I have just reread "Superstition," having read it perhaps once before and remembered nothing. The story seems to come down on the side of magic working although I am not sure. What it does present is several excellent examples of how people interpret evidence.
If a rain dance does not bring rain, then there was some counter-influence so a warlock investigates and sets things right until a dance does work. If a radio does not work, then there is something wrong and it can be fixed.
"In all honesty, it was entirely possible that counter-belief had a counter-effect; one of the Coven professors had entertained a hypothesis that this was why magic had worked so ill in the Dark Ages." (p. 247)
The Dark Ages, that is us.
"Every year the Utes make medicine to keep Earth on her orbit; and Earth stays there. Use your common sense." (pp. 252-253)
(A man spreads powder in Hyde Park, London. Asked why, he says, "To keep elephants away." "But there are no elephants in Hyde Park." "Yes. Good powder, isn't it?")
On rereading again, I see that the ending is ambiguous. The sceptic suggests that "magic" is telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, psychosomatics etc, with rituals necessary to focus mental powers, and that these phenomena can be scientifically investigated. The disagreement remains.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with the skepticism that skeptic had about magic. That said, there might be something real in a few things like telepathy or water dowsing.
Ad astra! Sean
"possible that counter-belief had a counter-effect"
Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
(I forget who I am quoting)
See tests of dowsing in which nobody in the room knows which box has the item the dowser is supposed to detect.
Something relevant to this discussion would be this essay.
https://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
In which the author argues that the most useful definition of supernatural would be:
"In short, I argue "naturalism" means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, "supernaturalism" means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things."
He doesn't believe in the supernatural, but in the course of the essay tells us what sort of evidence would convince him it exists.
He uses a lot of popular fiction to illustrate the sort of supernatural things that if they occurred in real life could be investigated scientifically & so prove the supernatural to exist.
Kaor, Jim!
Your comments suggested a mini-project to me: reread Anderson's "A Chapter of Revelation." Because the miracle in that story was given in such a way that scientists investigating it could possibly gain some empirically provable insights about God and the supernatural. If I'm recalling it correctly!
Dang, and I'm also reading THE KING IN YELLOW!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment