 Hemetics cost to much |
  |
 Apr 12 2005, 07:03 AM
Post
#101
|
|||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 27-January 03 From: Kentucky, USA Member No.: 3,958  |
That's a pretty big assumption there. "Tapping the Universal Consciousness/World Memory" or simply manipulating "psychic energies" are common concepts in psychic workings. Then there are chakras and other "body energies" that other psychics manipulate. I'd say there are plenty of 2064 psychics who just shrug and say, "yeah, you know mana? Same thing, different words." Others may deny they're the same thing, but they would still get the same results, just as a shaman/houngan/hermetic/miracle worker still get the same results from different processes of manipulating mana even if they disagree on what they're actually doing. If an individual psychic chooses to limit themselves (ie. becoming a "telepath adept" or "ghost channeler adept"), that makes sense to me. But there should still be "full psychics" with the same mechanics as a full mage / full shaman / full houngan / etc. As I see it, a psychic would just see an hermetic as someone who uses their intricate calculations and symbols as a focus for their mental energies, which create a construct of pure psychic energy that happens to look and act like a fire elemental; or call upon a spiritual being that happens to enjoy appearing as a fire elemental. (Whether it really is a fire elemental or not is academic, and most 'runner psychics probably wouldn't care to debate the point. It simply is what it is.) A shaman's chanting and ecstatic state let her reach a condition of mental openness, manipulating her enemy's physical energies until they begin to hemorrhage. (Mana Bolt.) A houngan being ridden by a loa has called upon a spirit (or simply a mental construct) and channeled it into his body, drawing upon its power. Astral projection is just another term for OBE (Out of Body Experiences). Watchers and allies are the psychic/mage investing a piece of their own consciousness into physical/spiritual form. Other spirits may or may not be the same. An astral quest could be explained any number of ways, including an OBE sending the psychic's mind into the mental realms above our own, venturing into the universal unconsciousness itself, or simply delving inwards to the psychic's own mind and dreams given form. Psychics see magic differently, and only a foolish one would claim that nothing at all was happening. That's why the canon psionics in SR seem so silly: they can only exist by ignoring the realities of magic inherent in the world around them. Those people I can understand being crippled magically... but there should be many, many more psychics who can understand magic through the concept of psychic powers, just as others filter magic through miracles or hermetic symbols. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Apr 12 2005, 07:55 AM
Post
#102
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
*thinks about all the uninsured people in the US, and thinks about the majority of the population worldwide who doesn't have access to health care* Nope, it's not. The statement, as it stands, is true... despite what we know and what we don't know, the fact remains that most people in the world won't ever get access to the benefits of this knowledge in their lifetime. Even in an industrialized nation such as the United States, health care delivery is impaired by cultural and social factors (money is the first thing that comes to mind, but take your pick).
So you are throwing out a list of things that medical science should know in order to "qualify" as a science? Is that it? Or are you just asking a lot of random questions to try to overwhelm me into a journal-reading orgy of evidence? Honestly, if you really wanted to know the answers to those questions, you can look them up on PubMed and see the current research. The delivery of health care at the moment is far outstripped by our ability to come up with new discoveries in biology and human physiology. We are living in, simply put, a medical information glut. More research is coming out on a daily basis than we have money or resources to implement into practice.
Case studies don't use controls. They are simply teaching tools. They are examples of specific events or subjects that provides future generations with insight on a specific theory or concept. They count as "worst evidence" or the more likely term "anecdotal evidence" in medicine, and are typically not the kind of evidence used when practicing medicine. Teaching is a valuable thing, you know.
Yes. And when someone needs medical treatment, you are basically saying "This guy is sick." That doesn't tell me much. You have to observe (history and physical), make a hypothesis (differential diagnosis), test the hypothesis (lab tests, radiology tests), and then either support or refute that hypothesis when it comes to treatment. Because someone's life could be at stake, it is helpful to go into such situations forewarned and forearmed about the most likely candidates, and rule out the most deadly candidates first. The treatment itself usually comes from years of medical research done in randomized double-blinded control trials.
I did say experimenting. And it would be foolish in our academic communities to try to publish a paper without any sources. All ideas don't spring de novo from the scientific method. When you want to know something, most of the time you rely on the research of others. The scientific method is there to test hypotheses, but part of science is standing on the shoulders of giants. The collective knowledge part of science is important, and necessary, to make any "advances". To state that the scientific method in a vacuum of information is science may be technically true, but doesn't accomplish as much as collaborative research.
Evidently, magic works in Shadowrun by a set of parameters and laws. The details of such laws are up to debate among Hermetics, but they are reproducible and repeatable. The world of Shadowrun does give a nod to the fact that hermetics use science to determine how magic works. There is a dearth of examples, this is true, but the game of Shadowrun wasn't designed for folks to play the Hermetic researchers.
