Magick and scientific experiments

[Nilurra]

I've looked for a thread like this, but didn't manage to find one...


Those of you who believe in magick as a means to affect distant events, how do you cope with the fact that, despite your possible personal observations, scientific tests have been done on various paranormal/occult/religious phenomena, such as prayer, distant healing, psychics etc. and in most cases shown that these actions have no effect (or where they showed to be plausible, results were within explicable deviations)? These studies have been done with people from diverse religions and spiritualities who have experience in their practices, and even though I have never specifically found one done with pagan magick, surely these phenomena should all be connected? (If not, feel free to explain.)

I understand there are some here who believe that believing in magick is related to a personal deity and is just about having faith, and that the deity might choose not to heed the magic ritual/prayer if being "put to the test" in a scientific study. However, I am asking about paranormal magick without such a system.

Furthermore, I am not asking about hypotheses for how magick can be possible, but simply about the empirical aspect.


Here are links to some studies for those who don't know them:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2546015/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/12/psychic-claims-james-randi-paranormal
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703%2805%2900649-6/abstract
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1025&page=169
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/1/2/85.abstract

Here is a general article about prayer tests:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1849/have-studies-proven-that-prayer-can-help-heal-the-sick
And here is the link that was broken in the above page:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gary_posner/godccu.html


By the way, I do not mean to criticise, if anyone feels that way; I am simply curious, as I have been thinking a lot about this lately.

[Toriach]

I've looked for a thread like this, but didn't managed to find one...


Those of you who believe in magick as a means to affect distant events, how do you cope with the fact that, despite your possible personal observations, scientific tests have been done on various paranormal/occult/religious phenomena, such as prayer, distant healing, psychics etc. and in most cases shown that these actions have no effect (or where they showed to be plausible, results were within explicable deviations)? These studies have been done with people from diverse religions and spiritualities who have experience in their practices, and even though I have never specifically found one done with pagan magick, surely these phenomena should all be connected? (If not, feel free to explain.)

I understand there are some here who believe that believing in magick is related to a personal deity and is just about having faith, and that the deity might choose not to heed the magic ritual/prayer if being "put to the test" in a scientific study. However, I am asking about paranormal magick without such a system.

Furthermore, I am not asking about hypotheses for how magick can be possible, but simply about the empirical aspect.


Here are links to some studies for those who don't know them:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2546015/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/12/psychic-claims-james-randi-paranormal
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703%2805%2900649-6/abstract
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

Here is a general article about prayer tests:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1849/have-studies-proven-that-prayer-can-help-heal-the-sick
And here is the link that was broken in the above page:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gary_posner/godccu.html


By the way, I do not mean to criticise, if anyone feels that way; I am simply curious, as I have been thinking a lot about this lately.

Well speaking for myself as someone who does not truck with deities I feel that Magick is in a realm that all studies can tell us are statistics. In my experience Magick and it's practice can be so very personal, and there can be so many factors that could influence a spell. If a person knows they are being "tested" that could be an influence. The attitudes of the ones doing the test could also be a factor.

Add to that science and magick really in many ways are wildly divergent disciplines. There are aspects and techniques that might cross over, but ultimately science is about going from the outside in, and magick is about going from the inside out.

So in a test perhaps to a scientist having a test group of people who are roughly the "same" and a similar control group satisfies their beliefs. But in magick things like how much sleep a person has had, how sincerely they believe in what they are doing etc. etc. can be factors. And there may even be factors that magick users don't think of, and aren't measurable with current instrumentation.

So ultimately when I read about most of these tests I think, "Oh well that's interesting." And then I go on with my life.

[rawrTigress]

I think these tests are great. It shows that people are willing to think in new ways and explore new concepts. It helps bring universal awareness to the possibilities we have yet to discover.

I'm going to read through the articles when I can and let you know what I think <3

[Nilurra]

Add to that science and magick really in many ways are wildly divergent disciplines. There are aspects and techniques that might cross over, but ultimately science is about going from the outside in, and magick is about going from the inside out.
But if paranormal magick really exists, surely it should be theoretically possible to detect its outcomes (assuming correct techniques are used)? Of course the scientific method and magick rituals are two distinct disciplines, but the goal of the scientific method is to try to explain everything that exists.


