Full Version: Hemetics cost to much
Well, I have made quite a few references lately to wishing to be able to set people on fire...
"Lately?"
Okay, so for the entire time you've known me. But that's only, what, 1/3 of my lifetime?
| QUOTE (audun) |
| 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. |
Good point.
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
That's pretty much where I see it, too. I contend that it is possible to apply it in a "hard" manner and to the same quantifiable extent of measurement of the hard sciences.
| QUOTE |
| 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). |
Hrm... That's a notable distinction. It's probably just me, but I'm not really sure what it is in the Awakened world though.
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
I see your point. I would like to think that they could compensate for that interference, but OTOH... How do we know they did?
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Touché, but I like to rely on the totem statement since it's in the core book asserted as fact.
| QUOTE |
| Maybe they're rare since everybody is more concerned about showing that they are more kick-ass than the others |
That's my guess.
| QUOTE | ||
UMT are mostly inspired by post-modernists (all approaches are equal), so I don't think that they would be good candidate. |
Oh, great...
You know that they did (or didn't) compensate for various sources of interference by looking at what controls they're running, but we don't see any controls because the books don't give flavor text like that (or flavor text that shows them doing much of anything else scientific).
I know there's a sentence in there somewhere that makes sense.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) | ||
I see your point. I would like to think that they could compensate for that interference, but OTOH... How do we know they did? |
What's been bothering me isn't so much the observer as the creator of the effect. So far, every effect involving mana must be created by some sort of living, Awakened person or creature. As I've mentioned before, magic does not exist in a vacum.
This creates two enourmous barriers to submitting magic to scientific, quantitative scrutiny. The first is that all magical "experiments" are hugely dependent on unmeasurable and non-quantitative qualities of the experimenter. Any creation of an astral effect--be it spellslinging, summonning of a spirit, Enchanting, whatever--is wholly dependent on the direct intervention of a living Awakened being, and is in fact colored by that being's emotional state, physical and mental health, magical ability, etc etc. Most of these factors cannot even be measured in a quantitative way: where is the standardized unit telling us how skilled someone is, or the standardized unit telling us how confident someone is feeling at a particular moment? In the end this will reduce all "scientific" study of magic to the same pseudoscientific level that many psychological experiments are carried out in. Effectively: all magical "experimentation" is in fact a series of case studies.
The second problem with carrying out purely scientific research on magic is independent verification. One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is that everything that is accepted as fact can be verified independent of the original researchers, by anybody. If I could build or buy the physical equipment, I could in theory carry out every single experiment ever published in any scientific journal, and get results within the tolerance levels indicated. Magic, unfortunately, can't work that way. The reproducability of any scientific experiment, being wholly dependent on all of these independent outside factors mentioned above, is going to suffer tremendously. In fact, is is outright impossible for the vast majority of the metahuman population to carry out independent verification of most magical effects, as there is yet to be a single magical object wholly usable by mundanes (reference: Dunk's Will, where vast amounts of wealth await the first person to create such an object.) Again, this means that all "scientific" experiments using magic are in fact nothing more than case studies, which others in this thread have already denounced as being not real science.
| QUOTE | ||
Touché, but I like to rely on the totem statement since it's in the core book asserted as fact. |
Yes, well, on the same page of the core book (p. 162) they go into how non-obvious magic is, then go on to describe rules showing that the only non-obvious magic there is must be cast by a hermatic, at a Force less than 3, not benefiting from totem modifiers or showing a shamanistic mask and not being observed by someone with astral perception. That particular page isn't particularly trustworthy when looking at the reliability of its flavor text.
Magic needs to be approached with a level of rigor that is rarely done in psychology. (In those cases where it is, we sometimes learn some pretty interesting things....)
For example, let's suppose that you are interested in the difference between the force an object feels when levitated and the apparent force applied to it based on its mass and acceleration. This is pretty simple to investigate: you ask a bunch of different people to levitate an object that has a bunch of inertial sensors in it and move it along a path that is well-monitored by cameras and/or laser interferometers or whatever is appropriate for the speed and scale of motion you're interested in. Anyone else can replicate the same experiment in other places.
Let's suppose that you want to classify how fast someone can levitate an object. Same thing--easy to measure a distribution of speeds and get an idea of how this covaries with initiation, the spell formula, and so on.
Suppose you want to measure the maximum heat transfer from a fireball spell. You create a giant heat sink with good line-of-sight access and put it in a room-sized calorimeter.
Suppose you want to quantify the effect of background count on magical casting. You start with a process that occasionally fails (e.g. creating a very weak physical barrier), and see how the failure rate changes with different background conditions.
And so forth and so on. Measuring magical ability really isn't that different from measuring human athletic ability--we know, or could know, all kinds of things about force generation, precision, endurance, and so on; plus, we know all kinds of things that impact these factors. You can measure magical ability just like you can measure lung capacity or reaction time.
The nice thing about magic in SR, from a scientific standpoint, is that magic is fairly reliable, and effects appear in seconds. This makes the topic much more addressable experimentally than, say, child psychology that tries to link specific types of domestic abuse with usage of specific illicit drugs.
Because of this, I'd expect watcher conjuring and normal spellcasting to be much better understood than ritual magic, enchanting, and hermetic conjuring, which in turn would be much better understood than the acquisition of new metamagics, the process of awakening, and the developmental basis of magical activity.
