You are (I think deliberately) using a different definition of trick than the person you are replying to. Every demonstration of magic thus far has involved hiding information from the person the magic is being performed for, to make it look like something was done that was not, in fact, done.
If you have proof to the contrary, everyone in this thread is waiting to hear it.
Yeah, I’m using a different definition of trick in order to provoke that person to realise they’re using an inappropriate definition to this situation.
Here, I’ll show you a magic trick that involves no deception:
This is a magic pill that can cure sore throats. Physically, it’s an inert sugar pill with no special chemical properties, other than the ability to revive hypoglycemiacs. But I have used the placebo effect to imbue it with the magical belief that it will make you better, and when you take it, your body will work overdrive to fix your sore throat because of your belief. This effect will work regardless of whether you know that it’s a placebo. Countless scientific studies have established the true existence of the placebo effect and its power. Now I’m going to play some alternative music and wave a magic wand over it to make the placebo magic stronger.
“Tautological denial of magic” seems like a total misunderstanding of the scientific method. If you know there’s something “magical” you still can study it’s effects on the real world.
Like someone here already commented, this is what we do in case of medical studies, “how good does this thing work compared to something that gives the illusion of working”, the same can be done for whatever you define as your “magic”.
Yes, exactly. And that’s what chaos magic is. Taking the scientific method to magic. The tautological denial says magic can’t be real, because if it’s real then it’s not magic. But no, magic is real and we can explain it and quantify it and use the scientific method on it.
Google the tautological denial of magic and then tell me how Randi’s prize doesn’t rely on it.
Randi doesn’t need to rely on it.
The only thing he has to do is explain how the magic trick works. Because it is always a trick.
If it wasn’t then he wouldn’t be able to debunk it.
An ollie is a trick. Debunk an ollie for me.
You are (I think deliberately) using a different definition of trick than the person you are replying to. Every demonstration of magic thus far has involved hiding information from the person the magic is being performed for, to make it look like something was done that was not, in fact, done.
If you have proof to the contrary, everyone in this thread is waiting to hear it.
Yeah, I’m using a different definition of trick in order to provoke that person to realise they’re using an inappropriate definition to this situation.
Here, I’ll show you a magic trick that involves no deception:
“Tautological denial of magic” seems like a total misunderstanding of the scientific method. If you know there’s something “magical” you still can study it’s effects on the real world.
Like someone here already commented, this is what we do in case of medical studies, “how good does this thing work compared to something that gives the illusion of working”, the same can be done for whatever you define as your “magic”.
Yes, exactly. And that’s what chaos magic is. Taking the scientific method to magic. The tautological denial says magic can’t be real, because if it’s real then it’s not magic. But no, magic is real and we can explain it and quantify it and use the scientific method on it.