BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Scientific method applied to Temple

 
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Wombat
20:03 / 18.03.06
Beyond an "If it works, use it" attitude is the scientific method a useful tool for dealing with the sort of things discussed on the temple?

I`ve been trying to design an experiment that is similar to the OCD thread but has a well defined, testable outcome. planned well in advance of anyone actually trying things.

My problem is that the odds of my workings are very small. But proving it to someone else is bloody difficult. ( For example I got a wave of weather/snail related coincidences from working on the OCD thread but as far as I`m concerned never managed to actually do anything... but dismissing something highly improbable out of hand would be un-scientific).

I`ll admit to using magic as a toy. There are often more practical solutions to the problems I come across. So it's just a hobby, just something I`m interested in rather than a lifestyle. But it bites me in the ass every so often. Can`t deny it does something. The problem is proving it to anyone but me. The only time I use magic "in anger" is when I have no alternative...and then results are few and far between.

Simply claiming results (which may be just in your head due to putting a lot of time and effort into getting something done) is not good enough. I don`t know what can be done about this.

So help design an experiment. I`m guessing it`s doomed to failure from the start. But lets try.
 
 
---
20:58 / 18.03.06
Beyond an "If it works, use it" attitude is the scientific method a useful tool for dealing with the sort of things discussed on the temple?

It's possibly 50% effective, because 'Magic' as you'll see if you stick to trying to learn it, doesn't always conform to logic.

My problem is that the odds of my workings are very small. But proving it to someone else is bloody difficult.

Why do you feel that you have to prove anything to someone else? You'll find that some people just will not be open to accepting it, no matter what you do. You shouldn't have to feel that you have to prove anything.

One thing you should probably start learning about and trying to get in touch with, is intuition, because it's something that you'll need to start working with, and it'll be one of the most important things you'll have as you progress. In fact, it'll become more and more important the further you choose to go.

I'll admit to using magic as a toy.

Well you might want to prepare for burnt fingers, because they will be burnt if you carry on using it 'as a toy'.
 
 
HCE
21:16 / 18.03.06
I don't think of science as a set of beliefs, but a set of practices, a way of approaching problems. How can it be harmful to somebody's magical practice to try to approach it in an orderly fashion? You don't particularly have to prove anything to anybody else, but wouldn't you like to know, for your benefit, just how did something the last time, so you can try to figure out how to get the same result? Or if you're doing the same thing and getting a different result, wouldn't you like to be able to figure out what's causing the difference?

The beauty of the scientific approach is that you don't have to believe in it for it to work. I could see how somebody might benefit from, for example, keeping detailed records of the circumstances in which they performed a particular ritual or working, and what results they observed afterward.

If you want to get into experimentation, rather, I'm guessing there will be a web resource somewhere on best practices for protocol design -- a few basic things that apply to all sorts of experiments. If I see one that I think looks good, I'll post it.
 
 
cusm
22:33 / 18.03.06
The Method of Science - the Aim of Religion

The idea has been suggested before...
 
 
Woodsurfer
00:38 / 19.03.06
"Science" is exactly what we should be using in our magickal pursuits -- in the original sense of the term as "knowing". The scientific method may not work per se because it is hard to control the "variables" of individual human consciousness but there is nothing to stop us from setting up experiments that can be duplicated by others and assesed for their validity.

A small group of friends from a large association of Wiccan/Western Magickal trad covens (based in Mid-Atlantic U.S.) have been experimenting with a variety of castings and energy workings in a deliberatly scientific manner for several years. We meet once a month and either try out workings others have designed or play with something one of the group has developed. All of us have a lot of experience with sensing and moving energy and, over time, we've developed a common vocabulary for describing our observations to one another. Once we're satisfied that we've compiled a valid set of observations, we present it to our elders for further verification.

Even though this kind of thing may pale when compared with "real" scientific research, it's to be remembered that the science of today started from similar roots. I think that such research will become vital as we move deeper into the Aquarian age as I believe the very nature of "changing consciousness at will" is undergoing change in response to larger forces.
 
 
zoemancer
21:44 / 19.03.06
I think that such research will become vital as we move deeper into the Aquarian age as I believe the very nature of "changing consciousness at will" is undergoing change in response to larger forces.

Wood -- I agree.
 
 
*
22:09 / 19.03.06
Once we're satisfied that we've compiled a valid set of observations, we present it to our elders for further verification.

Awesome. How do your elders proceed then?
 
 
Dead Megatron
23:12 / 19.03.06
I'm not sure it will work for one reason: I believe the scientific method is flawed as is.

