Reenchanting?

Greetings,

I hesitated to step into this discussion, considering my inexperience in the obviously weighty matters to which it pertains. However, since speaking with Dr. Tobias, I find myself thinking about such things as personal world view and the relevance of competing perspectives when we are all right? We all have different words to identify what we perceive in the world around us.

Some call a given event, a "phenomenon" or abstract what occurs as "manipulation of energy by a yet unknown artifice". That is perfectly rational and for all purposes a correct interpretation. But, given that, it is also perfectly correct to call that same event, a "Miracle" or as well, an application of Arcane knowledge to affect a transfer of mystical energy.

The main argument is not that such effects exist, thus neatly avoiding Master Goggins' existential crisis, but how do we all describe a given event? A world view is the way we see things, describe them and each of us can see an event very differently while all still claiming to be correct. Imagine three blind men describing a dead Fire Drake. One feels its open maw, and declares, "Its a jagged thing, full of pointed spikes!". The second, near its flank, touches the scaly hide and declares, "Its a wall, shingled with overlapping tiles." The third, at the rear of the beast, declares that the thing is a, "fallen tree, long and tapering to a point."

The point of the matter is that all three are correct for the part they perceive. We all perceive different parts of our environment, our world view blinds us to the possibility that everything can be seen in a myriad of ways, locking us into the viewpoint that makes the most sense at the time. Instead of bickering over whether Magic, Faith or Science actually exists, we should be talking about the wonderful perspectives outside our own world view.

Only then can our minds be free.

With respect to all,

Sometimes people take it upon themselves to force individuals to see things from their perspective, whether they like it or not.

Well said, Brother Aldric.

I am a Blacksmith. I craft steel and the physical using my hands, and the forces of science - heat, metallurgy, physics, and sometimes a limited chemistry.

I am a White Sorcerer. Not only do I use magic, I am a guardian and creator of the very thing it is derived from.

I am a Priest. I pray to Brazen, I follow His tenants, and I aid, guide, and nurture those who follow Him as well, as well as others. In return, He grants me his miracles, which are distinctly different from those I derive from the Arcane.

I can see many parts of this fictional drake, and I can see how they all interrelate. The thing is miraculous to behold, both in individual parts, and as a whole. That whole is the world we live in.

In service to the Art,

Wotcher,

While I sincerely hope that our discussion will not cause Miss Clytie to be in any way deterred from her investigations, there remain a few key inconsistencies which I feel are perhaps being overlooked. As such, I hope you'll forgive my chiming in again at this point.

It would seem that the arguments we have read up to this point are sound. However, all rely on the same assumption: that we can make meaningful comparisons between "Magic" and "Science" (and indeed, as Mister Weaveforger provides, "Faith," which we could define as "Faith in the actions of a divine being in the world." For the sake of clarity, I will put this to one side until the end, for reasons that will soon become apparent.)

It should be clear that this is not the case. "Magic" and "Science" are different "types of thing" - it is a category error to attempt to make a meaningful comparison between the two. The first is, of course, a terminating hypothesis, the second a method by which we might evaluate any of a large set of hypotheses. Where "Tail," "Jaws," and "Scaly Hide" are all of the same category - being as they are parts of a Fire Drake (if those even exist) - "Magic" and "Science" are clearly not. To attempt to (meaningfully) compare them is no less possible than, say, attempting to compare "Spanner" with "Mister Sindarion's opinion on the best way to finish cut granite," or "Jonas Kane's belly button fluff" with "Does Miss Yhatzi sleep on her left side, or her right?"

Perhaps the best we can do is make a claim along the lines of "Magic and Science are both concepts" or "Magic and Science both exist," but then of course we are left with the problems of attempting to prove that something has the quality of existing, or of being a concept. In either case, our "Fire Drake" (i.e. the category to which both belong) is a very big Fire Drake (arguably, an infinitely large Fire Drake) and we haven't really made any meaningful headway by pointing out that both "Magic" and "Science" belong to it, as so does anything else you'd care to mention - including, yes, "Faith," or by equal merit, "Marmalade," "Crumpets," and "Ear Wax."

Very good. I hope that clarifies the distinction - and, of course, the offer I extended to Mister Jonathan is very much open to all who have knowledge of local spiritual practices in the Travance area.

there remain one or two inconsistencies which I had hoped you'd comment on:

The first being where the concepts intersect: To relate the concept to our perspectives of the fire drake, the person looking at it from the side will see what appears as a flat image of the legs torso, shoulders and head and create an image of the object, but the one looking from the front will see the shoulders and head and will create a different image of the object in question, however when the person in front presents his/her hypothesis, the one on the side will present a different opinion, now lets apply the differences between magic and science which goggins has clearly illustrated for us to this portrayal by saying that the one looking at the side saw the side of the fire drake (person A) and said to himself, "Amazing, just look at this thing it must be x," and the one looking from the front (person said, "hmm, I wonder what this might be, perhaps if I analyze its teeth I may identify it.". Now we must conceptualize what occurs when the two reunite and discuss their findings, it should go somewhat like this,

Person A will immediately claim the object is x, where as person B will claim that is not a definite statement and decide to follow up on his analysis, during the time Person A makes numerous claims regarding the existence of x until it becomes socially accepted as fact, later Person B returns from his investigations claiming person A's assessment might be incorrect, however Person A's hypothesis has been accepted by the community as fact, and as a result conflict emerges between the two parties, similar to how this debate began in the first place.

Thus, the question remains whether to accept society's viewpoint that x is an undecipherable super existence or the results of the analysis stating that x is an as of yet unidentified creature.
As such in the process of attempting to co-exist with one another observer B inevitably undermined his counterpart, however if person A had been standing above the creature he may have come to the same conclusion as person B's analysis, as such the existence of the concept of magic is not in question, but rather do we accept it as is or do we pursue its study and place a quantifiable label on it thus sparing the label of "magic" for the next unexplained phenomenon?

A truly fascinating discussion is being had here. I do not think I have much to contribute myself but I am quite certain the I want to hear more of these theories and philosophies. Magic and Science do not seem to be at odds, mutually exclusive or even comparable entities. Faith also seems wholly separate from the other two. Industry, the example here being given as smithing, is yet another entity that has arisen in this discussion. I think we may need to find an Alchemist next to contribute a viewpoint.

Mister Goggins, should you see me nearby when one of these conversations strikes up please wave me over or somehow else get my attention so that I may at least sit and listen.