IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Hemetics cost to much
hahnsoo
post Apr 11 2005, 11:50 PM
Post #76


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (Ellery)
QUOTE
Doctors ARE scientists, some of them primarily academic scientists, some of them purely empirical scientists who work on a case-by-case (in this case, patients) basis, some of them are more healers than scientists but still have been trained in the basic theories of medicine. I will admit, your average family physician doesn't care a lick about the science behind it, but if you give them a journal article on the Framingham study of Heart treatment, they can decipher it and understand the science.


Doctors get scientific training, certainly. There are practicing doctors who simultaneously do science (e.g. who are involved in clinical trials), and there are M.D.s who do research and don't practice medicine. Treating patients is, for the most part, not particularly scientific unless you consider any place where you apply science in order to achieve an effect to be a science.

Again, I have to say that you don't understand Modern Medicine. Think of each patient as a different hypothesis, a different experiment. Doctors are taught to analyze the information that they are given, and then seek the best scientific evidence for the best course of action. This may involve lab tests, which prove or disprove the hypothesis (all diagnoses are temporary hypotheses). This may involve reading in the literature, to determine effective treatments (and each treatment is a hypothesis followed by an experiment). While the actual "healing" part is due to a variety of factors, the diagnosis and treatment of patients in Modern Medicine is intensely scientific. About two-thirds of the doctors you meet in hospitals are involved in one or more clinical trials, along with about one-third of general practitioners. Not to mention that Medicine is peer-reviewed (doctors discuss and argue ALL the time, and seek consultation with more knowledgable sources on a fairly regular basis), more so than any other scientific field. Medicine is quite reproducible, and falls under your definition here:
QUOTE
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

In Modern Medicine, you gain knowledge by observing (history and physical), then experimenting (one or more lab tests, radiology tests, etc.), then through your conclusions you go about the best course of action.

However:
QUOTE
The more science doctors use in their treatment of patients the better, in my opinion, since they'll get better results.
This is not always true. Patients generally don't care about science. They care about healing. The expectations that a patient has is just as important when it comes to healing as the science behind the method of healing (or no science at all, depending on what the patient wants). I can explain to a patient why he/she needs to quit smoking, get a flu shot, etc. That doesn't mean they will do it. I can give them antibiotics to cure their strep throat... but that won't help them if their "real" problem is something else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 11 2005, 11:55 PM
Post #77


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
Magic is in fact impossible to divorce from the thoughts and perceptions of those who practise it; magic literally does not exist in a vacum.

this is exactly what the point of contention is. you--and, apparently, the hermetic community in SR--say this and accept it as fact without ever studying it or testing it. how would you go about testing it? no idea. the point is, it apparently hasn't even ever been tried.

the point isn't that "real" scientists don't have pet theories. the point is that no one ever tests those pet theories to see if they might actually be true or not--it's simply accepted that, because they work, they must be true. and that isn't true. i can believe that Ctrl+Alt+Del forms a holy trinity which must be brought closer to the ground in order to perform their magic Reset Computer spell, and i can even "prove" that theory over and over again by pressing those three buttons. that doesn't make me right, and it certainly doesn't make me a scientist. in SR, though, it apparently does, because that's exactly what hermetics do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 12 2005, 12:01 AM
Post #78


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



Another element is the fact that hermetics take HOURS to do anything. While shamans just flail about and do the macarena and "poof" something happens, hermetics take hours of study in their personal libraries and texts. I have a hard time believing that the very act of studying fuels their power... your average hermetic is searching through their books, looking for the "best" theories and evidence to use in a given situation, reading the peer-reviewed literature, and looking at what other hermetics have done to come up with a plan of action. One way that hermeticism is scientific is the fact that the community of hermetics HAVE to communicate in order to perform magic. Even if there are many crackpot theories (some of which work), it still remains that most of a hermetic's magic is based upon theories made by someone else, or in other words, a standing body of knowledge that grows continually. Shamans don't do that. They don't need a standing body of knowledge, because all of their magic comes from what their totem gives them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 12 2005, 12:35 AM
Post #79