I deleveloped this theory* after trying to work as a molecular biologist for a couple years (I eventually gave it up). In scientific method, as currently perceived, one must develop a Hypothesis, than proceed with experiments that can prove or disprove it and that can be repeated/verified independently.

The problem is: if one thinks of a Hypothesis beforehand, any observation following it will be tainted by the very existence of said Hypothesis (as the Incertainty Priciple states, in a loose interpretation of course) and any result obtained thereof (be it repeatable/verifiable or not) cannot be trusted.

In a way, it's kinda magic...

So, in my not so humble opinion, the only truly scientific method is the good old fashion "trial and error". This method has been considered innefective by modern science because it is costly, time-consuming, "unfocused" - which I find advantageous actually - and, quite frankly, dangerous (after all, thing do blow up if you mix them at random). And hardly repeatable/verifiable.

So, I get the feeling that, if you try mixing "magic" with "science" (as both of them are seen in the modern mind), they will highten the, well, unpredictabilities of each other, and our "perception" will have of the final result of the experiment will be the only (somewhat) trustworthy measurement of the whole thing.

Which brings us back to the initial problem: how to actually prove it?



* I say "develop", because I thought of it independently, but I've been told already by a cousin of mine who's a philosopher that there are people who have though of it before me - and, differently than me, they pursued the issue to the point of publishing papers on it. I don't know who exactly, since I never bothered to look it up. But I will now.
 
 
Woodsurfer
00:17 / 20.03.06
Awesome. How do your elders proceed then?

They will test it either with us or on their own. If it seems to have merit, it will be incorporated into our practices (show up in rituals, etc). This is actually how the body of knowledge of our tradition has been created from the beginning as each candidate for 2nd degree initiation must develop something that contributes to that body. I am working on my own such contribution and I can well imagine that it'll be picked apart for flawed assumptions or sloppy technique and sent back for revision. Oy!

I really don't think that the basic premises of the scientific method are that much in conflict with the premises of magick. The idea of trying things, changing a variable and trying again works for just about any problem. It's the core of my debugging technique for programming, for instance. If it appears that the tenets of the Uncertainty Principle pose a barrier to this, then perhaps we need to re-assess what this principle means when expanded into the context of magick. I don't really know without giving it a lot more thought.
 
 
Ganesh
06:15 / 20.03.06
So, in my not so humble opinion, the only truly scientific method is the good old fashion "trial and error".

"Depression, you say? Hmm... injection of potassium, maybe? No, I've never tried it before but hey ho. Good old-fashioned trial and error, eh? Nothing ventured, nothing gained!"

This could revolutionise my clinical practice.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:06 / 20.03.06
DM, that is one of the loosest interpretations of the Uncertainty Principle I have ever seen. You seem to be suggesting that the existance of a hypothesis in the mind of a researcher will affect the outcome of the experiment. If that's so, then how come every single experiment doesn't yeild a positive result? I really don't think you've given this anything like enough thought. I'm sorry, but dismissing the scientific method in its entirety in favour of "good old trial and error" is simply foolish.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
09:00 / 20.03.06
'If I expose a spider to radioactive material, and then get it to bite me (assuming it isn't either a)dead or b)at least feeling a bit too listless for that kind of thing by this point,) will I gain super-powers?'

Well it hasn't been tested has it? Where the hell's the research?

The world could be a very different place if only the scientific community would start thinking outside the box

Molecular biology's loss would appear to hsve been, y'know, something else's gain.
 
 
Dead Megatron
09:34 / 20.03.06
If that's so, then how come every single experiment doesn't yeild a positive result?

Because it's not the only thing influencing the result, of course. But the major problem is, if you have an idea of what you will find, you might miss a lot of other possible outcomes you were not thinking about. Thus, the final result, be it positive or not, will be biased.

My preference for trial and error is for the lack of a better alternative. And, yes, it is the loosest interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle. I thought I said that.

Ganesh, there's a difference between scientific experimentation and scientific practice. You don't prescribe drugs that have not been aproved by the proper bodies, do you?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:48 / 20.03.06
But Megsie, the drugs only get approved by the proper bodies after they have been subjected to trials using the scientific method to ascertain their saftey and effectiveness.
 
 
Dead Megatron
10:04 / 20.03.06
Yes! Funny, huh? I didn't say the scientific method is useless, only that it's flawed. It is used because it's practical, but it is not the best way to go. It's limiting. Who's to say there wouldn't be a better way, a better drug for instance, to treat the same disease? The scientific method is useful for every day resarch. But major break-throughs (as the one we're discussing here) are discouraged by it. It tends to tie you down to the current paradigm.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:11 / 20.03.06
So what do you suggest? Feeding cancer patients on random substances just in case it works?

