From magic to science to technlogy - Another view

[dfreybur]

http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/interesting-trick.23982/#post-134320

In the General Freemasonry sub-forum brother pointwithinacircle2 wrote -

"The difference between Magic and Science is Knowledge, when you do not know how something works it seems like Magic."

There are assorted well know quotes that are related like "Any sufficiently advanced technlogy is indistinguishable from magic" and "Any sufficiently advanced technlogy is indistinguishable from a rigged demo".

I suggest that magic means - Attempts to do what works with an eventual tend towards ceremonies to repeat the original working event. Notice that parlor magic tends to work by tricking the brain into making incorrect conclusions about events. The best parlor magic exploits subtle errors in our perceptual systems.

I suggest that science means - Attempts to do what works by understanding cause and effect to make the event repeatable and to supply explanations that can be used to expand the principle into other tasks that work repeatedly.

Of course there is far more to the definition of either than that, but I think it's useful to consider those as starting points.

I figure people want to do stuff that works and over the ages there was an evolution in how to go about doing that. Magic is what people called the disorganized system used before philosophy and logic were invented by the Greeks. Science is a system devised in the late Renaissance for how to advance knowledge by exploiting human desire for fame. Technlogy is a system that was built by applying science to the mechanical arts.

Long ago some genius figured out the magic of knots and started making snared to catch small game. Much less risky than attacking a mastadon or aurroc with a spear! Best of all tying knots became a teachable skill. It became a craft.

Then another genius figured out that many knots could make a net that could be used to catch fish and to carry around a lot of objects using a lot less material than a leather bag.

Then another genius figured out that with a lot of strings and a lot of knots we could make a flexible material so tightly packed that the strings touched, and cloth was invented.

Now we own clothes and we don't think of it as magical or scientific. Few even think of clothes as technology.

Masonry teaches this system. Inspiration from the divine. Magic from intuition. Knowledge from the liberal arts and sciences. Technology from crafts built on the model of stone masonry. All working in society at one level and in our heads and harts at another level.

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

I waited 24 hours before replying to this post, but no one else wanted to go first.

This is an interesting and well thought out post. There are several ideas in it that I like and several that I have never heard put forth before. I like your definitions of Science and Magic as both being about doing what works, one with understanding and one without. That seems right to me.

I would however like to play Devil's Advocate (a role I seem to enjoy) in regard to the idea of the evolution from magic to science to technology. I see the possibility that this happened differently, and indeed continues to happen to this day.

I think that magic is the explanation for the profane, the people on the outside. They have, for whatever reason, not earned a position where they are trusted with truth. Let us remember that knowledge is a powerful weapon, it should not be given to the unprepared, the unobligated, the untrustworthy, the weak, or the easily influenced. This answer is appropriate because they have not done the work necessary to become worthy of the truth. So when a simple farmer or herdsman asks the builder how he stacks the stone in cathedral so tall he is told "it is magic" or perhaps "we imbued the stones with the power of God". Both are magical answers.

Then we have the EA. He is given some small bit of the truth proportionate to his need. When he asks how such a tall cathedral is built he is told "It is in the way we square the stones and stack them perpendicular". This is a true but partial answer, that is appropriate to his station and his task. This might be called a technical answer, technically true but insufficient to build a cathedral. When the EA has mastered all the technical lessons he is prepared to be made a FC.

When the FC asks how such a beautiful arch was built in the cathedral his Master might say "Examine the seams between the stones of the arch. See that if you were to draw a line extending from each seam toward the center they would all meet in the place." When you begin drawing lines to an imaginary point in space you are doing Geometry. This would be a Geometrical answer. When the FC has learned all the lessons of Geometry he has earned his position as a MM.

One of the things I like about this idea is that it explains why there is so much magical thinking in the world today. It says that magical thinking isn't a remnant of our distant past. It is reborn in every generation.

 

[dfreybur]

This is an interesting and well thought out post.

Thanks brother.

[/QUOTE]There are several ideas in it that I like and several that I have never heard put forth before. I like your definitions of Science and Magic as both being about doing what works, one with understanding and one without. That seems right to me.[/QUOTE]

One of my motivations is a conflict that seems to happen in science discussions in other forums. Some folks want to define science as that which works and mystical as that which does not work, but that's not how mystical has been historically used. The scientific method contains a step that is at times deeply mystical - Formulate a hypothesis.

Much of science is puzzle solving to match mathematical models to the observed data and then mesh together mathematical models. Saying mathematics is a mystical process meets a ton of resistance from the folks who want mystical to be defined as that which does not work, but actual mathematicians often don't have a problem with the idea. The best mathematicians have often been very deep mystics, some as deep as Newton.

Some of science is discovery. In a flash seeing pattern where others have seen noise. Few or none understand how this process works or how to foster it, so it fits how I use magic. Notice that I'm bouncing back and forth between magic and mysticism - This is a sign that my thinking on the topic is incomplete and evolving.

This is why I suggest that understanding is the mystical difference between magic and science.

I would however like to play Devil's Advocate (a role I seem to enjoy) in regard to the idea of the evolution from magic to science to technology. I see the possibility that this happened differently, and indeed continues to happen to this day.

Other aspects, corrections, alternatives. Most excellent.