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



yes, except that different crackpot theories work for different hermetic mages. hermetics don't research magic, they simply reinforce their own pet, unproven and unprovable theories through research. the only truths they discover are personal, subjective truths.

even behavioral psychologists recognize universal truths related to behavior. they don't just run around trying different things willy-nilly, without investigating why those things work (or don't work).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 12 2005, 12:41 AM
Post #80


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (mfb @ Apr 11 2005, 07:35 PM)
yes, except that different crackpot theories work for different hermetic mages. hermetics don't research magic, they simply reinforce their own pet, unproven and unprovable theories through research. the only truths they discover are personal, subjective truths.

But those subjective truths are based upon communities and standing bodies of knowledge. You cannot learn spells or increase your magic skills as a hermetic without a current standing body of knowledge (hermetic libraries) or extensive experimentation. A hermetic can still use a derivative body of work (at a penalty, according to MitS)... it's not "what works best for them" but it can still work for them if it works for someone else.

Really, it sounds like people are making hermetics out to be the example of scientific individualism (i.e. Diane Fossey out in the woods with the chimpanzee, a lone investigator observing and recording). The reality supported by the text is that they read, they argue, and work together (or against each other) as a collective, just like scientists today, with standardized standing bodies of knowledge which becomes augmented through research and experimentation. While each person may be reinforcing personal beliefs in the process, they still take a scholarly point of view in developing their own magic.

From MitS p17
QUOTE
If a mage follows a specific hermetic school, the mage gains a bonus for working with the symbols and rituals of that school. While using a hermetic circle drawn to the specifications of the school, or a hermetic library focused on the rituals of the school, the mage gains an additional die for magical operations. The penalty for such specialization is that the mage suffers a –1 die penalty when using a hermetic circle or library not based on the theories of his or her school. This makes it difficult for mages of one school to cooperate with mages of other schools, which reinforces their tendency to remain exclusive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 12 2005, 12:47 AM
Post #81


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



the point is, no one investigates why Subjective Truth X works for Mage Y but not Mage Z. that's where the lack of scientific thought comes in--everyone just blindly accepts that "it works for him, but not for me, and that's okay." i'll quote my above post, since i edited it while you were posting: even behavioral psychologists recognize universal truths related to behavior. they don't just run around trying different things willy-nilly, without investigating why those things work (or don't work).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wireknight
post Apr 12 2005, 12:50 AM
Post #82


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 527
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,118



QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
That happens to be true in chemistry, but only because chemicals have an existence independent of my perception. Magic is different. Magic is in fact impossible to divorce from the thoughts and perceptions of those who practise it; magic literally does not exist in a vacum. :D This is actually why magic is difficult to analyze experimentally; you can't yet decouple magic from the humans who practise it. Thus any truly important studies into the nature of magic must necessarily deal with studying (meta)humans as individuals or groups. You end up with the same fundamental problem with experimentation that the behavioral psychologists do, whom I note you also don't believe are scientists probably for this very reason.

The problem with this statement is that it's not the whole truth, applied to magical activity from start to finish. Certainly, at the casting/summoning level, magic cannot be divorced from the perceptions of the mage in question. After that has occurred, however, and the spell is active, or the spirit is running about causing mayhem, the effects generated are certainly no longer contingent solely on the perceptions of the magician who generated them.

You can't choose to "disbelieve" a fireball that a mage just tossed at you, even though the mage believes he was granted the power to shoot fire by the terrible metal hand in the sky, while you know that no such hand exists, as we are all nodes in a universal distributed consciousness named Bob. Likewise, you don't believe in spirits. Try and tell that to the earth elemental that just flipped over your car and is now intent on crushing your squishy hu-man body in its rocky folds.

If it generates a specific physical effect, be it sudden increases in heat(fireball), ionization and electric discharge(lightning bolt), sudden bursts of kinetic energy(clout), sustained kinetic energy(levitate), or an area with the capability to negate energy(physical barrier), then it should be able to be researched.