For example, let's suppose that you are interested in the difference between the force an object feels when levitated and the apparent force applied to it based on its mass and acceleration. This is pretty simple to investigate: you ask a bunch of different people to levitate an object that has a bunch of inertial sensors in it and move it along a path that is well-monitored by cameras and/or laser interferometers or whatever is appropriate for the speed and scale of motion you're interested in. Anyone else can replicate the same experiment in other places.
Let's suppose that you want to classify how fast someone can levitate an object. Same thing--easy to measure a distribution of speeds and get an idea of how this covaries with initiation, the spell formula, and so on.
Suppose you want to measure the maximum heat transfer from a fireball spell. You create a giant heat sink with good line-of-sight access and put it in a room-sized calorimeter.
Suppose you want to quantify the effect of background count on magical casting. You start with a process that occasionally fails (e.g. creating a very weak physical barrier), and see how the failure rate changes with different background conditions.
And so forth and so on. Measuring magical ability really isn't that different from measuring human athletic ability--we know, or could know, all kinds of things about force generation, precision, endurance, and so on; plus, we know all kinds of things that impact these factors. You can measure magical ability just like you can measure lung capacity or reaction time.
The nice thing about magic in SR, from a scientific standpoint, is that magic is fairly reliable, and effects appear in seconds. This makes the topic much more addressable experimentally than, say, child psychology that tries to link specific types of domestic abuse with usage of specific illicit drugs.
Because of this, I'd expect watcher conjuring and normal spellcasting to be much better understood than ritual magic, enchanting, and hermetic conjuring, which in turn would be much better understood than the acquisition of new metamagics, the process of awakening, and the developmental basis of magical activity.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Apr 25 2005, 06:23 PM) |
| Because of this, I'd expect watcher conjuring and normal spellcasting to be much better understood than ritual magic, enchanting, and hermetic conjuring, which in turn would be much better understood than the acquisition of new metamagics, the process of awakening, and the developmental basis of magical activity. |
And, unsurprisingly, they are. When was the last time we've seen a major "revealation" in terms of watcher summoning, or normal spellcasting? I contend that most of that kind of stuff has been fairly extensively researched; you'll notice that spellcasting itself doesn't have an SOTA factor, for instance. On the other hand, SOTA '63 showcased some major breakthroughs in ritual magic, SOTA '64 had some new foci (continuing work in enchanting?), and both had new metamagics. Social adepts took longer to be proven to exist than physical ones for analogous reasons; an improved social ability is harder to measure than an improved athletics one.
Again, just because the actual research itself isn't showcased in the SR books doesn't mean it never happenned, just that, for the average shadowrunner it's not relevant.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Again, just because the actual research itself isn't showcased in the SR books doesn't mean it never happenned, just that, for the average shadowrunner it's not relevant. |
Unless those corporate mages with doctorates from MIT&M start developing new strains of FAB or the like.
My point here is that major parts of thaumaturgy are just as hard of a science as physiology and biophysics--human involvement doesn't need to mess everything up.
My point earlier was that despite the claim to the contrary in published materials, the community of renewed hermetics is almost certainly not the same as the community of people doing this research.
You don't need to present piles of magical research findings complete with control experiments and experimental design in SR materials, even as fluff. That's excessive. But I would like to shown rather than told that it is going on (even if only with a few glimpses), and that it's not impossible simply because, "Wow! It's Magic!"
At a more philosophical level, one of the reasons I like SR is because it is set on Earth in the near future--which means that learning about our planet now, current events, and recent history is helpful for playing a game! That's a neat trick: you can be rewarded by having fun for learning that which can be useful and relevant background information in daily life, but often seems like a drag to learn. Of course, you don't want to make it so people have to consult piles of textbooks to play a game. That would just drag down the game. But it's nice to have games that encourage but do not force the development of other useful skills. That's why I'd also like them to encourage understanding of the scientific method. (One should not hit people over the head with it. Just have bits of scientific method peeking through in case people care to look. The results of research have a huge impact on our society today and yet most people don't have a clear idea of how and why it works, or what science is all about--certainly not if you watch movies anyway.) And dice-based gaming often rewards an understanding of probability, which is also healthy.
So if you can make a game setting richer while benefitting the players and having the setting make more sense, why not do it?
My point earlier was that despite the claim to the contrary in published materials, the community of renewed hermetics is almost certainly not the same as the community of people doing this research.
You don't need to present piles of magical research findings complete with control experiments and experimental design in SR materials, even as fluff. That's excessive. But I would like to shown rather than told that it is going on (even if only with a few glimpses), and that it's not impossible simply because, "Wow! It's Magic!"
At a more philosophical level, one of the reasons I like SR is because it is set on Earth in the near future--which means that learning about our planet now, current events, and recent history is helpful for playing a game! That's a neat trick: you can be rewarded by having fun for learning that which can be useful and relevant background information in daily life, but often seems like a drag to learn. Of course, you don't want to make it so people have to consult piles of textbooks to play a game. That would just drag down the game. But it's nice to have games that encourage but do not force the development of other useful skills. That's why I'd also like them to encourage understanding of the scientific method. (One should not hit people over the head with it. Just have bits of scientific method peeking through in case people care to look. The results of research have a huge impact on our society today and yet most people don't have a clear idea of how and why it works, or what science is all about--certainly not if you watch movies anyway.) And dice-based gaming often rewards an understanding of probability, which is also healthy.
