Hemetics cost to much - Dumpshock Forums

Hemetics cost to much

Options

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

Apr 23 2005, 09:10 AM

Post #126

Guests

QUOTE (hahnsoo)

But you can't dismiss that it isn't Hermetic Mages right off the bat.

I'm not dismissing Hermetics. I'm dismissing Renewed Hermetics as described in SOTA64. I've had enough words put in my mouth by people today to tolerate this crap, either. My attack is on the idea that Renewed Hermetics are "scientific." Period. Anything else you gloss from my posts is conjecture or just wrong.

QUOTE

Just because one follows a "paradigm" or a belief structure doesn't mean they are not scientists.

I cannot make my point any more clear than this: Renewed Hermetics are not scientific for the explicit reason that they do not follow the scientific method, and they do not engage in research methodology which in any way reflects scientific research.

By adhering to a paradigm as an explanation of how one manipulates mana, they overlook the actual science of manipulating mana. In that case, it is possible that a paradigm-follower can be scientific if one assumes they study magic beyond the limited scope of the study into how they personally manipulate mana. But then they are not following a paradigm anymore. It is a metaparadigm of Hermeticism that magic functions in scientific ways to manipulate mana through the acts of the magician without the interference/intervention of a third party being the way other magical traditions work. The individual paradigms build on this foundation and then, say, "Okay, but we're going to take a shortcut and say that instead of following a conscious scientific process to manipulate mana we're going to use formulae culled from our collective religious and philosophical belief systems."

The problem is that Renewed Hermetics are supposed to be above these paradigms, but are written as one of the crowd. They are not adherents to the metaparadigm of pure Hermeticism. They are a paradigm where formulae are learned and developed through (para)psychological archetypes and a hodge-podge of "refined" philosophical and metaphysical epistemological terms and concepts.

QUOTE

I don't think Hermetics think that belief powers their magic.

Nor do I, nor did I say as much. The belief is simply a method of articulating the process of manipulating mana. One possible example of this is to suggest that each paradigm is like an OS. They all serve as the foundation of a basic function to manipulate data, but by different methods and through an interface that does in fact distort the actual understanding of the base processes. You can be the greatest Windows programmer in the world, or its equivalent, the greatest Renewed Hermeticism theoretician in the world, but it doesn't mean you have a fundamental understanding of the data or magic compared to someone who only works in binary or through judicious scientific study of mana itself.

QUOTE

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.

1. I think some geneticists believe it is a genetic predisposition, but which has not been proven by science.
2. All you have to know is a functional formula that works within your belief structure.

QUOTE

I personally go for the interpretation that they are building a scientific body of knowledge. But hey, whatever floats everyone's boat.

Since they are not producing quantifiable, predictable results which can be reproduced by anyone in any paradigm, I do not. They are aggregating theoretical philosophy. The ones producing scientific data are not following a paradigm because it interferes with the ability to gather the information.

audun

Apr 23 2005, 01:30 PM

Post #127

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 381

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

QUOTE (audun)

First off, Renewed Hermetics do apply the scientific method to their research. The exact sentence was cut in editing, which is a pity.

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 can see that the text in SOTA2064 my imply that, but I can't see where it contradicts any use of the scientific method.

QUOTE

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.

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.

good point on the manameter issue. I yield, but I still think it is impossible to create labratory conditions in astral space. If you don't have any exact idea of what may interfere on your conditions, it is impossible to rule outside influences out.

QUOTE

And if they don't... And Renewed Hermetics as they are written do not... then they do not deserve to be called scientists.

Again, where does it contradict that may do this. I just reread the text and can't find anything that contradicts it. It doesn't state that they do, but there's no suggestion that they don't either. It's says that they are "scientific" though.

QUOTE

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'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.

Why not? As long as they draw a line between what's speculation and what's known for sure.

QUOTE

The scientific method has no role whatsoever being associated with the word "speculation."

What is a hypothesis if not a speculation? It's a guess which may be falsified. Untill it is falsified it is a speculation.

QUOTE

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).

Where does it say anything like this?

QUOTE

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 can't make any sense of this. You want magic to be hard science. In hard science the researcher doesn't affect the research subject. In soft sciences they do. The physical effects of magic may be studied independtly of the researcher, but mana is affected by the researcher. Which is why I hold that it is inbetween hard and soft science.

QUOTE

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.

Again the difference between understanding and belief. If you could manipulate mana trough belief alone, there would be no skill involved. You would have "Totem goodwill rating" instad of a Sorcery skill. Even shamans and voudoun requires knowledge and a structured approach to magic to make it work.

QUOTE

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."

Theurgists doesn't pray to do magic. That is a gross misunderstanding. They don't have "Call power of God upon the heathen" skill, but a sorcery skill like everyone else. They have knowledge of the methods of accessing the manasphere, drawing mana, manipulating it, and opening their astral self up to focus the effects onto the real world, but unlike a Renewed Hermetic they interpret this knowledge trough a Christian framework rather than scientific.

QUOTE

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.

It doesn't say so anywhere. That's your (mis)interpretation. It does say that they explain "the spiritual as Jungian archetypes imprinted on a malleable astral space", but that's not the same thing. The Renewed Hermetics has borrowed all of their techniques from Classic Hermetics, but they puts these techniques under scientific scrutiny.

QUOTE

The great difference between Hermetics and shamans or houngans is, generally, that Hermetics just access the manasphere directly to draw their power and abilities.

What about Elementals then? Are they drawn directly from the manasphere?

QUOTE

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).

That implies that Totems(and Loa) are real entities with independent existance, and not only a construct of the shamans subconscious. If the latter is the case, it is just a different, but still direct, way to access the manasphere. There's no definite answer to that in any SR book(at least not without beeing contradicted elsewhere).

QUOTE

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.

Why is it that you insist that Renewed can't occupy this place rightfully.

mfb View Member Profile	Apr 23 2005, 02:39 PM Post #128
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	because Renewed Hermeticism doesn't appear to look at the reasons why Renewed Hermeticism works, much less at the reasons why UMT works or dancing skyclad while high on shrooms works. there may be Renewed Hermetics who do, but as a whole, Renewed Hermeticism is simply yet another paradigm. Renewed Hermetics are more akin to pre-Age of Reason alchemists, who boiled random chemicals and wowed themselves with the pretty colors, than actual Age of Reason scientists who sat down and did the math on things like gravity.

Critias View Member Profile	Apr 23 2005, 03:10 PM Post #129
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	I guess some of us are just more picky with the word "science" than others. I mean, it's undeniably true that your average Renewed Hermetic is more scientific than your average Shaman -- but that's not saying much. I mean, being the most rational and scientifically minded kid riding the short bus doesn't really make you a scientist, it just means you're one compared to the other kids.

audun

Apr 23 2005, 03:48 PM

Post #130

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 381

QUOTE (mfb)

because Renewed Hermeticism doesn't appear to look at the reasons why Renewed Hermeticism works, much less at the reasons why UMT works or dancing skyclad while high on shrooms works. there may be Renewed Hermetics who do, but as a whole, Renewed Hermeticism is simply yet another paradigm.

All the paradigms look at the reasons for why other approaches work, but they all claim that theirs is better. It would be a really lousy explanation of magic if you couldn't explain what everybody else did. Of course RH is simply yet another paradigm, but modern science is a paradigm. It is better than Aristotlean science, but it is still a paradigm.
It says that RH is scientific. I can't see why that implies that they don't use the scientific method or apply scientific scrutiny to magical research? The exact sentence was cut, but there is nothing that contradicts it anywhere.

QUOTE

Renewed Hermetics are more akin to pre-Age of Reason alchemists, who boiled random chemicals and wowed themselves with the pretty colors, than actual Age of Reason scientists who sat down and did the math on things like gravity.

Newton was an alchemist :rotate:

mfb View Member Profile	Apr 23 2005, 04:37 PM Post #131
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	Newton graduated from alchemy to modern science. and, yes, all paradigms have their own pat explanations for why other paradigms work--christians think other magic users are accessing the power of teh deevul, etcetera. few paradigms investigate those pat explanations, or make any attempt to prove or disprove them. as far as i'm able to tell from the books, RH is not one of those few.

audun

Apr 23 2005, 06:36 PM

Post #132

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 381

QUOTE (mfb)

Newton graduated from alchemy to modern science.

won't argue with that

QUOTE

and, yes, all paradigms have their own pat explanations for why other paradigms work--christians think other magic users are accessing the power of teh deevul, etcetera. few paradigms investigate those pat explanations, or make any attempt to prove or disprove them. as far as i'm able to tell from the books, RH is not one of those few.

Why not? We might agree that it is not totally clear from the text, but is there something in the books that suggest that they might not?

Ellery

Apr 23 2005, 07:04 PM

Post #133

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298

Newton spent a lot of time on things other than science, which is a pity, since those endeavors (alchemy, astrology) were wholly worthless while his scientific contributions were outstanding.