"What are you giving the guy in 3b?"
"Birch-bark, green food colouring, and the fuzzy stuff that gets stuck in my dryer filter."
"And Mrs Jones in Ward F?"
"Oh, I've got her on rasberry jelly and earwigs."
"Way to escape the paradigm!"
 
 
Dead Megatron
10:29 / 20.03.06
Well, if the substance is not toxic, I can't see why not give it a try (of course, there's always the risk of making it worse too). But I was thinking, more specifically, to feed the lab rats* with cancer random substances.


* as me and my biologists buddies use to say, if you're born a white mouse in a lab, the best thing you do is commit suicide. It's less painful this way.
 
 
Dead Megatron
10:32 / 20.03.06
But, you know, sick patients are not the best example, since there's already thousands of years of experimentation on what substance cause what effect in the body (traditional medicine).

And you know what: traditional medicine was develope over the centuries mainly on a trial and error basis.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:19 / 20.03.06
The problem is: if one thinks of a Hypothesis beforehand, any observation following it will be tainted by the very existence of said Hypothesis (as the Incertainty Priciple states, in a loose interpretation of course) and any result obtained thereof (be it repeatable/verifiable or not) cannot be trusted.

Taken from the wiki on "Observer Effect".

In science, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing has on the phenomenon being observed. For example: observing an electron will change its path because the observing light or radiation contains enough energy to disturb it.

The example involving light to observe electrons is what the phrase was originally coined for. It's not the actual act of observing that changes the electron, but the light being used to observe it. What you're suggesting is conciousness over-riding local reality (which is, arguably, magic not science).

In physics, a more mundane observer effect can be the result of instruments that by necessity alter the state of what they measure in some manner. For instance, in electronics, ammeters and voltmeters usually need to be connected to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring. Likewise, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.

Finally, with regards to your mention of Uncertainty Principle.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is frequently, but incorrectly, confused with the "observer effect", as it relates precision in measurements related to to changes in velocity and position of certain particles relative to the perspective the observer takes on them.

That said, if your arguement does hold water (and I do not believe that to be so), then surely any intent to achieve a specific end will be tainted by observer effect? A magic user's workings are done to achieve a certain result. So the thought of the result itself will affect the outcome no matter how "un-scientific" they try to be.

Oh, and DM?

In a way, it's kinda magic...

It isn't. Unless you subscribe to the "Walking across the room is an act of magic." school of thought.
 
 
Dead Megatron
12:44 / 20.03.06
You're right, it's not, that was an unnecesary comment. I take it back

And you're also right about the Observer Effect/Uncertainty Principle. I was mistaking them both.

You're not being evil...
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:08 / 20.03.06
Tell that to the lab rats ;-)
 
 
Isadore
13:56 / 20.03.06
See, and my opinion on the Magic + Science thingummy is that magic and science are two different models of working with the Real World (tm) -- they work for different things. Science is great for what it does. Magic is Something Else Entirely and is also pretty great for what it does -- which is work with coincidence and the vagrities of mind and all the sorts of things that science really can't mess about with because it doesn't have any foundations for working with them (yet; statistical analysis comes as close to what magicians deal with as anything in science I've seen, although most statisticians would be horrified by magical methodology).
 
 
Ganesh
16:17 / 20.03.06
Ganesh, there's a difference between scientific experimentation and scientific practice. You don't prescribe drugs that have not been aproved by the proper bodies, do you?

Generally no, I prescribe drugs whose efficacy and safety has been established "by the proper bodies" ie. using an evidence base of research carried out using the scientific method. Clinical practice is therefore based on scientific experimentation in which the scientific method is central.

I'm not sure that you made a particular distinction, however, when you claimed that "the only truly scientific method is the good old fashioned 'trial and error'".
 
 
Dead Megatron
16:28 / 20.03.06
Yeah, again, I guess I exagerated a bit with that statement (Barbelith makes you learn, even when you're not trying to). But I do find T&E less "biased" than the usual metodology, which does work, or else it would have been abandoned ages ago. I only feel it limits the possibility for, well, serendipity.
 
 
illmatic
18:53 / 20.03.06
Celane sums it up. Perhaps we could add to your outline the way in which scientific testing deliberately works to excuse these variable.

Quants, elsewhere: Do we really need an experiment to prove magic works

Interesting question...
 