The practice of magic is much like the Engineer comparison. An engineer needs a sound foundation of the theory in order to practice Hermetic magic. Sometimes an engineer must use the scientific method to construct prototypes. A lot of times, though, they're just around to do a job (chuck fireballs, in the case of Hermetics). The theory of Hermetic Magic, though, is peer-reviewed, reproducible (if I use this formula, then I can create a fireball), and testable. Just because multiple people can produce the effect in different ways doesn't invalidate the field as a whole as a science. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Apr 12 2005, 08:18 AM
Post
#103
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
it's not the field that's unscientific, it's the guys who make up the majority of the supposed researchers in that field. most hermetic mages aren't scientists, and aren't really all that scientific.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2005, 08:39 AM
Post
#104
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
They're just more scientific, by default, than shamen.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2005, 08:51 AM
Post
#105
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
Another look at the "problem": Before we go on in a morass of arguments for or against Hermetic Magic as a Science, I would like to point out the divide between the two "types" of sciences, which for the sake of discussion I am going to label "hard science" and "soft science". "Hard science" typically involves the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology and geology, although some "natural sciences" like high-level quantum physics can only be classified as a "soft science". "Soft science" typically involves the social or behavior science fields, and includes fields such as anthropology, history, psychology, and sociology. Most of the arguments against "soft sciences" are on the following list of assumptions (which, if any are fulfilled, typically is used as the fulcrum of an argument against the soft science): 1) Soft Science does not use the scientific method, or 2) Soft Science admits anecdotal evidence, or 3) Soft Science is not mathematical, or 4) Soft Science lacks the repeatability and reproducibility in its experimentation methods to justify as science. With the above assumptions, there are those who argue that "soft science" is merely a collected mass of knowledge akin to philosophy, and that "Hard science", on the other hand, is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge and is the collected mass of knowledge gained from those empirical observations. However, while this division is generally deemed a fallacy for many reasons*, the main issue is whether or not Hermetic Magic is a "hard" or "soft" science. 1) Hermetic Magic doesn't use the scientific method to gain knowledge: p35 SOTA: 2063
This quote shows a reference to an example of the scientific methods being reproduced, for the purpose of the hypothesis "Is the degree of control on ritual links bidirectional?" It is tested under laboratory and controlled field conditions. The hypothesis/theory is verified. 2) Hermetic Magic admits anecdotal evidence: This is harder to identify, as we are only given the anecdotal evidence in Shadowtalk. However, quite a few of the mages in the Shadowtalk sections (Magister and Silicon Mage come to mind) often approach anecdotal stories with skepticism (SOTA:63 p35, Threats p52 p79). 3) Hermetic Magic is not mathematical: Obviously, the Pythagoreans would disagree. *grin* However, that aside, magic produces consistent quantifiable results in controlled conditions (luckily for us, we can reverse engineer this from the fact that Shadowrun Magic is so well-grounded in numbers. Hrm). This means that statistics and mathematics can be used to observe and record magical phenomena. 4) Hermetic Magic is not repeatable or reproducible: This is patently untrue. While philosophies of various paradigms may clash, any Hermetic Mage can cast any magic within the bounds of the Hermetic Tradition. SOTA:63 p36, again, shows Dr. Uemura reproducing the results of another colleague. Also in SOTA:63 p44, Fauna states that they did initial trials of filtering in the Chicago CZ, and then the research teams moved on to other areas with astral pollution to verify those results. As far as the assertation that a non-research Hermetic Mage is not a scientist (I think most people concede that ivory tower eggheads are scientists), that is a question on the definition of a scientist. Some definitions (Merriam-Webster dictionary) say: 1. a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator Others say (American Heritage dictionary): 1. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science. This is a simplistic definition, obviously. For example, while mathematics is considered a science, mathematicians often are not considered scientists. Theoretical astrophysicists are considered scientists, yet have little or no means to actually test their hypotheses (and thus employ the scientific method). The oft-quoted pop culture reference of rocket scientists actually refers to aeronautical and astronautical engineers, but they are considered to be scientists. Some prefer to use the litmus test that "only people who use the scientific method are scientists", but the scientific method is only a criterion of demarcation between science and philosophy, and not the constituent members who practice either. Indeed, university professors who are no longer actively pursuing research are still considered scientists and their expert knowledge is valued among their own communities. Also, anyone can apply the Scientific Method to experiment and refute a theory or hypothesis, as stated by Carl Sagan, which makes everyone a scientist under that definition. One objection to the classification of Hermetic Mages is the combination of philosophy and personal insight that often "clouds" the pure science in Hermetic Magic. SOTA:2064 states outright that the Classic schools (as expected) "aren't mere scientific frameworks, but entire spiritual and philosophical systems." p114 This may cause people to dismiss the the Classic schools in the same category as "creationist biologists". However, it also states that the differences between the Classic schools are often more cultural than philosophical. To deny the research of an Arab or Jewish scientist because of his/her faith would probably be considered racist or something similar. A good scientist works with the scientific method, and cultural and philosophical beliefs will cloud any person's scientific work. Focusing on Renewed Hermeticism, however, we find that Renewed Hermetics frown upon spirituality and the trappings of nostalgia in ancient texts, eschewing them for a pure scientific approach to thaumaturgy. This is the kind of Hermeticism that is practiced widely throughout corporations and North America, and the kind that is described in the default SR3 setting. The attitude of the mage who practices Renewed Hermeticism is quoted on SOTA:2064, p117:
Renewed Hermeticism also has a tendancy to be dismissive of any fabric of spirituality or philosophy, which can be a problem (they aren't as open-minded as they'd like to think).