If, in Shadowrun, magic is taught in schools, then it's generally apparent that there is such a thing, in Shadowrun, as reproducible magical results, measurable degrees of success (Johnny's levitate spell is A+ work, but Carmen needs to get hers up past C- if she doesn't want to repeat this course!), and other scientific findings that are the basis for reliable instructional material on the subject. Ever tried to write a paper from a point of view that differs from the professor's? If magic was solely the realm of one's own world-view, and immutable to things like facts and formulae, no one would be able to pass a course where a professor expected certain spells or rituals to be identical to, in practice and in result, ones that they themselves had developed or learned.

Now, I think that magic can be the result of hand-waving and crystals and belief. I just think that it can, just as validly, be approached, researched, and applied from a scientific perspective as much as a spiritual one. I don't like the way I saw shamans (and magicians with decidedly shaman-like views) being basically affirmed as "correct", and hermetics (and others who employed scientific reasoning) being portrayed as "wrong", in prior materials. The moment there is an absolute right way of doing things, it'll be the rare character who does it any way different.

Plus, if we're gonna just outright guess who's doing it right, assuming there is a provable right way of doing it, look at the Righ Path-Follower. It seems that, just based on their capabilities, they're probably a notch or two closer to the enigmatic true nature of magic than any hermetic, shaman, or vodoun.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 12 2005, 12:50 AM
Post #83


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (mfb @ Apr 11 2005, 07:47 PM)
the point is, no one investigates why Subjective Truth X works for Mage Y but not Mage Z. that's where the lack of scientific thought comes in--everyone just blindly accepts that "it works for him, but not for me, and that's okay." i'll quote my above post, since i edited it while you were posting: even behavioral psychologists recognize universal truths related to behavior. they don't just run around trying different things willy-nilly, without investigating why those things work (or don't work).

Be careful with words like "never" "no-one" and other broad generalizations. I'm sure there are whole teams of eggheads trying to crack the "universal magic theory". Hell, the whole of Renewed Hermeticism was an attempt by two prestigious Hermetics to quantify why magic works, and the majority of mages in North America base their work on those original assumptions. And one of those Hermetics moved on to form the foundation of Unified Magic Theory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penta
post Apr 12 2005, 01:38 AM
Post #84


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,978
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 500



QUOTE (hahnsoo)
This is not always true. Patients generally don't care about science. They care about healing. The expectations that a patient has is just as important when it comes to healing as the science behind the method of healing (or no science at all, depending on what the patient wants). I can explain to a patient why he/she needs to quit smoking, get a flu shot, etc. That doesn't mean they will do it. I can give them antibiotics to cure their strep throat... but that won't help them if their "real" problem is something else.

Well, there's also the reality that medicine, in the field, is as much art as science. See psychiatry and pediatrics for two examples in point.

Also, I'm not sure the 'scientific' point here is science as such...But rather that Hermetics use the scientific method.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 12 2005, 01:45 AM
Post #85


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (Penta)
pediatrics for two examples in point.

Pediatrics is veterinary medicine for the kids and psychiatry for the adults. *grin*

Actually, pediatrics, like all other medical fields, has its share of academic scientists, empirical scientists, and general practitioners. Children are far more predictable than adults when it comes to pediatric psychiatry and developmental pediatrics, for example. Pediatric Oncology is one specialty which engages both in cutting-edge experimental research and in standardized care (treatment for leukemia falls into pretty rigid protocols and doesn't deviate, with excellent results).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Apr 12 2005, 01:56 AM
Post #86


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



QUOTE (mfb)
the point isn't that "real" scientists don't have pet theories. the point is that no one ever tests those pet theories to see if they might actually be true or not--it's simply accepted that, because they work, they must be true. and that isn't true. i can believe that Ctrl+Alt+Del forms a holy trinity which must be brought closer to the ground in order to perform their magic Reset Computer spell, and i can even "prove" that theory over and over again by pressing those three buttons. that doesn't make me right, and it certainly doesn't make me a scientist. in SR, though, it apparently does, because that's exactly what hermetics do.

I'm going to go back to the example of Einstein and Bohr, because it's a close parallel to what we are talking about. Reference, though you are certainly more than capable of coming up with your own by just Googling. Basically, Bohr (and later Heisenberg) backed the Copenhagen Interpretation, which states that at a fundamental level atoms only exist purely in a statistical sense until they are decoupled (observed). Einstein and Schrödinger had a different view, that particles had an existence independent of the observer, and that the uncertainty principle and the like arose from the fundamental incompleteness of the ability to observe things at a precise level. Neither side relented during their lifetimes, and the debate raged for decades over whose view was more "right."

So, we have four scientists believing in two different theories about something fundamental to the understanding of our universe. All of them made significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge during their lifetimes, but according to your views either some or all of them are not scientists because they hold contradictory views that they champoined at the exclusion of the opposite view.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penta
post Apr 12 2005, 03:03 AM
Post #87


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,978
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 500



QUOTE (hahnsoo)
Pediatrics is veterinary medicine for the kids and psychiatry for the adults. *grin*

Actually, pediatrics, like all other medical fields, has its share of academic scientists, empirical scientists, and general practitioners. Children are far more predictable than adults when it comes to pediatric psychiatry and developmental pediatrics, for example. Pediatric Oncology is one specialty which engages both in cutting-edge experimental research and in standardized care (treatment for leukemia falls into pretty rigid protocols and doesn't deviate, with excellent results).

Yeah, but for all that...I'll grab psychology/psychiatry.

There may be standards of care, medications that fill a role in the "toolbox", the DSM-IV (when's DSM-V due, anybody know?), etc.

But it's still very, very unique. There's still a lot of creativity required. (Mostly because the patients can be so messed up.)

Oncology, maybe not. Tumors react in fairly standard ways.

But oncology is not a normal discipline, IMHO.

Re pediatric psych: I'd seriously doubt that it's that predictable. A week on a pediatric psych unit should cure anybody of the notion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellery
post Apr 12 2005, 03:03 AM
Post #88


Moving Target
**

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



QUOTE
what religion to you most identify with? If you actually have an answer to that question, including "atheist", "agnostic", or "I don't know," then you're not a scientist, at least not by the strict definition you seem to be giving.


As a scientist, my answer to that question is that I have insufficient evidence to form a solid hypothesis about most religions, although I note that there exist claims in many religions that are demonstrably untrue if taken at face value. However, religions apparently do not intend for all their claims to be taken at face value, and thus I can't say much more.

My personal views are less tentative than that, of course, but if I have been sloppy about conflating a scientist with science, let me retract that. Scientists are people who apply the scientific method and the findings of science as a primary tool in their job. However, they apply a lot of other things as well, especially outside of their area of research.

My claim was intended to be that Hermeticism is not portrayed as a typical science in SR materials, and that I am sure many of them act like scientists with respect to their magic, but the details are left out, and there's a large amount of apparently conflicting material put in.

(And just for the record, I do think some behavioral psychiatrists have experiments that are well enough controlled and free enough from presumptive bias for the work to be called science without being misleading. It's hard to do, though. There are some pretty neat findings, too, about what leads to stable marriages, the best way to compensate for auditory comprehension problems, and so on. The grand unifying models of maturation of mental state, e.g. by Kegan, are possibly inspired by a little science, but massively overreach to the point of being nonscientific and almost useless for a basis for scientific inquiry.)

QUOTE
How many articles have you read from the academic journal Science, for instance? Do you want them to reprint stuff like that into your game books?


I'm not sure why this is relevant, but well over a hundred from Science, but probably not more than a thousand (plus a similar number from Nature, PNAS, various IEEE proceedings, etc.). And no, I don't want the actual articles in the game text, but something akin to part of a Scientific American article on a scientifically interesting part of thaumaturgy would be nice as flavor, and I'd like to have a better idea of what it is that Hermetics actually do that is supposedly scientific. From flavor text, the legal profession is probably a better model for what most Hermetics do.

QUOTE
Bohr (and later Heisenberg) backed the Copenhagen Interpretation, which states that at a fundamental level atoms only exist purely in a statistical sense until they are decoupled (observed). Einstein and Schrödinger had a different view, that particles had an existence independent of the observer, and that the uncertainty principle and the like arose from the fundamental incompleteness of the ability to observe things at a precise level.