Maybe Renewed Hermetics were intended by the author to be scientific. However, they barely got them to the level of soft science, and certainly didn't make them study magic as a hard science even though it should be possible. Let's look through flavor text in SotA:64.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.112)

In Europe, different schools of thought--or "paradigms," as the academics like to call them--are locked in a race for dominence over the hermetic magic scene.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.112)

Observation and logic are not absolutes when it comes to magic. There's no "what goes up must come down." Thaumaturgy constantly bends the established laws of reality and physics out of shape. What's more, the very nature of magic is such that different theories regarding the nature of magic not only exist, but cannot be objectively disproved by empirical testing and comparison.

Okay, so we have schools of thought that are not based on empirical testing and comparison. That doesn't sound very scientific to me, given that the core of the scientific method is to (in)validate hypotheses using empirical testing.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.112)

Each paradigm can be thought of as a distinct school of hermetic magic--a basic theoretical framework defining fundamental principles, accepted methadologies, philosophy, ideology, and metaphysics describing the ultimate nature of magic and the world.

Philosophy, ideology, and metaphysics aren't really scientific concepts. The fundamental principles and methadologies could be approached scientifically, but they need not be.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.113)

The seminal work of Akiko Keno and Arthur White Eagle...introduced an entirely new methodology built on the foundations of hermeticism, but which remained scientific in nature.

So far so good. Renewed hermeticism is scientific. However, one of they key aspects of good writing is show, don't tell. This tells us that "Flamel" (a regular on Euro Magicknet--those are some impressive credentials!) is telling us that R.H. is a science. Maybe that's how he thinks of it, but let's see what is involved in RH, eh?

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.113)

Extrapolating upon classical hermetic theory, they developed a theoretical paradigm that convinced the "rationalist" scientific community that magic should be viewed as a science in its own right.

Wait. They didn't do experiments? They didn't demonstrate reproducible, quantifiable phenomena? That doesn't sound very scientific. It sounds like any other untested/testable philosophizing--except for the part that tells us that the rationalist scientific community accepted it. Why would they do something like that? Presumably they had some good reason (e.g. demonstration of reproducible phenomena) that isn't mentioned here. If it's not mentioned here, that suggests that it's not really central to RH.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.113)

Though paradigms are quick to incorporate any "new" developments discovered by rival philosopies,...

If RH is doing this extensively, that's not very scientific either--they should be analyzing, measuring, testing, etc., the new development, finding necessary and sufficient conditions for the generation of this phenomenon, and so on. That is not something that can be done quickly--you certainly don't just grab something wholesale from a nonscientific paradigm and declare it to be part of a science.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.114)

The Classic Schools aren't mere scientific frameworks, but entire spiritual and philosophical systems...and are thus naturally opposed to the Renewed Hermetics who focus solely on the magical elements.

Okay, so classic hermeticism is stated to not be a purely scientific system, and from quotes above, we've also seen that it is not. We're left wondering what these magical elements are, though, and whether they are suitable for scientific study, and if they're being studied scientifically.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.117)

Renewed Hermetics claim that the source of magic is found beyond the pre-Awakening model of the universe.

That's a really weird phrasing for a scientific hypothesis, but maybe Flamel isn't a scientist or was doing a bad job communicating with a lay audience.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.117)

Unlike the Classicists, they (Renewed Hermetics) view mana as a form of energy, though with different properties than other forms of ambient energy like matter, light and electricity. To the Renewed Hermetic, magic is simply an arcane science.

Okay, so mana is energy--but this doesn't distinguish between a scientific approach and a pseudoscientific approach. There are plenty of pseudosciences that say that there is mental energy, or ion-this-that, or whatsit-energy-fields. The reason that they're pseudosciences is that they use some of the terminology of science but not the most important methods. We are again told that RH is scientific, but we haven't seen it yet.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.117)

The spirit is a Jungian ideal imprinted on malleable astral space. They believe spirits are simply semi-sentient entities molded by the human will.

Given that Jung's theories weren't really scientific (i.e. weren't supported by much evidence), and given that this is pretty hard to test even if he was, this is a bizarre thing for a supposedly scientific branch of hermeticism to have as a central dogma. A vastly more scientific answer would be, "We don't know what spirits are, yet." Especially considering insect spirits, toxic spirits, shedim, free spirits, various essence-draining spirit critters, and so on, none of which are shaped by the human will in any obvious way.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.117)

Renewed Hermetics take a very pragmatic approach, attempting to apply magic to practical applications.

Okay, so they're useful. They may not be scientific, but at least they're applied--if something works, use it! This seems like a clearer distinguishing feature of RH than a committment to the scientific method.

QUOTE (SOTA64 p.119)

To be frank, I must admit I'm a supporter of UMT ... As unificationists, we believe all magic stems from a single source, and as such, all variants of thaumaturgy should be viewed simply as different routes to the same truth. Instead of the competing paradigms model, Unified Magic Theory defends they are all equally valid. From this starting point, adherants to UMT try to develop a magical style devoid of dogma and prejudice, which tries to learn from all traditions. This way we will be able to learn the most about magic.

Right. And if the Renewed Hermetics are not trying to learn about and explain these phenomena, and modify their theories accordingly, then they're not really being all that scientific, are they? Ignoring obvious evidence that something works isn't exactly a hallmark of science. And if RH is learning from (and explaining!) all traditions, why the need for UMT?

That's about it. No examples of RH actually doing anything scientific. We've seen claims, multiple times, but nothing that clearly has the fingerprint of a scientific field of study.

So I claim that RH is not actually where the scientific / not fully scientific divide lies in Hermeticism. Rather, Renewed Hermetics rigorously try to develop their particular model, focusing on practical applications, with some scientific explanations (or pseudoscientific) where applicable.

The real scientists--who might be Renewed Hermetics, but could also be Classicists or Dog Shamen or whoever--are the ones in university (and possibly also corporate) magical research labs, who are coming up with hypotheses about the workings of magic and testing them thorougly, rigorously, quantitatively. Maybe their science informs their practice of magic, or maybe it doesn't. Maybe they just want to understand the effects of magic, and as long as Bear is happy to let them cast spells and perform experiments to gain understanding, they can do so.

But we haven't heard much about these real scientists. Maybe Kano and White Eagle were among them, but the school that they spawned isn't shown to be acting the same way.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

Apr 23 2005, 10:20 PM

Post #134

Guests

QUOTE (audun @ Apr 23 2005, 11:36 AM)

QUOTE

and, yes, all paradigms have their own pat explanations for why other paradigms work--christians think other magic users are accessing the power of teh deevul, etcetera. few paradigms investigate those pat explanations, or make any attempt to prove or disprove them. as far as i'm able to tell from the books, RH is not one of those few.

Why not? We might agree that it is not totally clear from the text, but is there something in the books that suggest that they might not?

Because you can't comprise the paradigm 95% of all Hermetics in North America follow and still reconcile it with the rare few "theoretical occultists" (Which is, quite frankly, a retarded and contradictory way to refer to them) who actually do study magic scientifically. Given the fact that that chapter of MitS was written from the American POV, I cannot see how these two do not lend evidence, if not outright prohibit, one from being the other.

And as much as I hate to do this because it goes against every interpretational instinct in my body (as I am at best a literalist with new-textualist tendencies), looking at the manuscript history of the chapter, I am not about to assume something that the editors and line developer I now know explicitly wanted out of the description of Renewed Hermeticism. It was one sentence that would have made Reneweds wholly different from the way they are described in the rest of the entry. Going back to my literalism roots, I don't really care what reason it was cut (I can think of better sentences to omit if it was for space), but the fact that it is not in the chapter or any other part of SR canon law leads me to look upon assertions that they do follow it with a tremendous amount of supicion if not outright hostility.

Ellery View Member Profile	Apr 23 2005, 10:32 PM Post #135
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298	Whether or not they call something scientific or not, if it does not look like a duck and it does not quack like a duck, then it is probably not a duck.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*	Apr 23 2005, 10:37 PM Post #136
Guests	Apparently that's for everywhere but Europe now.

Dexy

Apr 23 2005, 11:19 PM

Post #137

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 16-January 05
Member No.: 6,986

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

QUOTE (audun @ Apr 23 2005, 11:36 AM)

Because you can't comprise the paradigm 95% of all Hermetics in North America follow and still reconcile it with the rare few "theoretical occultists" (Which is, quite frankly, a retarded and contradictory way to refer to them) who actually do study magic scientifically.

By this "logic", you can claim that programmers make no contribution to Computer Science on the grounds that 95% of programmers don't behave like scientists. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that as long as a particular magical paradigm explains the known details of how magic works and can be used to predict unknown details of how it works, it is a valid scientific theory, even if it is subsequently proved to be false. As quantum physics has proven, it is possible to explain certain mathematical formulae with predictive power in several different and often contradictory ways. This is no different from how Renewed Hermeticism has been described in the various Shadowrun books.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

Apr 23 2005, 11:37 PM

Post #138

Guests

QUOTE (audun)

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

QUOTE (audun)

First off, Renewed Hermetics do apply the scientific method to their research. The exact sentence was cut in editing, which is a pity.

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 can see that the text in SOTA2064 my imply that, but I can't see where it contradicts any use of the scientific method.

One sentence. That's all it would have taken. It was clearly written into the draft by your own admission. The fact that it is not in the book does not contradict the assertion that they follow the scientific method. But at the same time, it does support your assertion either.

QUOTE

good point on the manameter issue. I yield, but I still think it is impossible to create labratory conditions in astral space. If you don't have any exact idea of what may interfere on your conditions, it is impossible to rule outside influences out.

I fail to see how. AFAIK all a researcher would have to be concerned with is a background count. The fact that there are magics to detect and compensate for, if not outright eliminate background count, seems to be sufficient. I don't know off the top of my head any other factors that would quanitifably affect the results.

QUOTE

Again, where does it contradict that may do this. I just reread the text and can't find anything that contradicts it. It doesn't state that they do, but there's no suggestion that they don't either. It's says that they are "scientific" though.

I think Ellery did a sufficient job of pointing out how it is not the case, and in fact that the description of Renewed contradicts the assertion that it is "scientific."

QUOTE

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.

Why not? As long as they draw a line between what's speculation and what's known for sure.

Because they aren't conducting scientifically-valid experiments to determine, "what's known for sure." For any follower of another paradigm, "what's known for sure" is that the Elementalist or Roman Catholic or Hermetic Druidic philosophies can be utilized to create magical results for those who follow the respective paradigms.

What I assert a real scientific mage should know for sure is how much mana said spell draws from astral space, regardless of how they did it. The how is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The problem is that paradigms are predicated on explaining and furthering understanding of "How" their magical formulae and rituals work, not what happens when metahumans interact and manipulate mana itself.

QUOTE

The scientific method has no role whatsoever being associated with the word "speculation."

What is a hypothesis if not a speculation? It's a guess which may be falsified. Untill it is falsified it is a speculation.

A guess is a speculation. A hypothesis is an "educated" guess based on observations which is then tested repeatedly until it can be discarded or accepted.

Moreover, your question is out of context of the statement I responded to. You said

QUOTE

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.

First of all. Either they are doing hard science or they aren't. Make up your mind. If they are scientists who follow the scientific method, then the first sentence is contrary to every assertion you've made so far that Reneweds are scientific. If no one can do hard science research, that means that Reneweds aren't doing hard science research either. And while I agree with that statement, it is not what you are arguing.

Second, in the context of both sentences you leave us not with hypotheses to be tested, but rather just mere speculation and philosophy which is, at best, simply "guesses" and no more relevant to the scientific method than people centuries ago speculating that the world was flat and sat on the back of a giant turtle. It is not based on any observations, not subject to any testing, and frankly is as valid as any damn fool idea I can pull out of my own ass such as (to quote the Family Guy), "women are devices created by the Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment."

QUOTE

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).

Where does it say anything like this?

Well, first I would point you to Ellery's quotations for SOTA64. Some of them are... enlightening. But to put a finer point on why I don't see any scientific foundation in Renewed Hermeticism, it is because

QUOTE (SOTA:2064 @ 117)

The offspring of parasychological methodology and hermetic theory, fused into a scientific approach to thaumturgy.
...
The spiritual is a Jungian ideal imprinted on malleable astral space.

Well, gee. That convinced me. Call me a scientific snob if you like, but parapsychology and theoretical (Jungian, etc.) psychology, not to mention hermetic theory itself, are about as scientific as astrology. If that. There is no scientific basis which can be extrapolated from those fields to form a magical "science." It's not possible because they fundamentally lack the requisite ability to be tested with predictable and reproduceable results.

QUOTE

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 can't make any sense of this. You want magic to be hard science. In hard science the researcher doesn't affect the research subject. In soft sciences they do. The physical effects of magic may be studied independtly of the researcher, but mana is affected by the researcher. Which is why I hold that it is inbetween hard and soft science.

Source?

Prove to me that researchers affect their subjects. Quote me a page. Any page will do. There is, to my knowledge, no Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle equivalent to magic. Analytical magic involves factors, all of which can be compensated for, ranging from mere assensing to the use of spells to enhance observations. However, by your argument technology is interfering in the scientific observations of natural phenomena and therefore can't work. Well, so much for the X-ray, the MRI, the electron microscope, or (god forbid) the particle accelerator. I can't think of anything more invasive into the observation of natural phenomena off the top of my head than the particle accelerator. However, it is a legitimate scientific tool. Its results are considered to be scientific data.

So my question is this: What could a passively-observing research magician be doing that would interfere with their subjects more than a particle accelerator interferes with natural particle behavior?

QUOTE

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.

Again the difference between understanding and belief. If you could manipulate mana trough belief alone, there would be no skill involved. You would have "Totem goodwill rating" instad of a Sorcery skill. Even shamans and voudoun requires knowledge and a structured approach to magic to make it work.

Clearly. But you opened the door with the word, "belief." I'm just kicking it shut because it is even by your own admission not how magic works.

QUOTE

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."

Theurgists doesn't pray to do magic. That is a gross misunderstanding. They don't have "Call power of God upon the heathen" skill, but a sorcery skill like everyone else. They have knowledge of the methods of accessing the manasphere, drawing mana, manipulating it, and opening their astral self up to focus the effects onto the real world, but unlike a Renewed Hermetic they interpret this knowledge trough a Christian framework rather than scientific.

Yes, it is a philosophy. A cute philosophy based on Catholicism, etc. However, it is still a belief structure and philosophy that does not explain the actual understanding of mana as a force (since Reneweds apparently believe it's a force, but they don't do anything to measure it because, "Metahumanity simply doesn't know enough about magic to be able to do hard science research on it.") or substance or both, or something completely different.

QUOTE

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.

It doesn't say so anywhere. That's your (mis)interpretation. It does say that they explain "the spiritual as Jungian archetypes imprinted on a malleable astral space", but that's not the same thing. The Renewed Hermetics has borrowed all of their techniques from Classic Hermetics, but they puts these techniques under scientific scrutiny.

What!?! How can you subject something to scientific scrutiny and decide that the best way to explain magic is that it's based on Jungian principles?

QUOTE

The great difference between Hermetics and shamans or houngans is, generally, that Hermetics just access the manasphere directly to draw their power and abilities.

What about Elementals then? Are they drawn directly from the manasphere?

AFAIK they are.

QUOTE

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).

That implies that Totems(and Loa) are real entities with independent existance, and not only a construct of the shamans subconscious. If the latter is the case, it is just a different, but still direct, way to access the manasphere. There's no definite answer to that in any SR book(at least not without beeing contradicted elsewhere).

SR3, p. 182. Totems are high-force spirits that provide magical power to shamans. The Loa have been jerked around since Awakenings where they were presented more like sentient spirits like SR3 totems are.

QUOTE

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.

Why is it that you insist that Renewed can't occupy this place rightfully.

Why is it that you insist that they should? They don't follow the scientific method. When you attempted to say they did, it was removed. There is no positive proof that they engage any serious research methodology. They comprise one of the largest know groups of Hermetics, but canon also says that people who do engage in serious scientific research into magic are "rare," which would logically preclude such a large number of Hermetics from being in a "rare" group of magicians.

I'll tell you what. Get that sentence into canon, and I'll acquiesce. However, while I will not even suggest that I can read Rob's mind, if I were him and you gave me the same argument and the same text which is in SOTA64 with that sentence, I would either excise the sentence or tell you to re-write it, because you have not made a single successful affirmative argument about why they should be considered to be scientific. Given the editing, as far as I am concerned you have the burden of proof to show that they are. I don't. And so far, you have not convinced me. It's not an impossible task. I'm not a closed-minded person who never admits when I'm wrong. However, I see no reason to make it easy on you until such time as you can prove your assertion, or at least that I am wrong.

But it is a big deal to me. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be spending hours deconstructing your assertions. There should be at least one group of Hermetics out there whose concern is on the scientific structure of magic and mana, and not on why their belief structure and study group kicks more ass than another. I know they exist because the canon says so.

The closest I can see to these magicians is not Renewed, it's UMT. However, they are so focused on researching beliefs that they are missing the big picture. It's not about the beliefs. It's about the mana itself. They are still stuck on formulae and symbology, and "develop[ing] a magical style" (SOTA64, 119) (Emphasis mine).

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

Apr 23 2005, 11:38 PM

Post #139

Guests

QUOTE (Dexy @ Apr 23 2005, 04:19 PM)

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ Apr 23 2005, 05:20 PM)

QUOTE (audun @ Apr 23 2005, 11:36 AM)

Because you can't comprise the paradigm 95% of all Hermetics in North America follow and still reconcile it with the rare few "theoretical occultists" (Which is, quite frankly, a retarded and contradictory way to refer to them) who actually do study magic scientifically.

By this "logic", you can claim that programmers make no contribution to Computer Science on the grounds that 95% of programmers don't behave like scientists.

Computer Science is more like engineering. If we want to use that analogy to describe Renewed, well... I'm open to thoughts.

QUOTE (Dexy)

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that as long as a particular magical paradigm explains the known details of how magic works and can be used to predict unknown details of how it works, it is a valid scientific theory, even if it is subsequently proved to be false. As quantum physics has proven, it is possible to explain certain mathematical formulae with predictive power in several different and often contradictory ways. This is no different from how Renewed Hermeticism has been described in the various Shadowrun books.

Wrong.

