The Sword and Laser discussion
If you found out magic/ supernatural was real how accepting do you think you would be?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Christos
(new)
Feb 10, 2020 12:42PM
A major trope in fantasy media is that when people find out magic is real they come up with a thousand excuses why it’s not real. Do you think If you found proof that magic/ supernatural was real (let’s use ghosts as an example) you would immediately accept it or try to deny it? Even though I love Fantasy I would probably just deny it like the people in the movies until I have definitive proof
reply
|
flag
I would absolutely WANT it to be real, but I'd also be very skeptical.
It depends on what you mean by proof. Let's say, since you used ghosts as an example, that there were scientific experiments we could do that proved their existence. Not "I saw one" but a way to detect them. It's gone through peer review, the experiment has been repeated and we can definitely say that ghosts are real. To deny them in the face of that would be denying science.
If you saw something spooky late at night in a graveyard when you were high? That's not proof.
I would just ask for you to show me where you saw the magic and if we could see it again (unless it something that could kill me, then hard pass). If it were you who could "do" magic, I'd just ask you to show me whatever it was. If you could do it and it looked like magic to me, I'd call it magic until someone figured out some scientific name for it. It'd be the bee's knees if you could teach said named "unscientific" magic to me so I'd be able to do it to.
Mod
If you saw something spooky in the middle of the day, anywhere, when you were clear headed? That's also not proof.
Eyewitness accounts are, among, the least reliable of evidence. Our brains aren't that good at trying to interpret visual information. It will add information that isn't there to try and make sense of limited data. Memories are also fallible and are constantly being altered, even as we remember them.
I would demand extraordinary proof to be convinced of any fantastical/paranormal/supernatural phenomenon. My default setting would be to disbelieve it until overwhelming evidence is presented.
Many years ago I experienced what I had best call an 'empathic link'. There were circumstances that went a LONG way towards scientific proof . . . (and I was, at the time, halfway through a science degree at a reputable UK university - I understood the requirements for proof)But the incident was not reliably repeatable - and in any case, does not cover 'The Supernatural' as a larger concept.
So I state with some certainty that science does not have all the answers, and "there are more things . . ." etc. But that doesn't prove ghosts, or psi powers, or magic. It just proves that we need to do a LOT more research!
Tassie Dave wrote: "Rick wrote: "If you saw something spooky in the middle of the day, anywhere, when you were clear headed? That's also not proof...."well yeah. I was being a bit silly.
I would demand extraordinary proof to be convinced of any fantastical/paranormal/supernatural phenomenon. My default setting would be to disbelieve it until overwhelming evidence is presented.
Hence my science demand above. Astrophysicists posit that there's dark matter out there that mostly doesn't interact with regular matter at all. But... they don't ask us to believe it's there, they realized that regular matter didn't explain things, hypothesized that there's something that they've dubbed dark matter and are are doing experiments and looking for evidence that dark matter exists and conforms to what the theory hypothesizes.
For anything 'magic' I just want the same level of proof. I don't need a higher degree of proof and don't think it's reasonable to ask for that. What we use in physics is very rigorous and just fine.
Alan wrote: "Many years ago I experienced what I had best call an 'empathic link'. "In "Jane Eyre," Jane thinks she hears Rochester call her name and responds. Later Rochester and Jane are together and Rochester describes the same incident from his point of view.
Charlotte Bronte was asked about that since it seemed unrealistic. Her reply was that it was the most realistic part of the book as it had happened to her.
Christos wrote: "Even though I love Fantasy I would probably just deny it like the people in the movies until I have definitive proof"Same.
Rick wrote: "It depends on what you mean by proof. Let's say, since you used ghosts as an example, that there were scientific experiments we could do that proved their existence. Not "I saw one" but a way to de..."
Yeah. That would put it on the same level as most physics for me. Some things like global warming are obvious simply based on my observations over my lifetime, but other stuff is far enough removed from my personal experience that I have to rely on the expertise of others.
Tassie Dave wrote: "Rick wrote: "If you saw something spooky late at night in a graveyard when you were high? That's not proof.."If you saw something spooky in the middle of the day, anywhere, when you were clear he..."
I was just in Manchester today and saw a bunch of drooling zombies. I mean, they called themselves Trump supporters, but it was proof to me.
Mod
I can believe in those. Zombies, not the undead kind obviously, are something that could be scientifically explained within the Laws of Physics. i.e. a functioning, purely instinct driven eating and killing meat puppet.
Ghosts, Psychics, telekinesis etc can't be explained using the same Laws. Therefore they not only don't exist, they can't exist.
I have a degree in engineering, and have been around science my whole life. And I completely agree that the scientific method needs to be followed to trust findings, as apposed to hearsay and personal recollection. But I've also become aware that for some things, even physical phenomenon that we take for granted, finding the scientific knowledge for why they happen is much more difficult then proving that they do happen. If I remember correctly it wasn't until the 2000's that we accurately understood how most insects wings helped them fly as well as they did. And I also just read an article (that of course I can't find now, but I think it might be in the current issue of Scientific American) on while the engineering side of aerodynamic lift on a standard airfoil is well traveled and understood, the actual physics of why it does, is not as simple. With the simple theory we were taught in school, only being part of the answer. Over the years I've also learned to have more empathy (maybe not quite the right word) for others opinions and beliefs, even if I don't believe them to be true myself. And also just because I can't tell you why something happens, doesn't mean the it didn't happen. But I also think Carl Sagan's phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is also true. If you want me to actually believe in what you are saying, you better bring the proof.
Tassie Dave wrote: "Ghosts, Psychics, telekinesis etc can't be explained using the same Laws. Therefore they not only don't exist, they can't exist."Challenge accepted. 😎
Mod
Challenge accepted. 😎"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4...
John (Taloni) wrote: "Alan wrote: "Many years ago I experienced what I had best call an 'empathic link'. "In "Jane Eyre," Jane thinks she hears Rochester call her name and responds. Later Rochester and Jane are togeth..."
Yes, without going into details, that has distinct similarities - further verified by quoting time of event, to the minute. Similar events several times, with more than one subject - but not repeatable under test conditions (and we tried!)
John (Nevets) wrote: And I also just read an article (that of course I can't find now, but I think it might be in the current issue of Scientific American) ..."So many things we remember hearing or reading, but can't trace!
A little over 20 years ago I was listening to a hard science program on BBC R4 (reputable then in all areas except politics) and I heard the interviewee - a Prof, in subatomic physics, but I have forgotten his name - say that he thought telepathy could be explained and brought into the realm of 'real science' by research involving quantum entanglement.
Sadly, the internet was still young in those days, and I didn't have time to follow it up, as I was halfway through a Masters degree in an unrelated subject. Does anyone know of any more recent work in this field??
I'd probably be one of those that would immediately accept but then freak out if I saw actual proof. Like, if a random guy walked up to me and said "I'm a dragon. I breath fire. Also, I can fly," my reaction would probably be to just nod and say "cool" but if he then transformed into a actual dragon, breathed a burst of flame then took off into the sky, I'd be a pointing, gibbering wreck.
I would immediately go to my husband and say something like "ok either magic is real or I'm going crazy and I need your help to determine which is correct". Then we'd science.