So in a test perhaps to a scientist having a test group of people who are roughly the "same" and a similar control group satisfies their beliefs. But in magick things like how much sleep a person has had, how sincerely they believe in what they are doing etc. etc. can be factors.
Those things may indeed have an effect; however, scientists always try to keep all such relevant factors stable. If the subjects insist that this or that has to be done in order for their paranormal actions to work, scientists do take them into consideration.

I see that the subjects' knowledge of being tested might be a negative factor, but as for other psychological factors that the subjects don't think of themselves and that are not yet understood, if the external influences the practitioners have when normally performing their magick are replicated, there shouldn't be any issues (apart from the knowledge of being tested). And in many of the experiments, subjects act from their homes anyway.

[Toriach]

But if paranormal magick really exists, surely it should be theoretically possible to detect its outcomes (assuming correct techniques are used)? Of course the scientific method and magick rituals are two distinct disciplines, but the goal of the scientific method is to try to explain everything that exists.

Theoretically possible? Certainly. However as to correct techniques, they may (more likely probably) don't exist yet, and may not come to exist for a long while still.

As for the scientific method? Well it's a tool. And like any tool it is only as good as the person wielding it.

There are many who are content to keep a perpetually open mind, always testing, always testing. Believing nothing until proven but dismissing nothing until tested.

And then there are those who frankly have made up their minds. They do not seek to find out anything, but rather simply wish to have their conclusions confirmed. To their minds there is absolutely NOTHING that is beyond the current capacity of science to detect, so as a result anything that cannot be figured out right this instant must surely not be valid.


Those things may indeed have an effect; however, scientists always try to keep all such relevant factors stable. If the subjects insist that this or that has to be done in order for their paranormal actions to work, scientists do take them into consideration.

I see that the subjects' knowledge of being tested might be a negative factor, but as for other psychological factors that the subjects don't think of themselves and that are not yet understood, if the external influences the practitioners have when normally performing their magick are replicated, there shouldn't be any issues (apart from the knowledge of being tested). And in many of the experiments, subjects act from their homes anyway.

And I acknowledge and applaud those scientists operating with an open mind that do attempt to replicate the known to the best of their ability.

But it seems to me that this is where science and magick must of a need part ways. Because science can only truly concern itself with the known or the knowable and the measurable.

That is it's place, it's role, and it is a very important one.

Magick however is to large extent about the unknown, the unknowable, and the immeasurable.

There may be factors that are so subtle that right now there is no way to test for them. If everything is interconnected? Who is to say, perhaps there are things at play like sunspots, or wind currents, or any number of other factors subtle and gross that could mean a spell might succeed today, and fail tomorrow.

There may come a day when the two worlds are proven to be one. But until then it seems to me that science has better things to do with it's time than trying to prove or disprove magick, and that magick has better things to do with it's time than waiting for validation from science.

[Nilurra]

There may be factors that are so subtle that right now there is no way to test for them. If everything is interconnected? Who is to say, perhaps there are things at play like sunspots, or wind currents, or any number of other factors subtle and gross that could mean a spell might succeed today, and fail tomorrow.

I understand that there might be unknown factors affecting paranormal magick, such as solar spots for example, however, this would affect the practitioners whether they are being tested or not. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but surely the only difference between doing magick during a test and "normally" is that in the first case the practitioner knows that he/she is being tested, and that there may be other people (scientists) present who may not believe in the magick. Place or setting could also be a factor, but this is not important to all people of all spiritualities, and, as mentioned before, they are often in their normal places anyway.

We don't need to go on a micro scale and know all the fine psychological processes that are of yet unknown to see the difference in conditions between test and no test, as these will all be affected by macroscopic situations.

Besides, since they are actually conducting the experiments, the scientists can also be neutral-minded, and sometimes even hopeful, so the factor about nearby unbelievers is not a certain factor. Furthermore, some people have said that magick has worked for them even if they were skeptical themselves, and some have said that they performed magick with skeptical friends nearby, and seemingly the magick worked even there. Thus, the reason that being tested may destroy the magical effect does not always seem to hold true.

We can also say that maybe these people were mistaken and didn't actually experience paranormal magick. If this is the case, then how can we know what really is and what isn't paranormal magick in each case?

Anyway, as I explained, there doesn't seem to be any fundamental difference in conditions between test and no test, unless, as you mentioned before, the scientists don't heed the practitioners' wishes during the tests or wrongly wield the scientific method in some other way. Still, I think at least some of them have done these things right during the last 150 years of paranormal testing, which should then logically mean that at least some of the many experiments should have shown undisputed positive results.


There may come a day when the two worlds are proven to be one. But until then it seems to me that science has better things to do with it's time than trying to prove or disprove magick, and that magick has better things to do with it's time than waiting for validation from science.

We all need validation to believe something to be true. Some people experience that what they ask for in some spells comes true, and take that as evidence enough. However, I have so far always been able to explain apparent paranormal incidents as either coincidences, psychology, or the mind's affinity to link events. I crave scientific validation of outcomes because the scientific method is the best method available for validation, in my current opinion. Again though, I am interested in understanding other people's opinions.

[Garm]

IMO

Magick needs a huge pool of possible events to draw from, scientific experiments need to limit extra factors

It's less about affecting an outcome than selecting a potential future

The sceptics talk about selection bias in the interpertatation of events and they are quite right

They are just blissfully unaware as to how far interpertation is outcome

Let's say a curse apparently results in a car accident

Now on any given day there are billions of people having thousands of car accidents and an untold amount of people cursing others

The curse did not result in one more happening, all that happened was a selection of sorts

It's not going to be reliably repeatable, thankfully, and you certainly can not scale down the operative field to a workable lab size

[Shaedema]

how do you cope with the fact that, despite your possible personal observations, scientific tests have been done on various paranormal/occult/religious phenomena, such as prayer, distant healing, psychics etc. and in most cases shown that these actions have no effect (or where they showed to be plausible, results were within explicable deviations)?

The same way I deal with most things in life. I look at the information with an open mind and a lot of skepticism. Not because I doubt their intentions or think that such phenomena is impossible, but because such a test may reveal some small bit of information that I didn't have before.



These studies have been done with people from diverse religions and spiritualities who have experience in their practices, and even though I have never specifically found one done with pagan magick, surely these phenomena should all be connected?

Not necessarily. They could be separate and totally random events. Just because something claims to be paranormal or magical doesn't mean that they are connected to something else that makes the same claim.

It's kind of like telling a Christian (I'm not picking on them I swear, but they are generally my best example :toofless:) that in the end they are praying to the same entity that is Buddha.

Not to say that it couldn't be possible, but it isn't something I would consider scientifically sound either.

[Nilurra]

IMO

Magick needs a huge pool of possible events to draw from, scientific experiments need to limit extra factors

It's less about affecting an outcome than selecting a potential future

The sceptics talk about selection bias in the interpertatation of events and they are quite right

They are just blissfully unaware as to how far interpertation is outcome

Let's say a curse apparently results in a car accident

Now on any given day there are billions of people having thousands of car accidents and an untold amount of people cursing others

The curse did not result in one more happening, all that happened was a selection of sorts

It's not going to be reliably repeatable, thankfully, and you certainly can not scale down the operative field to a workable lab size

Interesting about the interpretations, but I don't quite follow. Surely selection bias does not occur in every single experiment? What do you mean by limiting extra factors?

Could you elaborate about the curse and car accident? Are you saying that if someone casts a curse on a specific car, then, if the curse is successful, this car will have an accident, but at the same time an entirely another car that otherwise would have had an accident will be spared?

Even if you call magick selection of possible futures, the outcomes will have the same goals, no? Whether you "select a future where event A happens" or "cause event A to happen", the outcome (if successful) will be the same, which is that event A happens, no matter if other things also happen (or don't happen) as a result. The scientific experiments try to measure this event A, as other possible results are irrelevant.

Some of the experiments having tested for paranormal phenomena involve many people praying for/healing/etc. a group of people. Do you mean that the reason we don't observe any significant results for these numerous experiments is that there was never a possible future where some of the sick people in the experiment could have become well? Or that the people praying/healing cancel each other out, despite all wanting to heal the group?

[Nilurra]

The same way I deal with most things in life. I look at the information with an open mind and a lot of skepticism. Not because I doubt their intentions or think that such phenomena is impossible, but because such a test may reveal some small bit of information that I didn't have before.
Skepticism and an open mind are somewhat opposite, but I see what you mean, I think, as I am a bit of both too. However, when it comes to these experiments, there have been many of them – maybe between 100 and 1000 – they have been done through many years, and the total amount of deviations was within what is expected. Furthermore, many of them were conducted by governments, and most governments would have wanted the phenomena to be true, due to reasons such as making people happy by showing prayer is true, utilising healing effects, or making use of psychic abilities in wars. If for instance a tobacco company had published an experiment concluding that tobacco lowers the risk for cancer, one could be skeptical, due to the company's benefits from such a result. On the other hand, when a government study is published, showing a result contrary to the government's desire (especially like the experiments done during the cold war, which were not published until later), there is less reason to be skeptical. Then again, I see that it's possible that all the experiments are conspiracies or similar, but this is rather unlikely.

Also, if you are skeptical of scientific experiments, why are you not skeptical of paranormal events too? Or, if you are, how do you balance this?


Not necessarily. They could be separate and totally random events. Just because something claims to be paranormal or magical doesn't mean that they are connected to something else that makes the same claim.

It's kind of like telling a Christian (I'm not picking on them I swear, but they are generally my best example :toofless:) that in the end they are praying to the same entity that is Buddha.

Not to say that it couldn't be possible, but it isn't something I would consider scientifically sound either.
That is fair enough. I would have liked to see some studies done specifically on magick.

[Vampiel]

And then there are those who frankly have made up their minds. They do not seek to find out anything, but rather simply wish to have their conclusions confirmed.



So ultimately when I read about most of these tests I think, "Oh well that's interesting." And then I go on with my life.

http://theinsanityreport.com/images/pot_kettle.jpg

[Vampiel]

IMO

Magick needs a huge pool of possible events to draw from, scientific experiments need to limit extra factors

It's less about affecting an outcome than selecting a potential future

The sceptics talk about selection bias in the interpertatation of events and they are quite right

They are just blissfully unaware as to how far interpertation is outcome

Let's say a curse apparently results in a car accident

Now on any given day there are billions of people having thousands of car accidents and an untold amount of people cursing others

The curse did not result in one more happening, all that happened was a selection of sorts

It's not going to be reliably repeatable, thankfully, and you certainly can not scale down the operative field to a workable lab size

Interesting discussion and I would like to add to this post.

Lets say a curse did not result in it's intent - or rather said "accident" never happened, you would justify it that it didn't work because of so-and-so factors. Just as you are doing by saying "all that happened was a selection of sorts".

[Vampiel]

Interesting about the interpretations, but I don't quite follow. Surely selection bias does not occur in every single experiment? What do you mean by limiting extra factors?

Could you elaborate about the curse and car accident? Are you saying that if someone casts a curse on a specific car, then, if the curse is successful, this car will have an accident, but at the same time an entirely another car that otherwise would have had an accident will be spared?

Even if you call magick selection of possible futures, the outcomes will have the same goals, no? Whether you "select a future where event A happens" or "cause event A to happen", the outcome (if successful) will be the same, which is that event A happens, no matter if other things also happen (or don't happen) as a result. The scientific experiments try to measure this event A, as other possible results are irrelevant.

Some of the experiments having tested for paranormal phenomena involve many people praying for/healing/etc. a group of people. Do you mean that the reason we don't observe any significant results for these numerous experiments is that there was never a possible future where some of the sick people in the experiment could have become well? Or that the people praying/healing cancel each other out, despite all wanting to heal the group?

Let me clarify from what I gathered from the post.

Garm was stating that someone made a curse - not on a car but a curse on a person. The end result of that curse Garm is connecting to they had a car accident. The point is that many car accidents happen, and their is no way you could connect it to the curse because it was from the scientific mind "a selection of sorts".

The problem with this is the scientific method takes all of these accounts into factor when determining the outcome.

In other words if someone makes a "curse" and something "bad" happens to them they would take that into account -- not brush it off as an accident.

This is also why it's a measurable result.

Despite arguments about sunspots, the moon, dirt, etc.. etc.. it's a measurable result of intent which is empirically provable by science objectively. You could argue that it's biased but if it was it would be junk science and disregarded by the scientific method because it's critical of itself taking any logic argument against itself (which is also why only peer reviewed results are given more credit).

Quite frankly from your crave of scientific validation - you are applying scientific logic where it doesn't apply, and will never have the validation you seek -- meaning science does not prove magick, and from the scientific studies you posted argues against it.

[Phoenix Blue]

http://theinsanityreport.com/images/pot_kettle.jpg
Knock it off.

[Nilurra]

Quite frankly from your crave of scientific validation - you are applying scientific logic where it doesn't apply, and will never have the validation you seek -- meaning science does not prove magick, and from the scientific studies you posted argues against it.
Yes, that is sort of the point; I am asking how other people argue for their belief in paranormal magick despite this. I am applying scientific logic in my questions, as that is how I see the world, and I am curious about how they explain them, but I expect that people will give answers presenting different philosophical perspectives.

I still don't quite understand what Garm meant with "a selection of sorts". What is being selected from what?

[Garm]

Yes, that is sort of the point; I am asking how other people argue for their belief in paranormal magick despite this. I am applying scientific logic in my questions, as that is how I see the world, and I am curious about how they explain them, but I expect that people will give answers presenting different philosophical perspectives.

I still don't quite understand what Garm meant with "a selection of sorts". What is being selected from what?

YES I AM INEXCUSABLY SLOW AND LAZY

HOWEVER....

These are concepts borrowed from Choas Magic which are in turn taken, or more correctly stolen from quantum physics

Here it's the idea of possible futures, potential outcomes are counted as something that can and do influence the actual outcome

For some reason the new physics is filled with notions that are easy to twist and reform in to magical paradigms

They sound scientific

But scientific experiments have to be quantifiable which is a problem

The thing about magic is that its cause and effect apparently run both ways in time, a lot of practitioners overlook that.

Best example is Crowleys story about doing a spell to recieve a letter and the letter arives the very next day. Only thing is though the letter is from Australia and would take a month to deliver.

So in this case it is not so much magic as precognition.

So doubtless a lot effective spells are cast on things that are going to happen or are happening anyway

Spells work because the spell caster is part of a system, as he/she effects things he/she is turn effected

This brings up something I call the "scenario" , the reality which is the subtext for the spell

What set of factors leads us to casting a spell at a specific time?

Is it not these factors which cause effect of the spell over and above the practicioners individual will?

This gets us in to the debate of free will versus destiny, a problem which is basically insoluable beyond saying that there is some unknown relationship between the two, a grey area. But it is from this grey area the most effective spells are cast.

Let's take the case of a faith healer

Spontaneous remissions do happen, and let's count them here as something more significant than the results of sugestion

The scenario here would be that of religious faith and it results in people who are about to have a spontaneous remission being sent to him about the time he does his "haliluea" shtick

He might not have that context to draw on if he is trying to repeat that experience in a lab

[The RedLion]

I love this post! I have to say it would be wonderful to have scientific evidence that magick exists but unfortunately I don't think we have the proper means to measure it. It wasn't so long ago we couldn't test DNA. Does that mean it didn't exist? Perhaps someday we will have a method of measuring it but as of now, I don't think the scientific method is functional. There are too many variables that can influence the outcome due to randomness of everyday events. That's not to say that magick isn't at work, but it is to say you can never know which events are random and which are supernatural. The belief in magick is a very personal think, much like the belief in love. You can say you love and display the necessary actions to prove it which would be sound to the scientific method, however only the individual knows if they love for real and there is no tool to measure that. One could argue that you can measure the brain, but the feeling of love and the feeling of addiction are virtually the same. While you may not love you may be addicted and there is no way to differentiate the two. The only truth is in the heart of the believer. Those who witness what magick has done for them. The outcomes they attribute to magick makes magick real because it does appear to work for many people. One thing is for certain, magick cannot be explained. Magick cannot be mapped. We cannot apply the rules and methods of the natural world to the supernatural. So the believers, keep believing and the skeptics, keep searching because that is the will of the world and that's what makes the world interesting.