They produce reproduceable results within their own belief systems, sure. However, they have done nothing to show predictable and reproduceable effects on mana itself. These paradigms are concerned with the manifest effect, not the effect on the manasphere itself. That is the difference.

QUOTE (audun)

All the paradigms look at the reasons for why other approaches work, but they all claim that theirs is better. It would be a really lousy explanation of magic if you couldn't explain what everybody else did.

Do they, now? And where, oh where, does it say that?

BTW, I will say flat-out now that I think Flamel was dead wrong about his/her assertions in the first two paragraphs of "A Question of Paradigm" on page 112. Ellery has picked them apart nicely, but I will just reiterate that if those two paragraphs are true, then it is impossible for Renewed Hermetics to adhere to this concept.

QUOTE

Newton was an alchemist

And? What does that have to do with anything?

Kesh View Member Profile	Apr 24 2005, 05:35 AM Post #140
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 27-January 03 From: Kentucky, USA Member No.: 3,958	Meh. All these long-winded replies on whether or not a single group of Hermetics is "scientific enough" and nobody bothered to reply to my psionics post. ... of course, neither of those subjects are actually on-topic. :spin:

Grinder View Member Profile	Apr 24 2005, 01:32 PM Post #141
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698	The people who are writing this long posting are likely the first hermetics to appear in 2011, i'm sure. :D

audun

Apr 24 2005, 05:00 PM

Post #142

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 381

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

One sentence. That's all it would have taken. It was clearly written into the draft by your own admission. The fact that it is not in the book does not contradict the assertion that they follow the scientific method. But at the same time, it does support your assertion either.

True.

QUOTE

I think Ellery did a sufficient job of pointing out how it is not the case, and in fact that the description of Renewed contradicts the assertion that it is "scientific."

he did.

QUOTE

Because they aren't conducting scientifically-valid experiments to determine, "what's known for sure." For any follower of another paradigm, "what's known for sure" is that the Elementalist or Roman Catholic or Hermetic Druidic philosophies can be utilized to create magical results for those who follow the respective paradigms.

What I assert a real scientific mage should know for sure is how much mana said spell draws from astral space, regardless of how they did it.

Good point, RH's should do that if they were what I wanted them to be.

QUOTE

The how is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The problem is that paradigms are predicated on explaining and furthering understanding of "How" their magical formulae and rituals work, not what happens when metahumans interact and manipulate mana itself.

I'll hold that the "how" is quite relevant because different different "hows" have different potency. Understanding these differences are a "why".

QUOTE

The scientific method has no role whatsoever being associated with the word "speculation."

What is a hypothesis if not a speculation? It's a guess which may be falsified. Untill it is falsified it is a speculation.

A guess is a speculation. A hypothesis is an "educated" guess based on observations which is then tested repeatedly until it can be discarded or accepted.

It is still a speculation, but if you only use speculation as word with a negative ring to it, I see why you disagree. A bit irrelevant, but according Popper you can't really accept a hypothesis, except temporalily. You can only disprove something, never prove them.

QUOTE

Moreover, your question is out of context of the statement I responded to. You said

QUOTE

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.

First of all. Either they are doing hard science or they aren't. Make up your mind. If they are scientists who follow the scientific method, then the first sentence is contrary to every assertion you've made so far that Reneweds are scientific. If no one can do hard science research, that means that Reneweds aren't doing hard science research either. And while I agree with that statement, it is not what you are arguing.

I think our argument is really about whether only hard science is the only application of the scientific method. As a student of political science, I apply it whenever I can. I can't do lab experiments, but I can disprove a hypothesis. Lots of political science is outside the realm of scientific methodology, but not all of it.
As stated I think magical research belong somewhere in between hard and soft science.

QUOTE

Second, in the context of both sentences you leave us not with hypotheses to be tested, but rather just mere speculation and philosophy which is, at best, simply "guesses" and no more relevant to the scientific method than people centuries ago speculating that the world was flat and sat on the back of a giant turtle.

Philosophy and speculation is relevant to the scientific method. Science is what philosophy and speculation becomes when you apply scientific methods to them. The world is flat is hypothesis, and it is disproved by scientific methods.

QUOTE

Well, first I would point you to Ellery's quotations for SOTA64. Some of them are... enlightening.

Thanks, I've seen them. Got me convinced.

QUOTE

But to put a finer point on why I don't see any scientific foundation in Renewed Hermeticism, it is because

QUOTE (SOTA:2064 @ 117)

The offspring of parasychological methodology and hermetic theory, fused into a scientific approach to thaumturgy.
...
The spiritual is a Jungian ideal imprinted on malleable astral space.