So the question remains, are Hermetic Mages scientists? They are experts in a body of knowledge that is obtained through repeatable and reproducible experiments, subject to peer-review, and actively researched. A nascent science, to be sure, but by the definitions stated above and the evidence listed, it places them as scientists, and natural scientists at that. Note that I do not discount the assertation, though, that they are instead "engineers", seeking practical applications as a focus rather than simple investigation of magical phenomena. The Shadowrun game portrays magic as a tool, a weapon, and a practical means to an end (altering reality with your mind and body). Street magic is in the realm of "what can I do to you, and how can I keep you from doing it to me". Shadowrun's focus is not on the codified systems of magic, but on how a shadowrunner can use magic to augment his ability to perform shadowruns. While this makes most mages (both Hermetic and Shamanic) "Breaking and Entering magical technicians", it is important to note that in order to obtain that power, a Hermetic needs to be knowledgable and an expert in the study of Hermetic Magic as a science. *(one of which is the fact that most "soft sciences" are reproducible, repeatable, and use the scientific method of characterization, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, while some "hard sciences" like astronomy and quantum physics are uniquely limited in their ability to experiment) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 12 2005, 09:43 AM
Post
#106
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
I still think a vast many of them would fall under the Engineer classification in that they practice "the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems". Because engineering focuses itself on the problem at hand, and not the search for some larger Universal Scientific Truth, it allows for the individuality we see expressed in hermetics in the setting, while still supporting the fact that hermetics participate in scientist-like research and show a general scientific mindset. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 12 2005, 09:46 AM
Post
#107
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
Sorry, I'm still editing my post, and I did drop in a nod to engineering, in the context of Shadowrun as a game. The lines between an engineer and a scientist are typically blurred in our modern society. A distinguished engineer may one day "retire" and teach future students in scientific fields, making that engineer a scientist under the "expert" definition, for example. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 12 2005, 10:04 PM
Post
#108
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Wait, what? How can libraries go out of date? Using the engineering metaphor, that's like saying that we can't build aquaducts like the Romans used to, using all of the knowledge the Romans had, because stone aquaducts are out of date. Using the science metaphor, that's like saying that you can't use a 1950s textbook to understand the results of a double-slit experiment any more. That's not how science works. Science is cumulative. If it's good for something, it stays good at that something. Technology is not cumulative because new technology is based on different principles and breaks backwards compatibility. Philosophy is cumulative by convention, but need not be; you need to fit into the customs of the day. Likewise with, say, comparative literature. LIkewise with legal systems. So this would just be another example of a contradiction to the statement that Hermetics practice the science of magic.
This is somewhat closer to what is portrayed in SR, but still assumes more than seems to be the case for Hermetics. In particular, in engineering, a lot is known about what doesn't work, and there are a lot of cases where you can simply measure, e.g., the yield strength of steel, and from that be pretty sure that your cable will snap. I still think law is a more apt example. There are all sorts of precedents that one might try to refer to in law. Some will work, some won't, and which ones work and which don't can be understood and taught, but it also depends a lot on the pecularities of the lawyer and judge and so on. It's a changing target, and there are different sets of laws for different places and (to some extent) different people. If it is actually the case that Hermetic magic is normally engineering, rather than law, I would like to see it reflected better in the sourcebooks.
Yeah, that's a pretty good section. It's nice that there's one (I can be picky and find things I don't like about it, but for now I won't). But the researchers here don't come across to me as your average Hermetic mage, but rather as your average magical researcher. It suggests to me that there's a split between the magical research community and the Hermetic mages, but that split isn't really spelled out anywhere, and I'd like to see it spelled out. hahnsoo goes through a whole bunch of stuff showing why you could study magic scientifically. Great! I agree. hahnsoo also points out things like
How is eschewing stuff that is reliable, repeatable, and works, "science"? This is exactly the kind of problem I'm complaining about. Renewed Hermeticism can't simply ignore the, what, maybe 80% of the magical community that does just fine with spirituality and trappings of nostalgia. Granted, this does sometimes happen in the medical sciences (people are finally doing fMRI studies to figure out what acupuncture does to brain activity), but here it would have to be the rule rather than the exception. Remember: I'm not arguing about how it is in the Sixth World, I'm arguing about how it is presented in the sourcebooks.
You completely missed my point. You said Hermetics were reading books all day, and I said in science you do research most of the day and only read articles a small fraction of the time. I'm not saying that you don't look up sources. It's just not that time-consuming. Research is the hard, time-consuming part. Maybe you haven't done any research yourself, so you don't realize this. I'm pretty sure that the SR authors haven't done enough research to realize this either. So this is another example reinforcing my point about how Hermetic magic is portrayed.