So if you can make a game setting richer while benefitting the players and having the setting make more sense, why not do it?
That's great for something like cyberware or simsense-related technology, which *are* meant to have roots in modern-day science, technology, and engineering, but why should it be so for magic? As I've been saying time and again, magic *is* different from contemporary physics. The whole nature of the effects of magic necessitate the existence of an outside interference--namely, the mage/shaman/hougan/etc who created the effect--which simply isn't true with the hard sciences today*, and opens you up to all kinds of decoupling with the outside environment, though the mage himself, which messes with experiments in huge ways. Should these problems be glossed over, ignored, in favor of rewarding those of us with science degrees and background?
In fact, I'll go a step further, and claim that it is this very attitude--that magic cn be performed independent of belief and emotional background--that creates psionicists. That's kinda what a psionicist is, isn't he: someone who denies the truly fantastic aspects of magic and concentrates on explainnations like some sort of selective decoupling of complex wavefunctions due to special observer status, or some other such mundane nonsense? I'd say that's where the limit on his power comes from: by refusing to acknolege that a significant part, if not the majority, of the power and effects of magic come directly from the inherently illogical sides of the (meta)human creator of the effects, he puts blinders over much of his power, limiting himself to what he feels the limitations of his power ought to be. It would be interesting to find out that all these "scientific" hermetics are in a constant struggle to tear down those exact limitations that they feel bearing down on them, and as a result seem to outsiders to be going beyond the scope of true science.
*-This actually glosses over some very important conclusions of modern physics, but those have been extensively discussed by many people already and don't need to be brought up again.
In fact, I'll go a step further, and claim that it is this very attitude--that magic cn be performed independent of belief and emotional background--that creates psionicists. That's kinda what a psionicist is, isn't he: someone who denies the truly fantastic aspects of magic and concentrates on explainnations like some sort of selective decoupling of complex wavefunctions due to special observer status, or some other such mundane nonsense? I'd say that's where the limit on his power comes from: by refusing to acknolege that a significant part, if not the majority, of the power and effects of magic come directly from the inherently illogical sides of the (meta)human creator of the effects, he puts blinders over much of his power, limiting himself to what he feels the limitations of his power ought to be. It would be interesting to find out that all these "scientific" hermetics are in a constant struggle to tear down those exact limitations that they feel bearing down on them, and as a result seem to outsiders to be going beyond the scope of true science.
*-This actually glosses over some very important conclusions of modern physics, but those have been extensively discussed by many people already and don't need to be brought up again.
not true. psionicists are, or can be, as mystical as any shaman.
the whole point of the scientific method is that you use it regardless of the subject matter. you use it when testing how safe a new seatbelt is, you use it when you're classifying orchids in south america, you use it when trying to determine exactly how much mana it takes to light a piece of paper on fire--and if it takes different people different amounts of mana, you use it to determine why.
the whole point of the scientific method is that you use it regardless of the subject matter. you use it when testing how safe a new seatbelt is, you use it when you're classifying orchids in south america, you use it when trying to determine exactly how much mana it takes to light a piece of paper on fire--and if it takes different people different amounts of mana, you use it to determine why.
Science is not a group of people wearing labcoats and talking on cellphones while writing numbers on chalk boards.
It is not physics, chemestry, or technology.
Science is a method.
Someone who eskews technology can be a scientist if they follow the method when they look for answers in the world around them. They will just be limited by the tools they have available.
There is no such thing as science versus nature. The two are not opposing factors. Science does not stand on one side trying to demystify everything and cover it in chrome and wires. Nature is not some fantastic thing that should never be understood.
The real beauty of natue and natural phenomena comes from understanding them. Magic is a natural phenomena in Shadowrun. It's a part of the world and humanity should strive to understand it. Saying that it's fantastic and thus beyond science demonstrates a lack of understanding.
I am, frankly, getting tired of watching this thread recieve posts stating that lack of understanding is mystical and wonderful somehow. Understanding is key to the beauty of man. Watch a thunderstorm, the pretty lights are neat, but it is much more beautiful when you understand the processes involved, the energy transfer of those electric archs, and the evolution of the complex air mass that is a storm.
Nothing is inherently illogical. Even when things are totally random, once this is determined, they can be modeled. Magic is no different.
Child-like wonderment is for children. It is a -sad- fact that scientists are rare, and I talk not of Shadowrun.
It is not physics, chemestry, or technology.
Science is a method.
Someone who eskews technology can be a scientist if they follow the method when they look for answers in the world around them. They will just be limited by the tools they have available.
There is no such thing as science versus nature. The two are not opposing factors. Science does not stand on one side trying to demystify everything and cover it in chrome and wires. Nature is not some fantastic thing that should never be understood.
The real beauty of natue and natural phenomena comes from understanding them. Magic is a natural phenomena in Shadowrun. It's a part of the world and humanity should strive to understand it. Saying that it's fantastic and thus beyond science demonstrates a lack of understanding.
I am, frankly, getting tired of watching this thread recieve posts stating that lack of understanding is mystical and wonderful somehow. Understanding is key to the beauty of man. Watch a thunderstorm, the pretty lights are neat, but it is much more beautiful when you understand the processes involved, the energy transfer of those electric archs, and the evolution of the complex air mass that is a storm.
Nothing is inherently illogical. Even when things are totally random, once this is determined, they can be modeled. Magic is no different.
