Dear Jeff and Jeanne,
Regarding the reference links, I didn't know this practice was frowned
upon, so sorry. I started doing this as a service to readers to encourage
people to explore and think for themselves. When I read stuff on forums,
I find that they are often loaded with misinformation, and unless a reader
happens to know better, they may leave with the impression that they've
read something true. I'm especially concerned about younger people who
are more impressionable. So, my references are meant only as a way to
back-up what I present, so that a reader doesn't have to take my word for
it but check it out conveniently for herself. It actually takes me a bit
of time to find the appropriate links myself, so, okay, if no one
appreciates them, I'll be happy to stop doing it. Thanks for the heads-up
regarding this.
Jeff - Your statements in your last post came across as somewhat cryptic,
and I'm a bit confused how to respond. If I haven't made my motives clear
in the past dozens of postings, I don't know what else will.
Regarding your definition of "magic" as a quality arising from the
"sum-is-more-than-its-parts," this concept in the scientific study of
complex systems is called "emergence" and I've commented on it before
(along with an appropriate link, which I'll forgo posting again). I don't
think, though, this is what most people mean when they use the word
"magic." If everything is "magical" and everything is a "miracle," well,
that's a very lovely and romantic way to view reality, but using these
words in this way completely dilutes their intended meaning.
So, the real issue appears to be what it is you are trying to convince
skeptics about in the first place, as I pointed out in my last response to
vita-man above. I will readily agree that life is "magical" in a romantic
sense, but I would require objective confirmation to accept that the
natural order includes real "magic," that is, the art of influencing
events and physical phenomenon through supernatural, mystical, or
paranormal means.
You see, the burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but on the magician.
A real magician could and would happily convince the most hardened skeptic
beyond a shadow of any doubt her magic is real. And a good skeptic will
always be able to expose a false magician as merely an illusionist at best or
a con artist at worst.
Belief is not the prerequisite for real magic to occur ... it is the
natural result when real magic has occurred.
Best,
HF