Well, gee. That convinced me. Call me a scientific snob if you like, but parapsychology and theoretical (Jungian, etc.) psychology, not to mention hermetic theory itself, are about as scientific as astrology. If that. There is no scientific basis which can be extrapolated from those fields to form a magical "science." It's not possible because they fundamentally lack the requisite ability to be tested with predictable and reproduceable results.

Parapsychology is here a reference to the post-2011 parapsychology, not the RL parapsychology (though, even if I agree that it is not a science now, I think it could be). Jungian psychology has nothing to do with the scientific method, I agree. Though, it was only meant as reference to the leading theory about what spirits are.

QUOTE

So my question is this: What could a passively-observing research magician be doing that would interfere with their subjects more than a particle accelerator interferes with natural particle behavior?

My point was only that there was no sure way to know whether he interferes or not. Like 19th century scientists believing that they created life in their labratory, the magical researcher may suffer from interference he has no idea about. If he creates a spell to measure mana levels, he can't be sure that the spell itself don't manipulate mana levels to better fit the result the researcher wants. He might be pretty sure, but it can't be totally ruled out.
Though, I am no longer sure about this point. With the use of FAB and such you may be able to bypass such limitations.

QUOTE

I'm just kicking it shut because it is even by your own admission not how magic works.

Fine, it's shut now.

QUOTE

It doesn't say so anywhere. That's your (mis)interpretation. It does say that they explain "the spiritual as Jungian archetypes imprinted on a malleable astral space", but that's not the same thing. The Renewed Hermetics has borrowed all of their techniques from Classic Hermetics, but they puts these techniques under scientific scrutiny.

What!?! How can you subject something to scientific scrutiny and decide that the best way to explain magic is that it's based on Jungian principles?

see above.

QUOTE

The great difference between Hermetics and shamans or houngans is, generally, that Hermetics just access the manasphere directly to draw their power and abilities.

What about Elementals then? Are they drawn directly from the manasphere?

AFAIK they are.

QUOTE

SR3, p. 182. Totems are high-force spirits that provide magical power to shamans. The Loa have been jerked around since Awakenings where they were presented more like sentient spirits like SR3 totems are.

No one knows for sure what spirits are. It's left undecided in SR and that's been reinforced since the beginning. That goes for all spirits, Elementals, Totems and Loa alike.

QUOTE

I'm not a closed-minded person who never admits when I'm wrong.

Neither am I. It seems like I'm wrong in my assertion that Renewed Hermetics are scientific. Or at least that assertion is not reinforced by text in SOTA64.

QUOTE

But it is a big deal to me. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be spending hours deconstructing your assertions. There should be at least one group of Hermetics out there whose concern is on the scientific structure of magic and mana, and not on why their belief structure and study group kicks more ass than another. I know they exist because the canon says so.

Maybe they're rare since everybody is more concerned about showing that they are more kick-ass than the others :twirl:

QUOTE

The closest I can see to these magicians is not Renewed, it's UMT. However, they are so focused on researching beliefs that they are missing the big picture. It's not about the beliefs. It's about the mana itself. They are still stuck on formulae and symbology, and "develop[ing] a magical style" (SOTA64, 119) (Emphasis mine).

UMT are mostly inspired by post-modernists (all approaches are equal), so I don't think that they would be good candidate.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

Apr 24 2005, 05:40 PM

Post #143

Guests

QUOTE (Grinder @ Apr 24 2005, 06:32 AM)

The people who are writing this long posting are likely the first hermetics to appear in 2011, i'm sure. :D

Nah...

I don't have the patience or the intellectual capacity to be a Hermetic.

Grinder View Member Profile	Apr 24 2005, 06:01 PM Post #144
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698	Writing such long postings proves the opposite. ;)

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*	Apr 24 2005, 06:02 PM Post #145
Guests	Writing such long posts only proves that I have the patience and capacity to write long posts.

mfb View Member Profile	Apr 24 2005, 06:14 PM Post #146
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	according to the books, that's plenty!

Grinder

Apr 24 2005, 06:15 PM

Post #147

Great, I'm a Dragon...

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 6,699
Joined: 8-October 03
From: North Germany
Member No.: 5,698

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

Writing such long posts only proves that I have the patience and capacity to write long posts.

It also shows that you're willing and patient to elaborate about dry topics.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*	Apr 24 2005, 06:37 PM Post #148
Guests	Occupational hazard, I guess.

Grinder View Member Profile	Apr 24 2005, 07:28 PM Post #149
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698	You can't escape your destiny.

Critias View Member Profile	Apr 24 2005, 10:39 PM Post #150
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	I'm not sure I like the idea of Crimson being able to chuck Fireballs.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »