's nor deserves either."


[This message has been edited by Lizard Of Oz (edited 11-25-1999).]

 

[THE**WRAITH_DS]

Simpler then that, if we dream alittle dream all things are possible!!!

I am what I am!!!

 

[Zaccix]

Lizard, I've got one thing to say:

"Hea-vy" /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

 

[Cammy]

Was it quoted from a book, Liz?

Creme du Cammy. For soft, tender skin.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

From a paper written by Yogesh Malhotra, Ph.D., Titled:

"On Science, Scientific Method And Evolution Of Scientific Thought: A Philosophy Of Science Perspective Of Quasi-Experimentation"

[This message has been edited by Lizard Of Oz (edited 11-26-1999).]