Child-like wonderment is for children. It is a -sad- fact that scientists are rare, and I talk not of Shadowrun.
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov) |
| Science is a method. |
Should have been established in this thread by now.
| QUOTE |
| I am, frankly, getting tired of watching this thread recieve posts stating that lack of understanding is mystical and wonderful somehow. |
We're getting far from SR now, but I you're stating things in black and white. It's not about lack of understanding, but how you get this understanding. Science is an objective approach to the world. Mysticism is a subjective approach. Both has it's uses. Many people deny the value of the subjective approaches, a few deny the value of objective approaches. But both may offer valuable insights.
What could be argued is that magic in SR is understood trough mystic and subjective approaches, and that you won't get the whole of it without it. This doesn't rule out objective approaches though.
| QUOTE |
| Saying that it's fantastic and thus beyond science demonstrates a lack of understanding. |
The fantastic part is always beyond science, because aestethics never are objective. You may have more fantastic experiences trough the understandings gained by science, even science itself may be fantastic at times, but claiming the fantastic itself is beyond science holds true.
A spell is cast, it influences the physical world, either directly or through manipulation of another body. Ergo, it is not a subjective occurance.
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov) |
| A spell is cast, it influences the physical world, either directly or through manipulation of another body. Ergo, it is not a subjective occurance. |
Ah, but look at the first item in the chain of events you give. Casting. Throughout SR casting is described as very subjective in nature. Sure they hang numbers on Force and such to, you know, give the game rules. But manipulation of mana to create the spell is done by an unknown and unmeasured mechanism.
P.S. Even the influence of some spells, directed mana illusions for example, is extremely difficult to measure objectively.
unmeasured, but not necessarily unmeasurable. the point, here, isn't that the hermetics haven't found all the answers, it's that they don't seem to be looking.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Apr 26 2005, 02:22 PM) |
| unmeasured, but not necessarily unmeasurable. the point, here, isn't that the hermetics haven't found all the answers, it's that they don't seem to be looking. |
Perhaps the vast majority have enough good sense not to try? A man's gotta know his limitations.
P.S. I believe that SR canon mentions that current attempts to find genetic markers for magic abilities have come up empty. So -somebody- is trying to measure the awakened condition. It's just that they are likely more akin to Greeks 3,000 years ago trying to measure the compositon of Mars' atmosphere. "What is an atmosphere, and WTH is Mars?....A planet you say? WTF is a planet?"
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||
Ah, but look at the first item in the chain of events you give. Casting. Throughout SR casting is described as very subjective in nature. Sure they hang numbers on Force and such to, you know, give the game rules. But manipulation of mana to create the spell is done by an unknown and unmeasured mechanism. P.S. Even the influence of some spells, directed mana illusions for example, is extremely difficult to measure objectively. |
Casting is only subjective in nature IC if you're a shaman or similar. A hermetic will make magic exactly according to a formula. If anyone casts a spell has the exact same chance of looking at the spell and determining what it is, or determining it later from the traces. There's nothing subjective about that, It's just that in character some traditions THINK it's subjective. Magic does in fact follow rules.
| QUOTE (BitBasher) | ||||
Casting is only subjective in nature IC if you're a shaman or similar. A hermetic will make magic exactly according to a formula. If anyone casts a spell has the exact same chance of looking at the spell and determining what it is, or determining it later from the traces. There's nothing subjective about that, It's just that in character some traditions THINK it's subjective. Magic does in fact follow rules. |
Just because it follows "rules" doesn't mean you can measure it.
As for your assertions of how SR has defined hermetics, but are confused by this lack of "looking" as it were, if you reread thinking of the hemetic tradition as more like Astrology or Numerology it becomes much clearer.
It seems the definition of subjective is not clear:
"Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world"
Magic is not subjective. The reason for magic may be subjective. One person may thing they have magic -because- Dog gives it to them, another may thing they have magic -because- God does. The practice of magic, however, is an external, measurable action.
If one wishes to study the effects of a ball hitting a bick wall it matters little what one uses to launch it into the wall so long as I can make that mechanism reliable. It has been noted earlier that this is possible in SR irrespective of the tradition of the mage.
Subjective delvers can speak all night about why Thor, Apollo, Cat, Gia, or Quantum Waveflux allows magic to exist without producing a testable hypothosis. Such conversation is not without merit, but it's not science.
The pracice of magic an external action which can be measured, tested, and examined. A shaman, hermetic, wujen, and hougan can spend their days analyzing the effects and consequences of magic in action. They don't have to think their magic comse from the sun or a mysterious chrome god. They can hold varying opinions of the subjective aspect of life and still do science.
Renewed hermeticism claims to be doing science, but they are not. They appear to be just another group who have a collective mythos as to the why of magic. Good for them, that's great, but they shouldn't be calling themselves scientists.
"Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world"
Magic is not subjective. The reason for magic may be subjective. One person may thing they have magic -because- Dog gives it to them, another may thing they have magic -because- God does. The practice of magic, however, is an external, measurable action.
If one wishes to study the effects of a ball hitting a bick wall it matters little what one uses to launch it into the wall so long as I can make that mechanism reliable. It has been noted earlier that this is possible in SR irrespective of the tradition of the mage.
Subjective delvers can speak all night about why Thor, Apollo, Cat, Gia, or Quantum Waveflux allows magic to exist without producing a testable hypothosis. Such conversation is not without merit, but it's not science.