I think that magic is the explanation for the profane, the people on the outside. They have, for whatever reason, not earned a position where they are trusted with truth. Let us remember that knowledge is a powerful weapon, it should not be given to the unprepared, the unobligated, the untrustworthy, the weak, or the easily influenced. This answer is appropriate because they have not done the work necessary to become worthy of the truth. So when a simple farmer or herdsman asks the builder how he stacks the stone in cathedral so tall he is told "it is magic" or perhaps "we imbued the stones with the power of God". Both are magical answers.

That works well with the popular parlance. There exist people who treat science as if it were a revealed religion and scientists as a priesthood. Of course the people who think like that are the ones who failed or forgot elementary school science classes and who do very poorly on "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader".

One of the features of the scientific method is credit goes to the first to publish. This makes progress "public" at least among the so-called priesthood of scientists. It also ratchets progress as much fewer ideas are lost. but the idea drew a lot of anger from the mystics of the transition era. Isaac Newton in particular declared feud against everyone but especially against Hook who published his works. Which is strange because Hook as as close to a friend as Newton had, but that's a topic of history.

Thing is now you can think there's an elite and a not-elite but all it takes is going ahead and learning to become an elite. Huh, second degree instructions. Before the science conversion there were insider/outsider systems as depicted in our degrees. Architecture was one such system that can now be read about in books thanks to the break with secrecy.

When the FC has learned all the lessons of Geometry he has earned his position as a MM.

Arguably some of the secrets of a Master Mason are now taught in high school geometry - Multiple ways to construct a square using a straight edge (plumb or level) and a compass. The S&C has this as one of its many meanings.

One of the things I like about this idea is that it explains why there is so much magical thinking in the world today. It says that magical thinking isn't a remnant of our distant past. It is reborn in every generation.

I remember an episode if Big Bang Theory. The guys were driving and the car broke down. Does anyone know about internal combustion engines? The guys started lectures on the principles. Okay, does anyone know how to fix one? The guys went silent and looked embarrassed.

Items as simple as a car's engineer are viewed by many as magic.

If magic is stuff that works and that I don't understand, there's a ton of magic in the world. If magic is stuff that works and that no one understands, there's still magic in the world just a lot less. Including stunts of parlor magic that trick the eye that are understood by scientists who specialize in errors in perception. Parlor magic is engineering really, not magic.

There remain mysteries in the world that no one really understands. Many are about human nature. Let's call these bits of magic some buzzword like the hidden mysteries ...

 

[pointwithinacircle2]

One of my motivations is a conflict that seems to happen in science discussions in other forums. Some folks want to define science as that which works and mystical as that which does not work, but that's not how mystical has been historically used. The scientific method contains a step that is at times deeply mystical - Formulate a hypothesis.

I once had the occasion to make some friends who identified as Wiccans. For two years I was present at their weekly gatherings. Their rituals and prayers were different than mine. As I sat studying and learning I noticed that, while their forms were different than mine, what they were doing was essentially similar to my (more mainstream) religious practices. They were creating a sacred space, focusing their energies toward what they desired, and requesting assistance from a power greater than themselves. There was an opening ritual, a time for teaching, discussion and supporting each other, and a closing ritual. If I were to formulate a hypothesis from this experience it would be that what you do seems to have a greater effect on the outcome of human experience than what you call it.

Some of science is discovery. In a flash seeing pattern where others have seen noise. Few or none understand how this process works or how to foster it, so it fits how I use magic. Notice that I'm bouncing back and forth between magic and mysticism - This is a sign that my thinking on the topic is incomplete and evolving. This is why I suggest that understanding is the mystical difference between magic and science.

One of my favorite quotes is "The purpose of ritual is to allow those who do not understand the truth to pass the truth on until it reaches someone who can to understand it." This fits with the idea of "In a flash seeing pattern where others have seen noise". For years in Masonry I knew that there was more that I just didn't get. So I began picking up bits and pieces of the puzzle that seemed right to me and pondering how they fit together. Occasionally something would click and I would think "That's it, I get it". Then I would see some other bits that seemed right and think "I wonder how those fit?". It was like playing with a Rubik's cube. You start out lining up a few parts, then a side, and suddenly you make a few twists and the whole cube falls into place. When it falls into place all the work you put into preparing the cube seems worthwhile.

If magic is stuff that works and that I don't understand, there's a ton of magic in the world. If magic is stuff that works and that no one understands, there's still magic in the world just a lot less.

It seems to me that this is one of those places where we are going to have start defining our terms. Specifically, we need to talk about how to define the word 'understanding'. One view says that understanding means "I have an explanation", therefore it is not magic. Interestingly it does not matter if my explanation is correct, merely that I have one. Why is that? Why does an incorrect explanation allow me to do the work? It seems an that explanation is required by one of the parts of the mind so that it will work in harmony with the other parts. In performing this single function, this harmonizing of the parts of the self, belief seems be the key. Belief seems to perform this function just as well whether it is based on Magic or Knowledge.

Time to stop stirring the pot for now.

 

[Brother JC]

I wrote a paper for my SRICF Collegium on the "Elements of Ritual." It details much of what you've discovered; ritual in nearly all forms has a common formula. I'm supposed to be expanding it for publication in the Journal of the Masonic Society, but life keeps getting in my way. *rolleyes*