 
Isadore
21:34 / 20.03.06
I only feel it limits the possibility for, well, serendipity.

For what it's worth, when I worked in an engineering lab 'serendipity' was a term tossed about frequently. My boss/professor was of the firm opinion that great discoveries happen tangentally to your experiment, which means you have to keep your eyes open and look for anything odd.

Science can't make serendipity happen with any frequency, though, which is where magic has the advantage.
 
 
grant
00:12 / 21.03.06
I hope this clarifies more than it obscures, but trial and error *is* the scientific method -- it's what "repeatability" is there for. It's why experiments are called "trials." The "error" part involves eliminating things that don't work; that is, refining the hypothesis. I think you might be calling for more survey-type studies (looking over wide varieties of methods or whatever), but I'm not really sure.
 
 
Woodsurfer
00:43 / 21.03.06
I hesitate to add this since it's not something I fully understand -- it just seems to make sense to my wooly old brain:

We have touched on Uncertainty but the area of quantum mechanics that I believe holds the greatest possibility for an "explanation" of magick is the Everett Interpretation (good discussion from a more-or-less layman's perspective to be found here: THE EVERETT FAQ). In a nutshell: any event that has two or more possible outcomes gives rise to a forking of reality into "mutually unobservable but equally real worlds". It is strongly suggested that the very act of observation causes this split and one can extrapolate from this that for every toss of the dice there is a gambler rejoicing and several others lamenting in worlds (universes or whatever) that begin to diverge from that instant and continue to split with every subsequent moment of decision. I realize that this is old hat to many (most? all?) of you but felt it necessary to trot the whole thing out in order to take it to the next step.

So, we now have world after world being realized as decision points are reached and passed and it seems that the agent of these splits is the presence of a sentient observer. It seems too wild to contemplate but that's what the theory appears to be saying. When that tree falls in the forest and nobody's around, in some of those worlds, it really doesn't make a sound. As one who lives in a forest, I often wonder at the number of recently downed trees that I never heard a peep out of but that's another story.

Next comes magick. Let us whomp up a strong visualization and send out our intentions to (the Astral, the Gods, the Universe or whatever) and then sit back and wait for the results. What happens next? Perhaps the visualization floats up to Kether then back down the lightning flash into manifestation. Or perhaps, if we follow Everett, we open up a pathway to the world (or worlds) wherein the likelyhood of manifestion of that particular intention is much greater than all other worlds. The better we are at this, the more "ideal" the world we end up in. This is consistent with my observation of successful magickal workings: no laws of physics are violated -- things just go the way I want them to.

Thoughts?
 
 
Woodsurfer
01:00 / 21.03.06
Correction: Upon further reading, I see that my statement that the "the agent of these splits is the presence of a sentient observer" appears to be incorrect. This is part of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" and not the "Everett Interpretation". I don't think the rest of my hypothesis will fall down as a result of this error but I'll let you be the judge.
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:39 / 21.03.06
See, and my opinion on the Magic + Science thingummy is that magic and science are two different models of working with the Real World (tm)

I'm sorry, I don't accept that as an explanation. On another thread I asked what the difference is between magic and religion. The answer I got back from a lot of people was that magic can make tangible identifiable changes to the world. I'm obviously not talking fireballs and dragons, but even coincidental effects can registered.

If magic is more than a psychological/religious tool then it must be able to produce quantifiable effects. If it can do that then it must, by it's very nature, be measurable by the scientific method. If it can't, for whatever the reason, then it is to be expected that a lot of people will place magic in the same category as religion.

Science is not a force in opposition to magic/religion/supernature, the presence of a Bunsen burner doesn't counteract a Tarot reading (unless it's under the cards!). It is a way of understanding how the world works.

Woodsurfer, I've always found it hard to agree with the "many worlds" theories. Purely because of the entropic nature of the universe we exist in. Even if the creation of universes was limited to events observed by the concious mind then an unfathomable amount of universes would be created by one person laying in bed. That would be a literally infinite amount of energy being expended simply to create a nearly limitless quantity of universes where one person lays slightly differently in bed. It doesn't fit.
 
 
Woodsurfer
10:19 / 21.03.06
The FAQ linked to in my previous post addresses objections to both the seeming violation of conservation of energy and the feeling that it fails Ockham's Razor analysis. It does seem to defy logic but then so do some other wild ideas that we've subsequently come to accept. Relativistic effects for example.

There is also a "many-minds" variant that postulates "an infinity of separate minds or mental states be associated with each single brain state". Scientists don't like this one as "the role of the conscious observer is accorded special status" and it thus trespasses on the view that reality exists independent of any observer -- something I am not completely convinced of. Many-minds would seem to fit with Julian Barbour's idea of "platonia" -- a meta-reality in which all possibilities exist simultaneously and we navigate our way through them with our moving point of consciousness (at least, this is my distillation of what he's saying).

Many-worlds is apparently not a fringe hypothesis but a fairly broadly accepted view. This, in itself, kind of freaks me out and is, at the same time, quite exhilarating. Then again phlogiston had a lot of popular support for a while there . . .
 
 
Isadore
11:50 / 21.03.06
Science is not a force in opposition to magic/religion/supernature, the presence of a Bunsen burner doesn't counteract a Tarot reading (unless it's under the cards!). It is a way of understanding how the world works.

Well, I wasn't trying to say that magic and science are in opposition (I would hope they are not!), I was just trying to say that, as science is a way of understanding how the world works (I used the term 'model' for this concept in my post above), so is magic. It's a different way of understanding how the world works (note: not opposing! just different!), and so the criteria of value when doing science are not necessarily of value to magic, and vice versa.

Both do use some of the same techniques, such as keeping notes (journalling).
 
 
Quantum
16:55 / 21.03.06
If magic is more than a psychological/religious tool then it must be able to produce quantifiable effects. If it can do that then it must, by it's very nature, be measurable by the scientific method. Eeeeevil Scientologist

This is where I bring up Qualitative methodology as an applicable scientific method especially well suited to studying subjective phenomena like magic.
&, 'Quantifiable effects' is a broad category of things IMHO, and Religion could be said to have direct effects on the world (prayer? healing? miracles?).

Having said that, ES's point is fair, if results based magic works then you can test for it's efficacy. Either it worked or it didn't, and if you can't tell, what sort of magic is that? You don't need a white coat to determine success or failure, you don't need a mass spectrometer to spot the new job you sigilised for, There is nothing mysterious or even particularly unusual about the things that scientists do.
 
 
Sam T.
11:51 / 22.03.06
I'll say again what I said before: go for quantifiable results, if you really need proof. I remember Mordant was once talking about always getting the green 'No search' light when ze went out of the shop ze worked in.

Try for things that are that easy to verify, AND that may have pretty large implications. Mordant green light, for example, is pretty bad for our use, since it is just a light that may goes green or red. It's just RPK, and that's it, ze has influenced a random number generator. Useful, but not very impressive, and doesn't prove a thing regarding links to reality. Because this is what everybody is after here: Proof that your mind can indeed influence reality.

What I'm claiming to achieve: Getting traffic lights to go red (I'm a pedestrian) within 1-5 seconds of throwing a 'spell', with a success rate of about 70-80% on the first try. This has possibly far reaching consequences. Because for that particular light to go red, you must either:

1) Have some kind of influence on the whole previous traffic. If the light is somehow linked to some kind of traffic analysis central computer, that decide how best it could regulate traffic.

2) Have an effect backwards in time on your whole trajectory before arriving at that light. All the speedup or slowdown in your walk you can experience in a big city, were somehow influenced by your decision to change that light color at that precise moment. This way it was all timed to the effect that after you launched your 'spell', light color change, because, duh, it was going to change at that time and you somehow managed to arrive just now. (This can explains lights that have an independent timing).

3) Both of the above.

4) Some kind of precognition or unconscious knowledge which allows you to know when the light change and then encourage you to throw your spell. This can be more or less eliminated by a large number of heavy duty random try during a day. Unfortunately, you kind of wears of after a while, it's hard to stay that much focused so long.

In this example, you have results which are both quantifiable and objective. Please shot a hole through my methodology if you see one.

Other things you can try: get the subway to arrive in the station the precise moment you put a foot on the platform concrete, or within a few seconds. Have the subway doors close at the moment you want, after an unusually long pause in a station. Have people exit out of one way doors just when you need to enter inside. Anything that can gives out a yes/no answer within a short time, and that implies some kind of quite large reality modification can be used.

Obviously, time is of the essence in this kind of experiment, because, if you wait long enough, the result will always manifest. So you're either making it manifest at the time you choose or have some kind of precog, maybe both.
 
 
HCE
04:10 / 23.03.06
Why a stoplight? It's something that runs to a pattern, and people are extraordinarily good at picking out patterns without realizing they've done so.

How about a good old fashioned coin toss? The math'll be dead easy, anybody can duplicate it, and there are relatively few variables to control for. Toss a coin a couple of hundred times and see what you get.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply