That's a pretty big assumption there. "Tapping the Universal Consciousness/World Memory" or simply manipulating "psychic energies" are common concepts in psychic workings. Then there are chakras and other "body energies" that other psychics manipulate.

I'd say there are plenty of 2064 psychics who just shrug and say, "yeah, you know mana? Same thing, different words." Others may deny they're the same thing, but they would still get the same results, just as a shaman/houngan/hermetic/miracle worker still get the same results from different processes of manipulating mana even if they disagree on what they're actually doing.

If an individual psychic chooses to limit themselves (ie. becoming a "telepath adept" or "ghost channeler adept"), that makes sense to me. But there should still be "full psychics" with the same mechanics as a full mage / full shaman / full houngan / etc.

As I see it, a psychic would just see an hermetic as someone who uses their intricate calculations and symbols as a focus for their mental energies, which create a construct of pure psychic energy that happens to look and act like a fire elemental; or call upon a spiritual being that happens to enjoy appearing as a fire elemental. (Whether it really is a fire elemental or not is academic, and most 'runner psychics probably wouldn't care to debate the point. It simply is what it is.)

A shaman's chanting and ecstatic state let her reach a condition of mental openness, manipulating her enemy's physical energies until they begin to hemorrhage. (Mana Bolt.)

A houngan being ridden by a loa has called upon a spirit (or simply a mental construct) and channeled it into his body, drawing upon its power.

Astral projection is just another term for OBE (Out of Body Experiences). Watchers and allies are the psychic/mage investing a piece of their own consciousness into physical/spiritual form. Other spirits may or may not be the same. An astral quest could be explained any number of ways, including an OBE sending the psychic's mind into the mental realms above our own, venturing into the universal unconsciousness itself, or simply delving inwards to the psychic's own mind and dreams given form.

Psychics see magic differently, and only a foolish one would claim that nothing at all was happening. That's why the canon psionics in SR seem so silly: they can only exist by ignoring the realities of magic inherent in the world around them. Those people I can understand being crippled magically... but there should be many, many more psychics who can understand magic through the concept of psychic powers, just as others filter magic through miracles or hermetic symbols.

*thinks about all the uninsured people in the US, and thinks about the majority of the population worldwide who doesn't have access to health care* Nope, it's not. The statement, as it stands, is true... despite what we know and what we don't know, the fact remains that most people in the world won't ever get access to the benefits of this knowledge in their lifetime. Even in an industrialized nation such as the United States, health care delivery is impaired by cultural and social factors (money is the first thing that comes to mind, but take your pick).

So you are throwing out a list of things that medical science should know in order to "qualify" as a science? Is that it? Or are you just asking a lot of random questions to try to overwhelm me into a journal-reading orgy of evidence? Honestly, if you really wanted to know the answers to those questions, you can look them up on PubMed and see the current research.

The delivery of health care at the moment is far outstripped by our ability to come up with new discoveries in biology and human physiology. We are living in, simply put, a medical information glut. More research is coming out on a daily basis than we have money or resources to implement into practice.

Case studies don't use controls. They are simply teaching tools. They are examples of specific events or subjects that provides future generations with insight on a specific theory or concept. They count as "worst evidence" or the more likely term "anecdotal evidence" in medicine, and are typically not the kind of evidence used when practicing medicine. Teaching is a valuable thing, you know.

Yes. And when someone needs medical treatment, you are basically saying "This guy is sick." That doesn't tell me much. You have to observe (history and physical), make a hypothesis (differential diagnosis), test the hypothesis (lab tests, radiology tests), and then either support or refute that hypothesis when it comes to treatment. Because someone's life could be at stake, it is helpful to go into such situations forewarned and forearmed about the most likely candidates, and rule out the most deadly candidates first. The treatment itself usually comes from years of medical research done in randomized double-blinded control trials.

I did say experimenting. And it would be foolish in our academic communities to try to publish a paper without any sources. All ideas don't spring de novo from the scientific method. When you want to know something, most of the time you rely on the research of others. The scientific method is there to test hypotheses, but part of science is standing on the shoulders of giants. The collective knowledge part of science is important, and necessary, to make any "advances". To state that the scientific method in a vacuum of information is science may be technically true, but doesn't accomplish as much as collaborative research.