Well I certainly don't. You can't be a scientist in an ivory tower because you need access to data. Even if you're a theoretical physicist and you're not collecting any data yourself, you can't be off in an ivory tower or your work won't match reality! It is philosophers who inhabit ivory towers. And now completely offtopic again:
Well, right, but the countries with a really low life expectancy typically are missing even basic sanitation, shelter, and nourishment for their inhabitants. If that is what you mean by health care, then I agree, the barriers to health care are not our lack of knowledge. If you mean anything else--access to hospitals, treatment for malaria, etc., then I am going to disagree, still.
No, you completely missed the point. These are the kinds of things that medical science would need to know to be able to cure the biggest causes of mortality and suffering in developed countries today: cancer, heart disease, aging-related ailments, and so on. The last comment about knowing what you don't know was directed at you, since it seemed as though you thought medicine had most of the answers it needed, and I was pointing out a whole pile of areas where it doesn't. I specifically picked examples where research is not advanced enough to be medically helpful, but I invite you to search PubMed yourself to try to show otherwise. We have a glut of information that is too preliminary to be medically useful, perhaps. We are horrifically information-starved when it comes to actually understanding in molecular detail the workings of the human body so that we can intervene on the appropriate scale to fix our most common ailments. Right now, we're pretty good at fixing gross morphological defects (broken bones, lacerations, and stuff), as long as all we have to do is put the pieces back into place, more or less, and let the body do the healing itself. And we're pretty good at fighting bacteria for now, thanks to antibiotics. These are important--a lot of people would be crippled or die from these problems otherwise. But there's a lot more to health than that; we just can't intervene sensibly in most cases.
Fair enough. Why teach by using case studies, though? Other sciences seem to get away without doing it. Hint: what's the difference between a patient and a case study? Also, if residency is part of the study of medicine, what exactly is it teaching doctors to do that they can't learn in a classroom or research facility? If you say that medicine is health engineering, I'd probably buy it (to the extent that some aspects of engineering are still a trade). But if you say it's health science, I maintain that there's a lot more to it than that, unless you're using a very narrow definition of what counts as medicine. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apr 13 2005, 01:54 AM
Post
#109
|
|||||||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
I think this is a limited and narrow view of what Science as a body of knowledge is. Science as a body of knowledge isn't some massive brick wall of knowledge that is built brick by brick. It is an incomplete lump of clay with many impurities. Anecdote alert: For example, during the turn of the century, people thought that yellow fever followed the germ theory of disease, and that the notion that a mosquito (of all things) could carry it from person to person was preposterous. The germ theory of disease failed to accomodate the fact that insects had the ability to carry germs from person to person. More information: Read "Microbe Hunters", an entertaining book published shortly after WW I. The body of knowledge is changed and modified as scientific research is carried out. Sometimes, the body of knowledge can be contradictory. While traditional physics states that a boulder is heavy and dense, more modern atomic theory states that it is made up of mostly empty space. Hermetic Magic as a whole is still a very new science in the Sixth World. While it has come a long way (akin to the progress made in genetics since the "discovery" of the structure of DNA... a story for another time), there is more that people don't know about Magic than they do know. Thus, it is a field that is exquisitely sensitive to SOTA. Mechanics-wise, it's not that your libraries suddenly lose books. It's that the knowledge inside the libraries is out of date, and everyone else who has kept up with the SOTA is going to have an "improved" rating compared to you. To them, the libraries are mostly the same. It's a relative viewpoint, rather than an absolute one.
Please refrain from directing things at me except through PMs. It's not good for the thread. In any case, the "answers" to about half of your questions can be found in the latest issue of "Science" magazine, if you want to do the reading. Medical science knows more than you purport it to know. The problem is, medicine in practice can't accomodate that research due to limitations in funding and implementation (not to mention limitations of the human element). The divide between research and implementation is growing every year, mostly due to cultural and social factors. Even in the pharmaceutical industry, the recent problems with COX-2 inhibitors have provided a political barrier (the all-knowing, all-powerful FDA) to the testing of new drugs. Meanwhile, a new Viagra comes out every 6 months. Hrm.
And this is a FAILING of Renewed Hermeticism (one that is pointed out and rectified by Unified Magic Theory). Also, shamanic magic is not reliable, repeatable, and reproducible. Shamans, by their very nature of casting magic, do things spontaneously, and they don't do the same thing twice. Also, you cannot do Dog Shaman magic unless you are called by Dog, and cultural differences make a big impact on how you "see" the Dog totem. So instead of focusing on something that cannot be tested or experimented on, your average Hermetic is more likely to employ Occam's razor and say "Well, their magic is the same as my magic, only the method is different somehow through subconscious templating." OR "These totems must exist, and my magic is also through an unknown totem" depending on the cultural background of the caster.
I've been quoting a myriad of stuff out of the sourcebooks. If I had my novels with me, I suppose I can pore through those, too. Obviously, we disagree about the presentation, because somehow you and I have come to different conclusions and interpretations. I've been editing my above statements so we can just leave it at that, because it appears we have hijacked the thread.
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Apr 13 2005, 03:14 AM
Post
#110
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
You've quoted lots of stuff, and I think I've pointed out why most of it actually doesn't fit a scientific model very well (save possibly for the SotA:63 stuff). Also, note that I said that if science is good for something, it stays good at that something, not that science always gets the right answer the first time. So the whole anecdote is irrelevant. The germ theory of disease was not good at preventing infection of yellow fever through mosquitos, was it? It wasn't good at it then, and it still isn't good at it. Old assumptions and findings are being overturned all the time (and far more are found to be uninteresting or to have missed the point). But once something actually works, it doesn't randomly start not working just because someone has come up with a new finding that shows that the reasons behind why something works are not what we had thought.
Yes, but the spell creation time and effect stays the same even with all that new knowledge, and a punch still hurts just as much with the same effort, so where exactly is this relative viewpoint coming from again? SOTA works for the matrix because there you're pitting old tech against new tech. But you're pitting magic against all kinds of things, like dirt and people's fists and so on, not just other magicians. And so I ask again: if there's all this progress due to the advance of scientific understanding of magic by Hermetics, why aren't Hermetics outpacing shamen, or why didn't shamen start way ahead? Anyway, I'm getting kind of tired of this topic since it seems we're going round in circles now, and since I think I've had adequate time to present my point of view, I'll just stop now. (I do not mind if you continue, of course.)
Hm, this does seem to be the custom on these forums, so fair enough. I will note, however, that appealing to authority as a form of argument does invite examination of credentials and competency, so I will also avoid making any arguments on the basis of the authority of any forum member, and will ignore any arguments made on the basis of authority of any forum member. Hopefully this will help ensure that that the field of debate is a fair one.
The first sentence in the statement made above is false. I'm not sure whether the statement is supposed to refer to the April 1 issue or the April 8 issue, but I've read both, and neither has a single article on cancer research, on heart failure, or an Alzheimer's or A-beta, or factors relating to cartilage. (There's a pretty cool article on putting thin polymer films of varying hydrophobicity on various substrates: Ryu et al., "A Generalized Approach to the Modification of Solid Surfaces", Science 308:236 (2005), but that's another issue.) The only topic that is addressed is negative selection for immunoreactivity. Here are the article titles for the April 8 issue:
Let's look at the abstract:
Pretty technical. How well do we understand self-tolerance? Let's look at the introduction and conclusion. (Emphasis mine.)
So the scientific community is hard at work trying to understand the molecular mechanisms of self-tolerance, so that we can prevent and treat autoimmune diseases, but we're not there yet. So the answer to that question is we don't know yet, at least not enough to be medically useful. Let's see if there's anything that looks promising in the April 1 issue:
Nope, I guess not. So, let's count. One out of five topics isn't "about half", and what one learns from reading the article is that we don't know enough about the topic to devise a medical treatment. That is, of course, why they're still researching it. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Apr 13 2005, 03:44 AM
Post
#111
|
|||||||||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
It was an anecdote on how the germ theory of disease had to be modified, and the knowledge base changed almost overnight. The germ theory of disease still is a useful model for the spread of infection, and it was modified to accomodate the fact that insects could be carriers of human disease. But the assertation that "once science is good at something, it stays good at something" plays false to my ears. It implies some sort of academic infallability that I know not to be a hallmark of science and scientists. I'm sure it's just a question of wording and communication.
One can argue that due to the dice mechanic and randomness of skill tests in Shadowrun, that spells indeed do randomly stop working sometimes. Whether this happens due to a mistake or due to incorrect reasoning or due to uncontrollable environmental factors is left to the player/GM to decide.
SOTA rules do not adequately address this, of course, (although if you notice the progression of sorcery from SR1 to SR3, it has become more powerful with every iteration. That's metagaming, though.) even for other things that SOTA affects. Your Magic Background skill DOES get reduced if you don't keep up with the SOTA for it, but that's to be expected. A SOTA advance for Hermetic Magic libraries represents an abstract amount of advancement that makes some knowledge obsolete or revised. The idea is not that the SOTA mechanic is accurate, but that it exists at all. Your knowledge does become out of date.
Umm, shamans DID start out way ahead, as stated in "And So It Came to Pass" and in the Hermetic Tradition section. Hermetic Magic has "caught up", and even duplicated some of the aspects of shamanism (UMT allows one to change the spirits that they summon). The reason shamans don't have to worry about advances of scientific understanding is that the totems already do it for them, I guess. Your guess is as good as mine, but comparing shamans and hermetics is like comparing apples and oranges. They're both fruity, but the details are quite different.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Apr 13 2005, 03:47 AM
Post
#112
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
*smacks forehead* Yup. And you know why? Because I was reading out of "Nature", not "Science". My bad. Here are the headliners from some of the most recent articles: # Live coverage of amyloid plaques Nature Neuroscience # Dendritic cells take up cancer fight Nature Reviews Immunology # Gene therapy: no cancer please Nature Reviews Genetics # Cold war on stroke |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 13 2005, 04:25 AM
Post
#113
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Okay, cool, then the first statement is true and the second is false. Amyloid plaques:
So, we don't know if plaques cause neurodegeneration, and if so we don't know how to stop it, and right now we can't even see it without cutting the person open. So I'd say we're short on medically relevant knowledge here, wouldn't you? Next article...well, this isn't really what I asked about, which was the genetic changes underlying cancer. THis is about vaccination methods to try to fight cancer. Interesting, certainly, and it's another example of something that would be very useful medically if we knew about it, but we don't. Next article. This isn't really about us knowing what genetic changes cause cancer, In fact, it shows that we really don't know what's going on, because we've caused leukemias by trying to perform gene therapy:
Note that they're referring to various genes that are known to be important in cancer, but again, you can look up studies on them and find that the mechanisms of actions aren't really known, at least not to a great enough extent to be medically useful. You certainly don't see them describing any cures for the problem--they're just trying to figure out what went wrong, and suggest, "Hey, maybe it's over expression of LMO-2!" This is pretty amazing work given that they only have two patients (see Hacein-Bey-Abina et al., "LMO2-Associated Clonal T Cell Proliferation in Two Patients after Gene Therapy for SCID-X1", Science, Vol 302:415-419 (2003)), but it's not like they understand the full cascade to cancer, and it's certainly not as though they can, knowing that, stop the process. Cold war on stroke--doesn't mention plaques. It talks about the observation that hypothermia decreases ischemic damage after stroke. Do we know why, or how this works, so we can take advantage of it medically?
So, um, no, we certainly didn't know before this article, and now we've uncovered one molecule in a cascade that is who-knows-how-big. So, anyway, we're still seeming pretty short on medical knowledge. I'm happy to grant that half the topics were addressed by now, but I think the review of the literature supports my original statements pretty solidly. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 13 2005, 07:22 AM
Post
#114
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 158 Joined: 4-August 02 Member No.: 3,064 |
While this thread has been fascinating (I am not being sarcastic), I must observe that it has become drastically off-topic with regard to the original topic, "Do Hemetics [sic] cost to [sic] much", and the forum that it currently resides in. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 13 2005, 12:04 PM
Post
#115
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
So a 1940-era science library, with such scientific facts as "humans have 48 chromosomes", and "due to the exponential increases in drag as an airplane approches the speed of sound, an aircraft would require infinite power output to exceed the sound barrier" is just as valid as a more current one? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 13 2005, 03:42 PM
Post
#116
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
That quote is out of context. If you can use that 1940s library in 1940 to build an airplane (albeit a subsonic one), you should still be able to use that library in 2005 to build an airplane, if the parts are available.
That doesn't mean that science doesn't continually refine itself--just that once it gets to the level of being good at accomplishing something, it stays good at it. Because, you know, reality doesn't change simply because we better understand how it works. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2005, 07:39 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 1,525 |
They need to define whether a hermtic library is a collection of knowledge or a body of items, formula, and research that one person uses to further their understanding. If it's the former, it should be able to be put in digital format. If it's the later, it really should not be able to be shared at full level because half of the effectiveness is the psychic imprinting of the person doing the research. If it is a combination of the two, then high level libraries should be excessively expensive as all of these magical artefacts would be in short supply and highly sought after by private and public collectors and librarians.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 21 2005, 11:20 AM
Post
#118
|
|
|
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698 |
Iirc hermetic libraries could alway be stored digitally on chips.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 10:39 PM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 179 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 381 |
Since I am to blame for a few things regarding Hermetic magic as science, I'll add my thougths to the discussion.
First off, Renewed Hermetics do apply the scientific method to their research. The exact sentence was cut in editing, which is a pity. That they are scientific and wants magical research to be a hard science is the whole point. So, mfb, the approach you want should be Renewed Hermeticism. Please treat it as such. Still there are several problem with approaching magic as a hard science. First off, experiments are quite difficult when you can't control the conditions. You might be able to deceide whether the ice sheet spell creates the water or draw upon water particles in the air. That is measurable. Though, you don't know if it creates them or simply moves them there from somewhere else. Physics support the notion that you actually create them, but you can't definetly disprove any of the options. You have no way of finding out. The biggest problem is that you are unable to create labratory conditions in the astral space. You can come close to labratory conditions, but not close enough to actually rule out any outside interference and making the experiment repeatable. You have no way of knowing how much mana is used for an effect. You don't have a "manameter" and any manameter constructed will eventually be unreliable. Mana seems to be subject to influence from metahuman thoughts and beliefs, and these might interfere with the manameter. Metahumanity simply doesn't know enough about magic to be able to do hard science research on it. They're left to speculation and philosophy like we were with physics and chemistry for thousands of years. That metahuman beliefs and the magicians own understanding of magic seems to have an effect on how magic works makes it even harder. This leaves magic much closer to soft science. In soft sciences you can't take a NPOV approach (if you claim you do, you're an idiot). Some things are of course refutable, but there are few undisputable facts. But again the results of magic is as hard as any other science. See, it's a problem. Rather than solving it by the rules and stating one over the other, it's left as an ingame problem. If you had done this thread IC it would have been a perfect example of a typical debate between students of magic. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Apr 23 2005, 12:14 AM
Post
#120
|
||||||||||
|
Guests |
That's a huge understatement. Without that sentence, Renewed Hermetics are a whole other magical creature. They have become because of that omission, for all intents and purposes, followers of the same kind of mystical belief systems that every other Hermetic paradigm follows, which is just a short step away from the "intuitive" mystical belief systems like shamanism, wujen, voudoun, etc.
I'd like to. I really would. But it's become exactly not that the way it is written. I have to follow canon, and in canon it is written as a different creature from what it should be.
Were actual thought ever put into it, given the existence of Analyze X spells, I fail to see how scientifically-minded and dedicated magicians couldn't develop a benchmark rating system for spells, spirits, or foci (i.e., Force ratings). I would also extrapolate a famous sentence from MitS, "Currently, any spell, spirit, focus or other magical effect of Force 3 or higher is legally regulated within the UCAS and CAS, though permits may be acquired to use such magic" (11), to suggest that there has to be some type of benchmark rating system for measuring magic. The only reason it hasn't been discussed in SR lit is because it was probably considered too boring to explain how corporate magical research is done. Let's not kid ourselves. There is an OOC game mechanic that determines that every magical effect or being has a quantifiable Force rating, and that the same spell cast by a mage, shaman, houngan, wujen, or Path follower has the same identical mechanic as far as Force, Drain, and effect are determined. A Levitate spell of a specific force cast by two equal ability magicians regardless of tradition can only travel x meters within n seconds. That's the physics aspect. The mana physics aspect (since metaphysics is a completely different, and for all intents and purposes here, irrelevant meaning) is in determining the amount of mana collected and manipulated by both magicians, and the amount of mana being channeled through the magician in terms of the stress forcec that they have to withstand in casting those spells (i.e., Drain). Unless stated otherwise, those two amounts of mana being manipulated are the exact same. How they are manipulated depends on the tradition, but the amount of mana used is a constant for a Force 6 Levitate spell regardless of who casts it. Measuring the amount of mana used would be the astral equivalent of measuring the physiological effects of two equal athletes running on a treadmill for 10 minutes. Oh, yeah. If they're even a little bit intelligent they'd also be measuring the physiological effects of the spellcasting/conjuring/etc. on the magicians. And if they don't... And Renewed Hermetics as they are written do not... then they do not deserve to be called scientists. Quantifying things is generally arbitrary at first, yes, but there's nothing to suggest that it cannot be done. If we can create the British Thermal Unit measurement, we can figure out Force ratings. Fifty years of astral observations should have keyed one or two people off about the fact that two people even of the same tradition who learn the same formula draw the same amount of mana, but someone who learns a "less potent" spell formula... doesn't. They draw less mana, and less mana is forced through their astral and physical bodies.
That's nonsense. Moreover, you're contradicting yourself and I can see now why the sentence about RH's following the scientific theory was cut. It's because everything you have said here, and everything else that made it into SOTA64 contradicts that. They cannot follow the scientific method by speculating on the nature of magic and the philosophical and socio-religious belief structures that most people build between themselves and their inherent abilities to manipulate mana. The scientific method has no role whatsoever being associated with the word "speculation." What Reneweds do according to what the book actually says, as opposed to what you suggest it should have said, is that they engage in practices that make political science look like physics (and not the statistical research methodology field of PoliSci, but the other four qualitative and historical and analytical fields). The fields which are explicitly referred to in SOTA64, for example, are "soft" fields of psychology, which in itself is a social science rather distinct from sciences like physics and chemistry. Were the sciences mentioned in said book to include physics or cognitive neurosciences (cognitive bio-chemistry and psychology, for example), then I could buy the idea that they are scientist mages. As is... There isn't anything that would convince me that they are. At best, they are clinical psychologists working in research which often leads to widely varied results depending on your control group (which is why it's not science).
I'm just guessing, but if it was IC then Ellery's mage would probably have made the same argument she is making, or more likely, the one I just made. Belief is not necessary to manipulate mana, and practice "magic." Knowledge of the methods of accessing the manasphere, drawing mana, manipulating it, and opening your astral self up to focus the effects onto the real world require no belief structure. The belief structures are, IMO, simply a shortcut in avoiding learning how those processes work by instead projecting belief structure archetypes onto those processes so that it just "works." Instead of focusing on the more logical and (mana) physical and phyisiological effects and actions which are involved in the practical applications of magic, a Theurgist prays, "and it just happens." You can study prayers and medieval philosophy forever, but it wouldn't give you the same insight a control group study would. Similarly, the way any of the paradigms practice are similarly applying belief structures over their practice. Classicists may be more obvious about it, but there is nothing in the text that differentiates any of the paradigms, including Renewed, from the actual scientific study and application of thaumaturgical science. Renewed Hermetics use psychological and parascyhological archetypes and beliefs to make their magic work. The great difference between Hermetics and shamans or houngans is, generally, that Hermetics just access the manasphere directly to draw their power and abilities. Shamans and houngans are given their power to them by their Totems or Loa (which was more obvious in Awakenings before houngans got screwed in MitS). However, each of them draws the same quantifiable amount of mana as per my understanding of how mana and magic work, and how well they do it is a separate measure of their skill and understanding of their sorcery or conjuring skills. I cannot see why magic cannot be approached scientifically, and I think I've made a pretty good argument for why it should. As a matter of fact, I've now made this exact argument three times--twice here and once elsewhere--for a scientific magic system that should by all rights exist where Renewed occupies its place as a saucy interloper. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Apr 23 2005, 12:34 AM
Post
#121
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
MitS, p12:
The research IS being done, at least by a few people. It is downplayed, of course, by the fact that Shadowrun is a roleplaying game about Shadowrunning..
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Apr 23 2005, 12:42 AM
Post
#122
|
|
Guests |
MitS never said it was Renewed Hermetics who were doing the research, and until I see written proof to the effect that they actually do follow the scientific method (as opposed to just saying they do), they aren't the ones doing this research because it doesn't comport to their belief structure.
Besides that, as MitS says, "The rituals involved require a delicate melding of magic and scientific theory that only a handful of theoretical occultists can comprehend, much less use" (12). Renewed Hermetics make up, IIRC (I don't have sota64 with me), like 95% of all Hermetics in North America. Reneweds don't practice this type of magical research. They can't. These researchers are rare, which puts them well beyond any Hermetic "paradigm." Eventually, they won't be when more people realize it is a better, more efficient way to study and practice magic, creating their own paradigm which will overtake all of these Hermetic Mysticism paradigms like successful paradigms do (at least that's what Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions when he popularized the term 'paradigm' in its scientific context). Within the context of Kuhn's own writing, the term paradigm as it is used with regard to Hermeticism is akin to its use in social sciences such as political science or psychology, or philosophy. It is not the same as applying it to science. At least, one cannot call Hermeticism science under Kuhn's paradigmatic analysis because it is still stuck in the pre-scientific phase. And it is stuck there for one fundamental reason: there is no adherence to an accepted methodology. There is no single overreaching method of practicing thaumaturgy in the Hermetic circle. A more scientific approach, such as the one I offered, is the most rational and most scientific for no other reason than that it creates a uniform language everyone can understand and that goes beyond the how of Hermetic thaumaturgy (i.e., paradigmatic definitions for mana manipulation). Renewed Hermeticism is not science. It's not even close. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2005, 01:10 AM
Post
#123
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
Just because the position isn't verified ("Hermetics may or may not be doing this research") doesn't mean that the negative case is true ("Hermetics aren't doing this research"). That's a hypothesis at best and a bad assumption at worst. It's easier to disprove things than it is to prove them, this is true, but taking the assumption of the negative case is still an assumption. It just says "Theoretical Occultists", which can be interpreted to mean any magic user, a mundane theorist, or any scientific researcher in the arcane. There's a line in the Corporate Security Handbook (which I don't have with me at the moment) when discussing Magical R&D that says "I've never seen a shaman in this line of work," roughly speaking. It could be wujen, who knows? But you can't dismiss that it isn't Hermetic Mages right off the bat.
Just because one follows a "paradigm" or a belief structure doesn't mean they are not scientists. If someone believed that eating megadoses of Vitamin C would make him live longer, even though that belief is fallacious, and yet still do good scientific work (enough to win a Nobel prize), does that make them any less of a scientist?
I don't think Hermetics think that belief powers their magic. I think they believe it is a genetic predisposition and that all you have to do is know the right formula to produce a certain effect. They learn collectively, and with each other's help. You can't practice Hermetic Magic without the work of other Hermetics. Whether this is a "belief shortcut" (a Collective Consciousness of Belief in this case... "Since everyone believes it, it must be true!") or simply the fact that they share knowledge and are building a foundation of scientific body of work is up to individual interpretation at the moment... I personally go for the interpretation that they are building a scientific body of knowledge. But hey, whatever floats everyone's boat. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 23 2005, 02:00 AM
Post
#124
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
True, but on the other hand, it's quite clear that there aren't very many of these "theoretical occultists" who are actually doing something that might look like scientific research. So it follows that, certainly, not very many renewed hermetics are doing that kind of research, and indeed, are incapable of it! That rather suggests that they're not genuinely scientists.
His beliefs about Vitamin C would not be a result of a scientific process. And if everything he did was in the same category, then no, it wouldn't make sense to call him a scientist.
In that case, they should be able to teach people from other traditions to do exactly what they do. And since it's all explicit knowledge, it should be pretty easy.
Funny, though--that doesn't work in SR3. One could change the nature of magic in SR4 to make it work, but I'm happy with things the way they are. There's a consistent way to explain all the magical effects and lack thereof, and amidst the large number of belief-based practitioners, there are a few who actually do careful controlled experiments. (Probably mostly hermetics, but I don't see any reason why shamen can't do experiments too.) |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Apr 23 2005, 05:45 AM
Post
#125
|
|
Guests |
Because they're cuckoo wacky free spirit crazy men!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th January 2025 - 11:07 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.