The pracice of magic an external action which can be measured, tested, and examined. A shaman, hermetic, wujen, and hougan can spend their days analyzing the effects and consequences of magic in action. They don't have to think their magic comse from the sun or a mysterious chrome god. They can hold varying opinions of the subjective aspect of life and still do science.
Renewed hermeticism claims to be doing science, but they are not. They appear to be just another group who have a collective mythos as to the why of magic. Good for them, that's great, but they shouldn't be calling themselves scientists.
The scientific method is just a rigorous way to pay attention to reality. The cases where other methods are useful (subjective, intuitive, or whatever you want to call them) are typically cases where it's difficult to apply the rigor that the scientific method calls for.
In the case of magic, I've already given examples of how it could be studied rigorously, and specified which areas rigorous study is difficult. Neither "magic is subjective!" nor "magic is fantastic, unmeasured, and unmeasurable!" is a sensible counterargument to the claim that magic can be studied rigorously. I have given explicit examples of how one would measure magical phenomena in an objective way.
In the case of magic, I've already given examples of how it could be studied rigorously, and specified which areas rigorous study is difficult. Neither "magic is subjective!" nor "magic is fantastic, unmeasured, and unmeasurable!" is a sensible counterargument to the claim that magic can be studied rigorously. I have given explicit examples of how one would measure magical phenomena in an objective way.
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov) |
| I am, frankly, getting tired of watching this thread recieve posts stating that lack of understanding is mystical and wonderful somehow. Understanding is key to the beauty of man. |
Well said!
| QUOTE (Grinder @ Apr 24 2005, 12:28 PM) |
| You can't escape your destiny. |
If my destiny is to argue with half-wits and children about Shadowrun for the rest of my life, then I should just kill myself now.
Me? I should have stuck with principle and stayed gone. I'm stupid that way. That's my destiny, to forever be suckered back into trying to prove to people that they don't have to play this game ignorant, deluded, or confused.
The adults have finished this argument and come to an understanding. I'll let Ellery and Rask babysit the rest of the thread. They're more than up to it.
By your reasoning beauty is objective as well. I see something beautiful to me. I pop wood. A light on a strain gauge installed earlier blinks on. Presto, beauty is objective?
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov) |
| I am, frankly, getting tired of watching this thread recieve posts stating that lack of understanding is mystical and wonderful somehow. Understanding is key to the beauty of man. |
I don't think I said that a lack of understanding is wonderful? It certainly isn't in my nature to think that way. However "mystical" does indeed by definition relate to an absense of logical understanding.
| QUOTE |
| It seems the definition of subjective is not clear: "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world" |
My bolding. With hemetics magic still comes from the person's mind. In SR there isn't a machine that can read in or be fed the contents of a hermetic library to produce a magical effect. Nor does a magical effect spring forth from, nor exist actively within the library. Hermetic libraries instead seem to be instructions along the lines of "think this way, wave around this kind of stick, and your brain will bend the mana to your will".
EDIT: BTW I do agree that hermetics aren't "scientists" any more than islamic mystics that drank their own urine to become enlightened.
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov) |
| I am, frankly, getting tired of watching this thread recieve posts stating that lack of understanding is mystical and wonderful somehow. Understanding is key to the beauty of man. |
Similarly, I am sick of the sentiment that science is some sort of magic bullet that can solve any problem, quantify every unknown. It was a philosophy that was in vogue with 19th century physicists, before quantum theyro and Heisenburg came along, proving scientifically that there are some values that cannot be completely known. Science cannot discover everything; in fact it's already actually proven that it can't.
This is, however, beyond the scope of this argument. I agree with Ellery that the group of Renewed Hermetics is not the same set of people who study magic scientifically. Is there anyone who still disagrees with that?
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| The scientific method is just a rigorous way to pay attention to reality. The cases where other methods are useful (subjective, intuitive, or whatever you want to call them) are typically cases where it's difficult to apply the rigor that the scientific method calls for. In the case of magic, I've already given examples of how it could be studied rigorously, and specified which areas rigorous study is difficult. Neither "magic is subjective!" nor "magic is fantastic, unmeasured, and unmeasurable!" is a sensible counterargument to the claim that magic can be studied rigorously. I have given explicit examples of how one would measure magical phenomena in an objective way. |
Explicit examples indeed. Blakkie review those mentioned points. Also review the definition of subjective more closely, your syntactical arguement is silly enough I do not feel it needs addressed.
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov @ Apr 26 2005, 05:38 PM) | ||
Explicit examples indeed. Blakkie review those mentioned points. Also review the definition of subjective more closely, your syntactical arguement is silly enough I do not feel it needs addressed. |
But you said magic wasn't subjective?
The BBB does mention attempts made to locate the genetic markers and/or biological source of the awakened abilities. It has failed. It would appear that magic is simply beyond the current understanding of technology. That it remains, you know, "magic" seems to suggest this.
Ellery gave examples of trying to measure the physical effects created by magic. It is reasonable to expect this has been done in the sixth world several times, over and over. That is akin to a caveman noticing that when you let go of a rock it heads downwards. He could then try bash coconuts, seeing how high you have to hold the rock to crack the coconut most of the time. Then showing this discovery to his friend Grog. He is using the rock to bash the coconut. But he is ignorant of gravity, the difference between mass and weight, the celluar structure of the coconut, the crystaline structure of the rock, the atoms that make up either of those, the air resistance (WTF is 'air'?), the reason why he cares, etc., etc.
In time the desendants of the caveman might come to learn these questions, and maybe even the answers. But are they guaranteed to know of all the questions?
In the sixth world it all looks clumsy and illogical because, well, because they don't even know the questions. So if you don't know the questions it's pretty damn hard to try find the answers.
EDIT: BTW that strain gauge link was purposely chosen as an example of what Ellery's examples can be expected to bring. Trying to interpret backwards from an effect to a process you have no freakin' clue about is usually of limited value and fraught with the possibility of faulty conclusions or conclusions so vague as to be unusable.
BTW why exactly do you feel that my "syntactical arguement" is silly enough you not feel it need to address it? What exactly is the silly part, in your opinion?
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Similarly, I am sick of the sentiment that science is some sort of magic bullet that can solve any problem, quantify every unknown. |
Agreed. Such sentiments show nearly as much lack of understanding of the scientific method as the opposite. If you are comfortable with applying the scientific method, it's usually pretty obvious where it can't be used.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| The BBB does mention attempts made to locate the genetic markers and/or biological source of the awakened abilities. It has failed. It would appear that magic is simply beyond the current understanding of technology. |
Since we don't know the state of appropriate technology, or what experiments were tried and were inconclusive, it's hard to know what to make of this claim. You'll note that I did list this under the category of most-difficult-to-scientifically-answer questions, due to the lack of ability to manipulate the system, and slow timescale of the process. That doesn't have a major bearing on whether more rapid and repeatable aspects of magic can be understood.
| QUOTE |
| Ellery gave examples of trying to measure the physical effects created by magic. It is reasonable to expect this has been done in the sixth world several times, over and over. That is akin to a caveman noticing that when you let go of a rock it heads downwards. He could then try bash coconuts, seeing how high you have to hold the rock to crack the coconut most of the time. Then showing this discovery to his friend Grog. He is using the rock to bash the coconut. But he is ignorant of gravity, the difference between mass and weight, the celluar structure of the coconut, the crystaline structure of the rock, the atoms that make up either of those, the air resistance (WTF is 'air'?), the reason why he cares, etc., etc. |
And perhaps this is what a particularly inspired but not particularly scientifically motivated Renewed Hermetic might do.
So, how did Newton get so much farther in understanding mechanics than others (including Aristotle, who was no slouch intellectually)?
So, how did Newton get so much farther in understanding mechanics than others (including Aristotle, who was no slouch intellectually)?
| QUOTE | ||
Since we don't know the state of appropriate technology, or what experiments were tried and were inconclusive, it's hard to know what to make of this claim. |
Time for a reality check here, this is fictional game world. You expect the SR authors to list out technical details of tests? As if such a list (which you and I shouldn't likely even understand without hours, or even days of reading) would mean much. These are the same people that came up with the other tech in SR.
Instead, realising the silliness of doing that, they did some handwaving like using the current prestige of MIT to suggest, by the name change to MIT&M, that people with really, really big brains were working on the problem. Also remember the other technology of this era; cultured bioware, DNI, and nanoware. Given the huge finacial benefits from understanding magic better to harness/bottle/use it more effectively how exactly can you expect that there hasn't been enormous co-ordinated research done?
Are you so self-assured to think that a suggestion that you managed to come up with an in a few minutes hadn't occured to an entire planet full of people that's had over 40 years to think think this stuff up?
| QUOTE |
| You'll note that I did list this under the category of most-difficult-to-scientifically-answer questions, due to the lack of ability to manipulate the system, and slow timescale of the process. That doesn't have a major bearing on whether more rapid and repeatable aspects of magic can be understood. |
I'm suggesting that you are underestimating the task by many, many orders of magnitude. Remember that just because we are given a number of dice, attributes, dice pool rules (prior to SR4), and such to help play the game doesn't mean that all these things are obvious IC.
| QUOTE |
| And perhaps this is what a particularly inspired but not particularly scientifically motivated Renewed Hermetic might do. |
What, drop rocks or perform your suggested experiements?
| QUOTE |
So, how did Newton get so much farther in understanding mechanics than others (including Aristotle, who was no slouch intellectually)? |
Yet he fell short of relativity and quantum mechanics, or even that what propelled the apple earthward wasn't inivisble particles crashing down onto it. Also he was unable to use an ATM, which I can. I roxxor n3VV+0N!!!
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||
Yet he fell short of relativity and quantum mechanics, or even that what propelled the apple earthward wasn't inivisble particles crashing down onto it. Also he was unable to use an ATM, which I can. I roxxor n3VV+0N!!! |
At both of you:
Newton was so successful as a scientist because he invented integral calculus. Well, not really; Archimedes had actually come up with the idea of splitting a figure up into an infinite number of "slices" and adding them all together, but he didn't actually trust that this worked all the time, and only used it for preliminary investigation into things that he would later prove geometrically. Newton was the first to just trust that limits in fact were valid *without* proving them and, using limits and thus integration as a postulate, proving a great many things true. And that, in the end, is science: assuming something is true (hypothesis), then running with it unless you discover a contradiction (experimentation), in which case you drop the hypothesis and try another (conclusion).
THis whole side of the argument is silly. In reality, Newton--like all other scientists--succeeded because he stood on the shoulders of giants: centuries of research by the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, etc all through his own contemporaries like Galileo and Copernicus who, despite never formalizing the process of science were still able to make great strides in understanding the world. Magic, on the other hand, has been around for forty years; the only shoulders you can stand on is the various religous works on the ancient past (supplying hypotheses), which you can attempt to apply to the modern day magical world (experimentation), rejecting those hypotheses which don't work, and promoting the ones that do to Theories (drawing conclusions). In that way, Renewed Hermetics are scientists.
However, they are also not scientists. They are working in a field that cannot be reliably quantified, getting results that many times cannot be reproduced or, if they can be reproduced, usually not by anyone other than the experimenter and certainly not by the public at large. They constantly try to set up experiments with such things as Jungarian psychology as hypothesis, and in many cases don't do a good job of opening themselves up to the possibility of being wrong (although that last point can actually be applied to some of the real-life "scientists" I know, but I digress.) Like everyone in the Sixth World and elsewhere, they're still people, and as such have emotions and prejudices which color their work; this is where the "No religous dogma" rule comes from.
So yes, I'd agree with Ellery that the majority--even the vast majority--of Renewed Hermetics are not "true" scientists. Of course I contend that almost nobody *is* a true scientist, even out of those people with doctorates who spend their careers doing scientific research.
Er, that was my point Eyeless. That Newton stood upon the work of others. It is actually interesting that a contemporary of the time also further developed calculus in parallel (roughly). It actually lead to a big fight that hampered communication between intellectuals of England and continental europe for a long time.
I guess instead of the ATM comment i should have mentioned that it took Newton well into his twenties to get a handle on calculus, where as i learned it much earlier.
Also Newton was helped by the -questions- from his contemporaries. One particular example is the question about the shape of the path of an orbitting body that was held in place by a force that was inverse square of distance. Newton used his math skills and techniques to determine this was an elipse.
P.S. In the sixth world there are some giants, IE and dragons. But they tend not to talk too much, plus their knowledge is based primarily on a different time and they are so far above magically ability wise that extrapolating details would be difficult at best.
I guess instead of the ATM comment i should have mentioned that it took Newton well into his twenties to get a handle on calculus, where as i learned it much earlier.
Also Newton was helped by the -questions- from his contemporaries. One particular example is the question about the shape of the path of an orbitting body that was held in place by a force that was inverse square of distance. Newton used his math skills and techniques to determine this was an elipse.
P.S. In the sixth world there are some giants, IE and dragons. But they tend not to talk too much, plus their knowledge is based primarily on a different time and they are so far above magically ability wise that extrapolating details would be difficult at best.
Well naturally. *My* point was that your side and Ellery's side really aren't all that different. In fact, I'm kinda wondering what the actual debate is about now, as you two seem to be arguing parallel paths.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Well naturally. *My* point was that your side and Ellery's side really aren't all that different. In fact, I'm kinda wondering what the actual debate is about now, as you two seem to be arguing parallel paths. |
Usually there are more sides than two, and not all are fully opposing.
Ellery would seem to suggest that bringing to bear sensors to measure the path of a brick flying around would unlock the mysteries of the sixth world magic. I suggest that doing that is likely more like pissing into the wind. It is closer to Aristotle, trying to prove that all matter is composed of earth, air, water, and fire, than Newton (who himself was still a "natural philosopher" at heart).
As for Raskolnikov I couldn't resist poking a stick in his "well said" piece. That and his assertion that SR casting isn't subjective in nature, even when he defines the terms.
Blakkie, you quote a section of text and then address something entirely different. To the point that magic can be measured, that its effects are reproducable, and that the mechanics, manadraw, etc can be studied you answer that a genetic link to magic has not been proven.
When beacuse of the above arguement you didn't address, it is stated that the practice of magic is not subjective, you reply that it is and wave your hands, shouting wildly when when you try to present an answer. Here is a tip you may have missed in highschool: repeating yourself is not a chain of evidence.
Since it is becoming apparent that I am soon to be doing nothing but repeat the actual points already made by other people, I will leave you to actually look at the thread. If you have real questions and pose them I would address them. I expect you will just make snide comments and repeat groundless claims.
When beacuse of the above arguement you didn't address, it is stated that the practice of magic is not subjective, you reply that it is and wave your hands, shouting wildly when when you try to present an answer. Here is a tip you may have missed in highschool: repeating yourself is not a chain of evidence.
Since it is becoming apparent that I am soon to be doing nothing but repeat the actual points already made by other people, I will leave you to actually look at the thread. If you have real questions and pose them I would address them. I expect you will just make snide comments and repeat groundless claims.
Looking at the rules in Shadowrun 3rd Ed for a minute, we can see that work clearly has been done to quantify the effects of magic in the setting.
Spells, Spirits, Foci and Wards are all rated by Force, and both the law and market prices reflect the idea that this is a commonly understood aspect of Magic.
So, the question should be asked: who did the quantifying? We can assume three possible sources:
(a) Dragons.
(b) Immortal Elves.
© Mortal researchers who don't follow Renewed Hermeticism.
(d) Renewed Hermetics.
Options (a) and (b) can safely be dismissed, I think. So which of © and (d) is the case, or mostly the case? Well, there are certain facts we know about the Shadowrun universe. North American universities are dominated by Renewed Hermeticism. They are a strong force in European universities as well. Renewed Hermetics are hired by corporations and the UCAS in preference to Shamans (and possibly other types of magician not mentioned in the main rulebook). Now, we know that in the real world most research is carried out by corporations, universities, and governments, so here are some assumptions:
Paradigms that are successful in terms of original research are likely to be both prestigious and profitable.
Paradigms that apply the scientific method to magical research, insofar as this is possible, are likely to be more successful in terms of original research.
Corporations are influenced by considerations of profit and prestige.
Universities are influenced by considerations of corporate sponsorship and prestige.
Governments are influenced by corporations.
The statement in the main rulebook that Hermetics have a scientific approach to magic is intended to convey information about the world of Shadowrun.
Should my assumptions hold, and my reading of what is presented as fact in the rulebook be correct, I think the conclusion is inescapable that either Renewed Hermetics are (comparatively) successful magical researchers, or that North America is a backwater in terms of magical research by virtue of hidebound adherence to an ineffective paradigm. As corporations are multinational, I think the latter is significantly less likely than the former.
Spells, Spirits, Foci and Wards are all rated by Force, and both the law and market prices reflect the idea that this is a commonly understood aspect of Magic.
So, the question should be asked: who did the quantifying? We can assume three possible sources:
(a) Dragons.
(b) Immortal Elves.
© Mortal researchers who don't follow Renewed Hermeticism.
(d) Renewed Hermetics.
Options (a) and (b) can safely be dismissed, I think. So which of © and (d) is the case, or mostly the case? Well, there are certain facts we know about the Shadowrun universe. North American universities are dominated by Renewed Hermeticism. They are a strong force in European universities as well. Renewed Hermetics are hired by corporations and the UCAS in preference to Shamans (and possibly other types of magician not mentioned in the main rulebook). Now, we know that in the real world most research is carried out by corporations, universities, and governments, so here are some assumptions:
Paradigms that are successful in terms of original research are likely to be both prestigious and profitable.
Paradigms that apply the scientific method to magical research, insofar as this is possible, are likely to be more successful in terms of original research.
Corporations are influenced by considerations of profit and prestige.
Universities are influenced by considerations of corporate sponsorship and prestige.
Governments are influenced by corporations.
The statement in the main rulebook that Hermetics have a scientific approach to magic is intended to convey information about the world of Shadowrun.
Should my assumptions hold, and my reading of what is presented as fact in the rulebook be correct, I think the conclusion is inescapable that either Renewed Hermetics are (comparatively) successful magical researchers, or that North America is a backwater in terms of magical research by virtue of hidebound adherence to an ineffective paradigm. As corporations are multinational, I think the latter is significantly less likely than the former.
Indeed Dexy, we argue that magic can be approached scientifically, and that the fact it does lend itself to quantification suggests it is by-and-large a repeatable, reliable phenomena.
As presented in the SOTA64 book however, Renewed Heremticism has, at least, some major flaws in their approach if they truly wish to be doing hard science.
I and others maintain that hard science can be done however, regardless of the tradition of the mage/shaman. It is possible that in SR the renewed hermetics hold a very powerful position in magical research and shut those who do not conform to their paradigm out. As it is written, this may be the case. I would prefer, as would others, that in the SR story, there exist a larger number of magicians practicing hard science on their nature instead of a handful of persecuted scientists against a tradition of quackery.
As presented in the SOTA64 book however, Renewed Heremticism has, at least, some major flaws in their approach if they truly wish to be doing hard science.
I and others maintain that hard science can be done however, regardless of the tradition of the mage/shaman. It is possible that in SR the renewed hermetics hold a very powerful position in magical research and shut those who do not conform to their paradigm out. As it is written, this may be the case. I would prefer, as would others, that in the SR story, there exist a larger number of magicians practicing hard science on their nature instead of a handful of persecuted scientists against a tradition of quackery.
I think both C and D are the case, because I think (for reasons that I've previously explained) that labels like "Renewed Hermetic" and "Dog Shaman" and such can largely be left behind when doing hard research.
But I'd expect a lot of soft "research" to be done as well. In fact, I expect the academic landscape to look rather like psychology and cognitive science departments do now. Some are very soft, some are very hard, and many have a mix of both. I expect Renewed Hermetics to be more prone to be in academia than followers of most other paradigms, but I wouldn't necessarily expect them to occupy the harder side as opposed to the softer side.
The point I was trying to make about Newton was not simply that he built on others' work. He was willing to throw out others' work too, when it didn't work. Lots of people had a chance to build on Aristotle's ideas, but it took around two thousand years for people to gather the courage to admit that Aristotle's ideas didn't match reality. When you can reliably measure and quantify an effect, and you're willing to challenge your ideas with evidence immediately, you can make progress pretty fast.
But I'd expect a lot of soft "research" to be done as well. In fact, I expect the academic landscape to look rather like psychology and cognitive science departments do now. Some are very soft, some are very hard, and many have a mix of both. I expect Renewed Hermetics to be more prone to be in academia than followers of most other paradigms, but I wouldn't necessarily expect them to occupy the harder side as opposed to the softer side.
The point I was trying to make about Newton was not simply that he built on others' work. He was willing to throw out others' work too, when it didn't work. Lots of people had a chance to build on Aristotle's ideas, but it took around two thousand years for people to gather the courage to admit that Aristotle's ideas didn't match reality. When you can reliably measure and quantify an effect, and you're willing to challenge your ideas with evidence immediately, you can make progress pretty fast.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.