Evidently, magic works in Shadowrun by a set of parameters and laws. The details of such laws are up to debate among Hermetics, but they are reproducible and repeatable. The world of Shadowrun does give a nod to the fact that hermetics use science to determine how magic works. There is a dearth of examples, this is true, but the game of Shadowrun wasn't designed for folks to play the Hermetic researchers.

The practice of magic is much like the Engineer comparison. An engineer needs a sound foundation of the theory in order to practice Hermetic magic. Sometimes an engineer must use the scientific method to construct prototypes. A lot of times, though, they're just around to do a job (chuck fireballs, in the case of Hermetics). The theory of Hermetic Magic, though, is peer-reviewed, reproducible (if I use this formula, then I can create a fireball), and testable. Just because multiple people can produce the effect in different ways doesn't invalidate the field as a whole as a science.

This quote shows a reference to an example of the scientific methods being reproduced, for the purpose of the hypothesis "Is the degree of control on ritual links bidirectional?" It is tested under laboratory and controlled field conditions. The hypothesis/theory is verified.
2) Hermetic Magic admits anecdotal evidence: This is harder to identify, as we are only given the anecdotal evidence in Shadowtalk. However, quite a few of the mages in the Shadowtalk sections (Magister and Silicon Mage come to mind) often approach anecdotal stories with skepticism (SOTA:63 p35, Threats p52 p79).
3) Hermetic Magic is not mathematical: Obviously, the Pythagoreans would disagree. *grin* However, that aside, magic produces consistent quantifiable results in controlled conditions (luckily for us, we can reverse engineer this from the fact that Shadowrun Magic is so well-grounded in numbers. Hrm). This means that statistics and mathematics can be used to observe and record magical phenomena.
4) Hermetic Magic is not repeatable or reproducible: This is patently untrue. While philosophies of various paradigms may clash, any Hermetic Mage can cast any magic within the bounds of the Hermetic Tradition. SOTA:63 p36, again, shows Dr. Uemura reproducing the results of another colleague. Also in SOTA:63 p44, Fauna states that they did initial trials of filtering in the Chicago CZ, and then the research teams moved on to other areas with astral pollution to verify those results.

As far as the assertation that a non-research Hermetic Mage is not a scientist (I think most people concede that ivory tower eggheads are scientists), that is a question on the definition of a scientist. Some definitions (Merriam-Webster dictionary) say:
1. a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator

Others say (American Heritage dictionary):
1. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

This is a simplistic definition, obviously. For example, while mathematics is considered a science, mathematicians often are not considered scientists. Theoretical astrophysicists are considered scientists, yet have little or no means to actually test their hypotheses (and thus employ the scientific method). The oft-quoted pop culture reference of rocket scientists actually refers to aeronautical and astronautical engineers, but they are considered to be scientists. Some prefer to use the litmus test that "only people who use the scientific method are scientists", but the scientific method is only a criterion of demarcation between science and philosophy, and not the constituent members who practice either. Indeed, university professors who are no longer actively pursuing research are still considered scientists and their expert knowledge is valued among their own communities. Also, anyone can apply the Scientific Method to experiment and refute a theory or hypothesis, as stated by Carl Sagan, which makes everyone a scientist under that definition.

One objection to the classification of Hermetic Mages is the combination of philosophy and personal insight that often "clouds" the pure science in Hermetic Magic. SOTA:2064 states outright that the Classic schools (as expected) "aren't mere scientific frameworks, but entire spiritual and philosophical systems." p114 This may cause people to dismiss the the Classic schools in the same category as "creationist biologists". However, it also states that the differences between the Classic schools are often more cultural than philosophical. To deny the research of an Arab or Jewish scientist because of his/her faith would probably be considered racist or something similar. A good scientist works with the scientific method, and cultural and philosophical beliefs will cloud any person's scientific work.

Focusing on Renewed Hermeticism, however, we find that Renewed Hermetics frown upon spirituality and the trappings of nostalgia in ancient texts, eschewing them for a pure scientific approach to thaumaturgy. This is the kind of Hermeticism that is practiced widely throughout corporations and North America, and the kind that is described in the default SR3 setting. The attitude of the mage who practices Renewed Hermeticism is quoted on SOTA:2064, p117:

Renewed Hermeticism also has a tendancy to be dismissive of any fabric of spirituality or philosophy, which can be a problem (they aren't as open-minded as they'd like to think).

So the question remains, are Hermetic Mages scientists? They are experts in a body of knowledge that is obtained through repeatable and reproducible experiments, subject to peer-review, and actively researched. A nascent science, to be sure, but by the definitions stated above and the evidence listed, it places them as scientists, and natural scientists at that.

Note that I do not discount the assertation, though, that they are instead "engineers", seeking practical applications as a focus rather than simple investigation of magical phenomena. The Shadowrun game portrays magic as a tool, a weapon, and a practical means to an end (altering reality with your mind and body). Street magic is in the realm of "what can I do to you, and how can I keep you from doing it to me". Shadowrun's focus is not on the codified systems of magic, but on how a shadowrunner can use magic to augment his ability to perform shadowruns. While this makes most mages (both Hermetic and Shamanic) "Breaking and Entering magical technicians", it is important to note that in order to obtain that power, a Hermetic needs to be knowledgable and an expert in the study of Hermetic Magic as a science.

*(one of which is the fact that most "soft sciences" are reproducible, repeatable, and use the scientific method of characterization, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, while some "hard sciences" like astronomy and quantum physics are uniquely limited in their ability to experiment)

I still think a vast many of them would fall under the Engineer classification in that they practice "the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems".

Because engineering focuses itself on the problem at hand, and not the search for some larger Universal Scientific Truth, it allows for the individuality we see expressed in hermetics in the setting, while still supporting the fact that hermetics participate in scientist-like research and show a general scientific mindset.

Sorry, I'm still editing my post, and I did drop in a nod to engineering, in the context of Shadowrun as a game. The lines between an engineer and a scientist are typically blurred in our modern society. A distinguished engineer may one day "retire" and teach future students in scientific fields, making that engineer a scientist under the "expert" definition, for example.

Wait, what? How can libraries go out of date? Using the engineering metaphor, that's like saying that we can't build aquaducts like the Romans used to, using all of the knowledge the Romans had, because stone aquaducts are out of date. Using the science metaphor, that's like saying that you can't use a 1950s textbook to understand the results of a double-slit experiment any more.

That's not how science works. Science is cumulative. If it's good for something, it stays good at that something.

Technology is not cumulative because new technology is based on different principles and breaks backwards compatibility. Philosophy is cumulative by convention, but need not be; you need to fit into the customs of the day. Likewise with, say, comparative literature. LIkewise with legal systems.

So this would just be another example of a contradiction to the statement that Hermetics practice the science of magic.

This is somewhat closer to what is portrayed in SR, but still assumes more than seems to be the case for Hermetics. In particular, in engineering, a lot is known about what doesn't work, and there are a lot of cases where you can simply measure, e.g., the yield strength of steel, and from that be pretty sure that your cable will snap.

I still think law is a more apt example. There are all sorts of precedents that one might try to refer to in law. Some will work, some won't, and which ones work and which don't can be understood and taught, but it also depends a lot on the pecularities of the lawyer and judge and so on. It's a changing target, and there are different sets of laws for different places and (to some extent) different people.

If it is actually the case that Hermetic magic is normally engineering, rather than law, I would like to see it reflected better in the sourcebooks.

Yeah, that's a pretty good section. It's nice that there's one (I can be picky and find things I don't like about it, but for now I won't). But the researchers here don't come across to me as your average Hermetic mage, but rather as your average magical researcher. It suggests to me that there's a split between the magical research community and the Hermetic mages, but that split isn't really spelled out anywhere, and I'd like to see it spelled out.

hahnsoo goes through a whole bunch of stuff showing why you could study magic scientifically. Great! I agree.

hahnsoo also points out things like

How is eschewing stuff that is reliable, repeatable, and works, "science"? This is exactly the kind of problem I'm complaining about. Renewed Hermeticism can't simply ignore the, what, maybe 80% of the magical community that does just fine with spirituality and trappings of nostalgia. Granted, this does sometimes happen in the medical sciences (people are finally doing fMRI studies to figure out what acupuncture does to brain activity), but here it would have to be the rule rather than the exception.

Remember: I'm not arguing about how it is in the Sixth World, I'm arguing about how it is presented in the sourcebooks.

You completely missed my point. You said Hermetics were reading books all day, and I said in science you do research most of the day and only read articles a small fraction of the time.

I'm not saying that you don't look up sources. It's just not that time-consuming. Research is the hard, time-consuming part. Maybe you haven't done any research yourself, so you don't realize this. I'm pretty sure that the SR authors haven't done enough research to realize this either. So this is another example reinforcing my point about how Hermetic magic is portrayed.

Well I certainly don't. You can't be a scientist in an ivory tower because you need access to data. Even if you're a theoretical physicist and you're not collecting any data yourself, you can't be off in an ivory tower or your work won't match reality!

It is philosophers who inhabit ivory towers.

And now completely offtopic again:

Well, right, but the countries with a really low life expectancy typically are missing even basic sanitation, shelter, and nourishment for their inhabitants. If that is what you mean by health care, then I agree, the barriers to health care are not our lack of knowledge.

If you mean anything else--access to hospitals, treatment for malaria, etc., then I am going to disagree, still.

No, you completely missed the point. These are the kinds of things that medical science would need to know to be able to cure the biggest causes of mortality and suffering in developed countries today: cancer, heart disease, aging-related ailments, and so on.

The last comment about knowing what you don't know was directed at you, since it seemed as though you thought medicine had most of the answers it needed, and I was pointing out a whole pile of areas where it doesn't. I specifically picked examples where research is not advanced enough to be medically helpful, but I invite you to search PubMed yourself to try to show otherwise.

We have a glut of information that is too preliminary to be medically useful, perhaps. We are horrifically information-starved when it comes to actually understanding in molecular detail the workings of the human body so that we can intervene on the appropriate scale to fix our most common ailments.

Right now, we're pretty good at fixing gross morphological defects (broken bones, lacerations, and stuff), as long as all we have to do is put the pieces back into place, more or less, and let the body do the healing itself. And we're pretty good at fighting bacteria for now, thanks to antibiotics. These are important--a lot of people would be crippled or die from these problems otherwise. But there's a lot more to health than that; we just can't intervene sensibly in most cases.

Fair enough. Why teach by using case studies, though? Other sciences seem to get away without doing it. Hint: what's the difference between a patient and a case study?

Also, if residency is part of the study of medicine, what exactly is it teaching doctors to do that they can't learn in a classroom or research facility?

If you say that medicine is health engineering, I'd probably buy it (to the extent that some aspects of engineering are still a trade). But if you say it's health science, I maintain that there's a lot more to it than that, unless you're using a very narrow definition of what counts as medicine.

I think this is a limited and narrow view of what Science as a body of knowledge is. Science as a body of knowledge isn't some massive brick wall of knowledge that is built brick by brick. It is an incomplete lump of clay with many impurities.

Anecdote alert:
For example, during the turn of the century, people thought that yellow fever followed the germ theory of disease, and that the notion that a mosquito (of all things) could carry it from person to person was preposterous. The germ theory of disease failed to accomodate the fact that insects had the ability to carry germs from person to person. More information: Read "Microbe Hunters", an entertaining book published shortly after WW I.

The body of knowledge is changed and modified as scientific research is carried out. Sometimes, the body of knowledge can be contradictory. While traditional physics states that a boulder is heavy and dense, more modern atomic theory states that it is made up of mostly empty space.

Hermetic Magic as a whole is still a very new science in the Sixth World. While it has come a long way (akin to the progress made in genetics since the "discovery" of the structure of DNA... a story for another time), there is more that people don't know about Magic than they do know. Thus, it is a field that is exquisitely sensitive to SOTA. Mechanics-wise, it's not that your libraries suddenly lose books. It's that the knowledge inside the libraries is out of date, and everyone else who has kept up with the SOTA is going to have an "improved" rating compared to you. To them, the libraries are mostly the same. It's a relative viewpoint, rather than an absolute one.

Please refrain from directing things at me except through PMs. It's not good for the thread. In any case, the "answers" to about half of your questions can be found in the latest issue of "Science" magazine, if you want to do the reading. Medical science knows more than you purport it to know. The problem is, medicine in practice can't accomodate that research due to limitations in funding and implementation (not to mention limitations of the human element). The divide between research and implementation is growing every year, mostly due to cultural and social factors. Even in the pharmaceutical industry, the recent problems with COX-2 inhibitors have provided a political barrier (the all-knowing, all-powerful FDA) to the testing of new drugs. Meanwhile, a new Viagra comes out every 6 months. Hrm.

And this is a FAILING of Renewed Hermeticism (one that is pointed out and rectified by Unified Magic Theory). Also, shamanic magic is not reliable, repeatable, and reproducible. Shamans, by their very nature of casting magic, do things spontaneously, and they don't do the same thing twice. Also, you cannot do Dog Shaman magic unless you are called by Dog, and cultural differences make a big impact on how you "see" the Dog totem. So instead of focusing on something that cannot be tested or experimented on, your average Hermetic is more likely to employ Occam's razor and say "Well, their magic is the same as my magic, only the method is different somehow through subconscious templating." OR "These totems must exist, and my magic is also through an unknown totem" depending on the cultural background of the caster.

I've been quoting a myriad of stuff out of the sourcebooks. If I had my novels with me, I suppose I can pore through those, too. Obviously, we disagree about the presentation, because somehow you and I have come to different conclusions and interpretations. I've been editing my above statements so we can just leave it at that, because it appears we have hijacked the thread.

Yes, but the spell creation time and effect stays the same even with all that new knowledge, and a punch still hurts just as much with the same effort, so where exactly is this relative viewpoint coming from again?

SOTA works for the matrix because there you're pitting old tech against new tech. But you're pitting magic against all kinds of things, like dirt and people's fists and so on, not just other magicians.

And so I ask again: if there's all this progress due to the advance of scientific understanding of magic by Hermetics, why aren't Hermetics outpacing shamen, or why didn't shamen start way ahead?

Anyway, I'm getting kind of tired of this topic since it seems we're going round in circles now, and since I think I've had adequate time to present my point of view, I'll just stop now. (I do not mind if you continue, of course.)

Hm, this does seem to be the custom on these forums, so fair enough.

I will note, however, that appealing to authority as a form of argument does invite examination of credentials and competency, so I will also avoid making any arguments on the basis of the authority of any forum member, and will ignore any arguments made on the basis of authority of any forum member. Hopefully this will help ensure that that the field of debate is a fair one.

The first sentence in the statement made above is false.

I'm not sure whether the statement is supposed to refer to the April 1 issue or the April 8 issue, but I've read both, and neither has a single article on cancer research, on heart failure, or an Alzheimer's or A-beta, or factors relating to cartilage. (There's a pretty cool article on putting thin polymer films of varying hydrophobicity on various substrates: Ryu et al., "A Generalized Approach to the Modification of Solid Surfaces", Science 308:236 (2005), but that's another issue.) The only topic that is addressed is negative selection for immunoreactivity.

Here are the article titles for the April 8 issue:

Let's look at the abstract:

Pretty technical. How well do we understand self-tolerance? Let's look at the introduction and conclusion. (Emphasis mine.)

So the scientific community is hard at work trying to understand the molecular mechanisms of self-tolerance, so that we can prevent and treat autoimmune diseases, but we're not there yet. So the answer to that question is we don't know yet, at least not enough to be medically useful.

Let's see if there's anything that looks promising in the April 1 issue:

Nope, I guess not.

So, let's count. One out of five topics isn't "about half", and what one learns from reading the article is that we don't know enough about the topic to devise a medical treatment. That is, of course, why they're still researching it.

It was an anecdote on how the germ theory of disease had to be modified, and the knowledge base changed almost overnight. The germ theory of disease still is a useful model for the spread of infection, and it was modified to accomodate the fact that insects could be carriers of human disease.

But the assertation that "once science is good at something, it stays good at something" plays false to my ears. It implies some sort of academic infallability that I know not to be a hallmark of science and scientists. I'm sure it's just a question of wording and communication.

One can argue that due to the dice mechanic and randomness of skill tests in Shadowrun, that spells indeed do randomly stop working sometimes. Whether this happens due to a mistake or due to incorrect reasoning or due to uncontrollable environmental factors is left to the player/GM to decide.

SOTA rules do not adequately address this, of course, (although if you notice the progression of sorcery from SR1 to SR3, it has become more powerful with every iteration. That's metagaming, though.) even for other things that SOTA affects. Your Magic Background skill DOES get reduced if you don't keep up with the SOTA for it, but that's to be expected. A SOTA advance for Hermetic Magic libraries represents an abstract amount of advancement that makes some knowledge obsolete or revised. The idea is not that the SOTA mechanic is accurate, but that it exists at all. Your knowledge does become out of date.

Umm, shamans DID start out way ahead, as stated in "And So It Came to Pass" and in the Hermetic Tradition section. Hermetic Magic has "caught up", and even duplicated some of the aspects of shamanism (UMT allows one to change the spirits that they summon). The reason shamans don't have to worry about advances of scientific understanding is that the totems already do it for them, I guess. Your guess is as good as mine, but comparing shamans and hermetics is like comparing apples and oranges. They're both fruity, but the details are quite different.

*smacks forehead* Yup. And you know why? Because I was reading out of "Nature", not "Science". My bad.

Here are the headliners from some of the most recent articles:
# Live coverage of amyloid plaques
Nature Neuroscience
# Dendritic cells take up cancer fight
Nature Reviews Immunology
# Gene therapy: no cancer please
Nature Reviews Genetics
# Cold war on stroke

So, we don't know if plaques cause neurodegeneration, and if so we don't know how to stop it, and right now we can't even see it without cutting the person open. So I'd say we're short on medically relevant knowledge here, wouldn't you?

Next article...well, this isn't really what I asked about, which was the genetic changes underlying cancer. THis is about vaccination methods to try to fight cancer. Interesting, certainly, and it's another example of something that would be very useful medically if we knew about it, but we don't.

Next article. This isn't really about us knowing what genetic changes cause cancer, In fact, it shows that we really don't know what's going on, because we've caused leukemias by trying to perform gene therapy:

Note that they're referring to various genes that are known to be important in cancer, but again, you can look up studies on them and find that the mechanisms of actions aren't really known, at least not to a great enough extent to be medically useful. You certainly don't see them describing any cures for the problem--they're just trying to figure out what went wrong, and suggest, "Hey, maybe it's over expression of LMO-2!" This is pretty amazing work given that they only have two patients (see Hacein-Bey-Abina et al., "LMO2-Associated Clonal T Cell Proliferation in Two Patients after Gene Therapy for SCID-X1", Science, Vol 302:415-419 (2003)), but it's not like they understand the full cascade to cancer, and it's certainly not as though they can, knowing that, stop the process.

Cold war on stroke--doesn't mention plaques. It talks about the observation that hypothermia decreases ischemic damage after stroke. Do we know why, or how this works, so we can take advantage of it medically?

So, um, no, we certainly didn't know before this article, and now we've uncovered one molecule in a cascade that is who-knows-how-big.

So, anyway, we're still seeming pretty short on medical knowledge.

I'm happy to grant that half the topics were addressed by now, but I think the review of the literature supports my original statements pretty solidly.

So a 1940-era science library, with such scientific facts as "humans have 48 chromosomes", and "due to the exponential increases in drag as an airplane approches the speed of sound, an aircraft would require infinite power output to exceed the sound barrier" is just as valid as a more current one?

That's a huge understatement. Without that sentence, Renewed Hermetics are a whole other magical creature. They have become because of that omission, for all intents and purposes, followers of the same kind of mystical belief systems that every other Hermetic paradigm follows, which is just a short step away from the "intuitive" mystical belief systems like shamanism, wujen, voudoun, etc.

I'd like to. I really would. But it's become exactly not that the way it is written. I have to follow canon, and in canon it is written as a different creature from what it should be.

Were actual thought ever put into it, given the existence of Analyze X spells, I fail to see how scientifically-minded and dedicated magicians couldn't develop a benchmark rating system for spells, spirits, or foci (i.e., Force ratings). I would also extrapolate a famous sentence from MitS, "Currently, any spell, spirit, focus or other magical effect of Force 3 or higher is legally regulated within the UCAS and CAS, though permits may be acquired to use such magic" (11), to suggest that there has to be some type of benchmark rating system for measuring magic. The only reason it hasn't been discussed in SR lit is because it was probably considered too boring to explain how corporate magical research is done.

Let's not kid ourselves. There is an OOC game mechanic that determines that every magical effect or being has a quantifiable Force rating, and that the same spell cast by a mage, shaman, houngan, wujen, or Path follower has the same identical mechanic as far as Force, Drain, and effect are determined. A Levitate spell of a specific force cast by two equal ability magicians regardless of tradition can only travel x meters within n seconds. That's the physics aspect. The mana physics aspect (since metaphysics is a completely different, and for all intents and purposes here, irrelevant meaning) is in determining the amount of mana collected and manipulated by both magicians, and the amount of mana being channeled through the magician in terms of the stress forcec that they have to withstand in casting those spells (i.e., Drain). Unless stated otherwise, those two amounts of mana being manipulated are the exact same. How they are manipulated depends on the tradition, but the amount of mana used is a constant for a Force 6 Levitate spell regardless of who casts it. Measuring the amount of mana used would be the astral equivalent of measuring the physiological effects of two equal athletes running on a treadmill for 10 minutes. Oh, yeah. If they're even a little bit intelligent they'd also be measuring the physiological effects of the spellcasting/conjuring/etc. on the magicians.

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

Quantifying things is generally arbitrary at first, yes, but there's nothing to suggest that it cannot be done. If we can create the British Thermal Unit measurement, we can figure out Force ratings. Fifty years of astral observations should have keyed one or two people off about the fact that two people even of the same tradition who learn the same formula draw the same amount of mana, but someone who learns a "less potent" spell formula... doesn't. They draw less mana, and less mana is forced through their astral and physical bodies.

That's nonsense. Moreover, you're contradicting yourself and I can see now why the sentence about RH's following the scientific theory was cut. It's because everything you have said here, and everything else that made it into SOTA64 contradicts that. They cannot follow the scientific method by speculating on the nature of magic and the philosophical and socio-religious belief structures that most people build between themselves and their inherent abilities to manipulate mana. The scientific method has no role whatsoever being associated with the word "speculation." What Reneweds do according to what the book actually says, as opposed to what you suggest it should have said, is that they engage in practices that make political science look like physics (and not the statistical research methodology field of PoliSci, but the other four qualitative and historical and analytical fields). The fields which are explicitly referred to in SOTA64, for example, are "soft" fields of psychology, which in itself is a social science rather distinct from sciences like physics and chemistry. Were the sciences mentioned in said book to include physics or cognitive neurosciences (cognitive bio-chemistry and psychology, for example), then I could buy the idea that they are scientist mages. As is... There isn't anything that would convince me that they are. At best, they are clinical psychologists working in research which often leads to widely varied results depending on your control group (which is why it's not science).

I'm just guessing, but if it was IC then Ellery's mage would probably have made the same argument she is making, or more likely, the one I just made.

Belief is not necessary to manipulate mana, and practice "magic." Knowledge of the methods of accessing the manasphere, drawing mana, manipulating it, and opening your astral self up to focus the effects onto the real world require no belief structure. The belief structures are, IMO, simply a shortcut in avoiding learning how those processes work by instead projecting belief structure archetypes onto those processes so that it just "works." Instead of focusing on the more logical and (mana) physical and phyisiological effects and actions which are involved in the practical applications of magic, a Theurgist prays, "and it just happens." You can study prayers and medieval philosophy forever, but it wouldn't give you the same insight a control group study would. Similarly, the way any of the paradigms practice are similarly applying belief structures over their practice. Classicists may be more obvious about it, but there is nothing in the text that differentiates any of the paradigms, including Renewed, from the actual scientific study and application of thaumaturgical science. Renewed Hermetics use psychological and parascyhological archetypes and beliefs to make their magic work.

The great difference between Hermetics and shamans or houngans is, generally, that Hermetics just access the manasphere directly to draw their power and abilities. Shamans and houngans are given their power to them by their Totems or Loa (which was more obvious in Awakenings before houngans got screwed in MitS). However, each of them draws the same quantifiable amount of mana as per my understanding of how mana and magic work, and how well they do it is a separate measure of their skill and understanding of their sorcery or conjuring skills.

I cannot see why magic cannot be approached scientifically, and I think I've made a pretty good argument for why it should. As a matter of fact, I've now made this exact argument three times--twice here and once elsewhere--for a scientific magic system that should by all rights exist where Renewed occupies its place as a saucy interloper.

MitS, p12:

The research IS being done, at least by a few people. It is downplayed, of course, by the fact that Shadowrun is a roleplaying game about Shadowrunning..

Just because the position isn't verified ("Hermetics may or may not be doing this research") doesn't mean that the negative case is true ("Hermetics aren't doing this research"). That's a hypothesis at best and a bad assumption at worst. It's easier to disprove things than it is to prove them, this is true, but taking the assumption of the negative case is still an assumption.

It just says "Theoretical Occultists", which can be interpreted to mean any magic user, a mundane theorist, or any scientific researcher in the arcane. There's a line in the Corporate Security Handbook (which I don't have with me at the moment) when discussing Magical R&D that says "I've never seen a shaman in this line of work," roughly speaking. It could be wujen, who knows? But you can't dismiss that it isn't Hermetic Mages right off the bat.

Just because one follows a "paradigm" or a belief structure doesn't mean they are not scientists. If someone believed that eating megadoses of Vitamin C would make him live longer, even though that belief is fallacious, and yet still do good scientific work (enough to win a Nobel prize), does that make them any less of a scientist?

I don't think Hermetics think that belief powers their magic. I think they believe it is a genetic predisposition and that all you have to do is know the right formula to produce a certain effect. They learn collectively, and with each other's help. You can't practice Hermetic Magic without the work of other Hermetics. Whether this is a "belief shortcut" (a Collective Consciousness of Belief in this case... "Since everyone believes it, it must be true!") or simply the fact that they share knowledge and are building a foundation of scientific body of work is up to individual interpretation at the moment... I personally go for the interpretation that they are building a scientific body of knowledge. But hey, whatever floats everyone's boat.

True, but on the other hand, it's quite clear that there aren't very many of these "theoretical occultists" who are actually doing something that might look like scientific research. So it follows that, certainly, not very many renewed hermetics are doing that kind of research, and indeed, are incapable of it! That rather suggests that they're not genuinely scientists.

His beliefs about Vitamin C would not be a result of a scientific process. And if everything he did was in the same category, then no, it wouldn't make sense to call him a scientist.

In that case, they should be able to teach people from other traditions to do exactly what they do. And since it's all explicit knowledge, it should be pretty easy.

Funny, though--that doesn't work in SR3. One could change the nature of magic in SR4 to make it work, but I'm happy with things the way they are. There's a consistent way to explain all the magical effects and lack thereof, and amidst the large number of belief-based practitioners, there are a few who actually do careful controlled experiments. (Probably mostly hermetics, but I don't see any reason why shamen can't do experiments too.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Where does it say anything like this?

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

Newton was an alchemist

won't argue with that

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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."

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

AFAIK they are.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

And? What does that have to do with anything?

True.

he did.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Fine, it's shut now.

see above.

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.

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.

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

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

Nah...

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

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