And I don't consider their disagreement to be a scientific one, actually. My understanding is that they adopted their positions more out of personal taste, coolness factor, and philosophical discomfort with the alternative than on the basis of any evidence. After all, if there was evidence that was relevant (i.e. if the answer actually matters to us on a practical level), the dispute would have been resolved a long time ago.

QUOTE
Again, I have to say that you don't understand Modern Medicine. Think of each patient as a different hypothesis, a different experiment. Doctors are taught to analyze the information that they are given, and then seek the best scientific evidence for the best course of action.


I guess you have different doctors than I have, and know different doctors than I do. The doctors I respect most do what you described when then can--but given our very limited knowledge of biology, it's hard to get far except with the most common conditions. Then practitioners are to fall back on experience, empathy, common sense, and so on--and this, too, is part of medicine. Take case studies, for example--there'd be no need for those if medicine could adequately be only a science.

Anyway, I'm happy to grant that the academic, scientific part of medicine is a science, and I think this has gone far enough off track to be irrelevant to the discussion of magic, unless you contend that medicine is a science and yet multiple different treatments work for contradictory reasons based upon the beliefs of the doctors.

QUOTE
Most of a hermetic's magic is based upon theories made by someone else, or in other words, a standing body of knowledge that grows continually. Shamans don't do that. They don't need a standing body of knowledge, because all of their magic comes from what their totem gives them.


Really? Then why haven't Hermetics outpaced shamen (or why aren't they gaining on them)? Or, conversely, why aren't shamen massively ahead, since they don't need to bother with this growing body of knowledge to get the same results?

Maybe you're saying that hermetic libraries' ratings are continually growing while shamanic lodges are fixed in rating?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 12 2005, 03:23 AM
Post #89


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (Ellery @ Apr 11 2005, 10:03 PM)
I guess you have different doctors than I have, and know different doctors than I do.  The doctors I respect most do what you described when then can--but given our very limited knowledge of biology, it's hard to get far except with the most common conditions.  Then practitioners are to fall back on experience, empathy, common sense, and so on--and this, too, is part of medicine.  Take case studies, for example--there'd be no need for those if medicine could adequately be only a science.


Our (as in all scientists) knowledge of biology is hardly rudimentary, and human physiology is well-known at many levels. While we are only just beginning to unlock the secrets of the human brain and DNA, the knowledge is progressing by leaps and bounds, and much of that research is done by doctors, both academics and clinicians. Most of it is not practical for everyday practice, much like quantum physics is often not helpful for engineering, but it's leading in that direction. Most of the barriers to health care are not due to knowledge, but instead due to social and cultural factors.

Case studies are useful as examples for teaching (this is what a typical heart attack patient looks like), and for spreading the word on interesting findings (treating, say, a multiple nailgun wound to the head or separating conjoined twins). But this isn't limited to just the medical field... all fields of science have examples of "case studies".

It sounds to me like your experience of doctors is based on your perspective as a patient rather than as an academic within the field, whereas my experience is working and learning within the field. Obviously we both have different experiences, but I believe mine to be more valid due to my training and study. I'm not trying to discount what you are saying, but at the same time, it sounds too narrow-minded and too generalized to be an accurate portrayal of modern medicine. You have your own personal observation, but there's a lot of evidence that:
1) Medicine is studied and applied as a science
2) The "art of healing" is more than just the study of medicine (the science)

To extend my analogy, "the art of healing" is much like the "art of Magic". Hermeticism is like Modern Medicine (and with it, all the pseudoscientific quacks, fringe schools, and niche schools). Shamanism is like Alternative/Western Medicine or mysticism-based medicine. Both provide the service of Magic (or in the analogy "the service of healing"), but through very different mindsets. Each thinks the other school is baloney, but there is evidence that both work.

In a way, the mindset of the patient is exactly how typical Shadowrunners would see Magic and Hermeticism. They "know" that magical research is being done. But they are so far removed from it that all they see from their personal experiences are fireballs and fireworks. Shadowrun, the RPG, focuses on the glitzy and practical applications of magic (as a tool and weapon), and rightly so.
QUOTE
Really?  Then why haven't Hermetics outpaced shamen (or why aren't they gaining on them)?  Or, conversely, why aren't shamen massively ahead, since they don't need to bother with this growing body of knowledge to get the same results?

Maybe you're saying that hermetic libraries' ratings are continually growing while shamanic lodges are fixed in rating?
If you use "SOTA" rules (Shadowrun Companion, p86), then your libraries could very well go out of date as the body of knowledge grows (akin to using out of date textbooks and old journal articles). While everyone else is outpacing you, your hermetic library ratings fall behind. Shamanic ratings stay the same presumably because totems "update to SOTA" automatically (the same "reason" why otaku don't have to "pay" SOTA costs), but they still have to pay for their Magic Background knowledge skill costs (probably because it covers all kinds of Magic, Shamanic or Hermetic).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 12 2005, 03:29 AM
Post #90


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (Penta @ Apr 11 2005, 10:03 PM)
Re pediatric psych: I'd seriously doubt that it's that predictable. A week on a pediatric psych unit should cure anybody of the notion.

I spent a month on a pediatric psych unit, with two very good pediatric psychiatrists and one medical psychologist. Does that count? It was a lifechanging experience, to be sure, and I learned a lot.

Very few hospitals have active "pediatric psych units" anymore. The whole "psych unit" paradigm fell into disfavor in the 80s during the Reagan administration.

QUOTE
But oncology is not a normal discipline, IMHO.
Cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death following heart disease. I'd say it's a normal discipline of medicine. Oncology is a subject that every doctor needs to learn, at least at a rudimentary level.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 12 2005, 03:34 AM
Post #91


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
So, we have four scientists believing in two different theories about something fundamental to the understanding of our universe.

you're still way, way missing the point. the point is that everybody has a different theory about how magic works, and all of them are equally viable. and nobody's studying anything but their own theories. i bet Einstein was more than passingly familiar with what Bohr had to say on the subject. find me a hermetic that knows the first thing about what a shaman of dog believes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 12 2005, 03:55 AM
Post #92


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (mfb)
Find me a hermetic that knows the first thing about what a shaman of dog believes.

I think the average hermetic could quote two or three different sources, go to the Matrix and find 20 more, and look up several more sources on his libraries. Then he'd be able to give you a full 10 page report on the various different theories and conclusions made by anthropologists, thaumaturgists, various different schools of hermetic thought, and interviews with Dog Shamans. He'd know the esoterica about the subject, but he probably won't know the exact specific "feeling" a shaman gets with his subjective personal relationship with his totem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 12 2005, 04:08 AM
Post #93


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



i don't get anything like that at all, from reading SR3. the only ones who might be able to do that are the UMT mages.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 12 2005, 04:18 AM
Post #94


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (mfb)
i don't get anything like that at all, from reading SR3. the only ones who might be able to do that are the UMT mages.

From the previously quoted section on Hermetic Tradition:
QUOTE
Mages are scholars who study and practice magic using tried and established formulas and procedures. Mages continuously research the theories and laws of magic, seeking a deeper understanding of the structure of the universe. As their knowledge increases, so does their power.

and
QUOTE
Mages do a great deal of research, and use extensive reference libraries.


What is research, if not experimenting and looking up known sources? That's what a hermetic does. That's what defines the hermetic tradition... you sit in a room and read books all day to learn what you need to know. If someone presents a hermetic with a magical question, he doesn't say "Dog says this..." or "Let me consult the spirits" or "My gut reaction is this..." The first thing he will do is "Let me look it up. I think it's this, but I'll have to check with my sources."

I will also note that although a hermetic cannot cast magic in the shamanic tradition, obviously, they can cast magic using OTHER hermetic paradigms. Subscribing to a particular particular, under the rules, does not mean that you are forever barred from using the magical research of other paradigms... it just means that you get smaller benefits from using other paradigms. A Renewed Hermetic can use a Pythagorean spell formulae, at a penalty to his Sorcery test to learn the spell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sandoval Smith
post Apr 12 2005, 04:20 AM
Post #95


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,144
Joined: 22-September 04
Member No.: 6,690



There's nothing like that in SR3, but from my exposure to the rest of the source books (and I think one of the stories in Dunkie's will featured one heavily) that is kind of the feeling I got.

I've never read any of the novels though, so I have no idea how they might depict the matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penta
post Apr 12 2005, 04:33 AM
Post #96


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,978
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 500



QUOTE (hahnsoo)
QUOTE (Penta @ Apr 11 2005, 10:03 PM)
Re pediatric psych: I'd seriously doubt that it's that predictable. A week on a pediatric psych unit should cure anybody of the notion.

I spent a month on a pediatric psych unit, with two very good pediatric psychiatrists and one medical psychologist. Does that count? It was a lifechanging experience, to be sure, and I learned a lot.

Very few hospitals have active "pediatric psych units" anymore. The whole "psych unit" paradigm fell into disfavor in the 80s during the Reagan administration.

Heh. 10 days as a patient...Although you're right, it was a crisis unit.

I think what I was trying to say is that psychiatry defies standardization... :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellery
post Apr 12 2005, 05:44 AM
Post #97


Moving Target
**

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



QUOTE
Most of the barriers to health care are not due to knowledge, but instead due to social and cultural factors.


This is completely off topic, but I think you'll find on reflection that this statement is inaccurate.

If it is accurate, maybe you can tell me (or point me to resources that tell me) how to reverse genetic changes that lead to metastasis and loss of cell cycle checkpoint control in lymphomas. Maybe you can at least tell me what the relevant genetic changes are. Maybe you can tell me the key chemical reactions behind the formation of artherosclerotic plaques and suggest a way to alter the rate constants of said reactions. Maybe you can tell me why I don't have an autoimmune reaction to myself, and figure out how to fix diabetics who do. Maybe you can tell me the process of formation of beta amyloid plaques and the mechanism by which these plaques cause damage (or is it the soluble multimers that cause damage?). Maybe you can explain the signaling cascade and growth factors responsible for promoting cartilage growth in young joints and tell me how to reverse the loss of such growth in the joints of older people.

Or maybe not. Maybe we know far less than we need to to really improve health care.

One of the most important aspects of practicing science is to know what you don't know.

QUOTE
All fields of science have examples of "case studies".


I don't remember hearing about any, and I've asked biologist and physicist friends of mine and they can't recall having a case study either. (An ecologist friend affirms the presence of case studies in his field of research.)

What are the controls for a case study?

QUOTE
there's a lot of evidence that:
1) Medicine is studied and applied as a science
2) The "art of healing" is more than just the study of medicine (the science)


I think we're arguing semantics here, where I'm simply defining medicine more broadly than you are and pointing out that only part of it is scientific, while you are saying that anything that is not scientific is also not part of the study of medicine. However, I'll probe the issue by asking two questions. Would you say that residency is or is not part of the study of medicine? What does it mean when you say that someone needs medical treatment?

QUOTE
What is research, if not experimenting and looking up known sources? That's what a hermetic does. That's what defines the hermetic tradition... you sit in a room and read books all day to learn what you need to know.


Um, no, that is research in the humanities and social sciences. Research in the natural sciences mostly involves doing experiments (since that process takes so much longer than looking things up).

Also, can you distinguish this mode of research from the practice of law? (Keep in mind that lawyers get to try arguments out on judges.)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 12 2005, 05:49 AM
Post #98


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



QUOTE (hansoo)
The first thing he will do is "Let me look it up. I think it's this, but I'll have to check with my sources."

that doesn't mean much, when all sources--even conflicting sources--are valid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*
post Apr 12 2005, 06:07 AM
Post #99





Guests






QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Apr 11 2005, 09:18 PM)
QUOTE
Mages do a great deal of research, and use extensive reference libraries.


What is research, if not experimenting and looking up known sources? That's what a hermetic does. That's what defines the hermetic tradition... you sit in a room and read books all day to learn what you need to know. If someone presents a hermetic with a magical question, he doesn't say "Dog says this..." or "Let me consult the spirits" or "My gut reaction is this..." The first thing he will do is "Let me look it up. I think it's this, but I'll have to check with my sources."

Speaking from close experience, I will say that I agree with Ellery 100% that your hypothetical is exactly the same ideas as the research methodology for the study and practice of law and certain social sciences (e.g., political science) and has virtually nothing in common with scientific research or the scientific method. It's a "best guess" research methodology because in those instances, people can and have said a lot of things, and nothing is ever "right" even when it's handed down from on high by a final authority because the field is in itself incredibly nebulous, prone to gross overgeneralizations, filled with an infinite number of differing theories, fact patterns, learned authorities, and so on.

All of this is more in line with what you just wrote, and is as far as I'm concerned, and has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific research and methodology. There is no scientific method for the law anymore than there is in your hypothetical. However, given the fact that there are immutable laws in magic borne out through the mechanics that you with always get X result if you cast Y spell with Z force where X is the amount of burden and stress measured as Drain for a spell with the formula of X and a power threshold of Z. Whether it always hurts someone the same is a separate variable, and is measured as a separate variable in the same way as if I hit you with a baseball bat twice at two different times under optimal (i.e., unhurt) conditions on your part, and then measure whether you absorb the impact the same way (since in both cases they are measured in Stun damage) and bruise the same way for the same duration because you might have taken the second hit better than the first.

To make an example more cogent, your Hermetic can read the same material and come to multiple conclusions, just as his Hermetic colleague can. Were the matter taken to an arbitor, they may see it one way or another based on differing philosophical arguments argued using the same fact patterns and source material based on any manner of reasons based on varying factors from one's ability to successfully read and argue the material to simple capriciousness and bias on the third person's part because he's a Pythagorean and one of the parties is, but his opponent is a Theurgist. Speaking as someone who is judging two parties' briefs which utilize the same fact patterns and 90% of the same research, it is perfectly understandable given that one party made an excellent argument, and the other's was muddled and off-point. However, both perspectives work for them and a decision could be made going two completely different ways within the same field even if you read all the research because inherent bias will sway a person one way or another.

The research is fine, but the application is completely different. And at no time, and in now way, can this process be considered in any way "scientific." No one is following a scientific method because under the example you proferred, just like the actual circumstances one in my field deals with on a daily basis, there is nothing to actually test which will yield predictable and reproduceable results, which is a hallmark of the scientific method.

Ellery's work was what led me to suggest the creation of two disparate structures in Hermeticism: Hermetic Thaumaturgy, which is founded on the principles of the application of the scientific method to achieve predictable, reproduceable results consistently utilizing the tools of science with regards to magical effects on the physical world (i.e., does an ice sheet spell actually draw water from the air or "make" it?), and at the same time use what primitive observations to determine the effects of magic on the manasphere in a way to determine what is a scientific law with regards to the manasphere (e.g., how much mana is drawn to create a Force 1 elemental) or theories, or utter bafflement until such time as magical instruments (that is, using magic to study mana as we use technology to study science) can be advanced.

The second aspect is Hermetic Mysticism, which lumps together all of these "research" theories and paradigms, be they based in theology, philosophy, (non-clinical) psychology, etc. and which include all of the paradigms in SOTA64 as they are all predicated on the study of belief structures and the manipulation of mana as a force of Will (which, btw, is tied to the fact that the two big magical skills, Sorcery and Conjuring, are linked to Willpower) as opposed to the thorough study and manipulation of mana as a force unto itself without any regard to historical antecedents which were not based upon verifiable observations under clinical conditions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RunnerPaul
post Apr 12 2005, 06:17 AM
Post #100


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,086
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 364



Alright, let me toss something out: Hermetics aren't scientists because they're Engineers.

Engineer, n. - a person who uses science and math to design, build or operate equipment, structures and systems

In this case, a hermetic is a thaumaturgical engineer who applies scientifc principles to operate whatever metaphysical system they use to define their ability to manipulate mana.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9th January 2025 - 10:56 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.