Talk:Magic (supernatural)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Why no spells?

Ok. I'm new and I was wondering why there are no spells ? Darkogome (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Darkgome, I don`t know why no spells are included here... ~Daughter-of-Nimueh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daughter-of-Nimueh (talk • contribs) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What, like wingardium leviosa? If you know of any verifiably working spells I'd love to hear about them. 24.130.50.64 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Magic in christianity

I dont know who removed my example of the use of magic in christianity from the section on "magic in christianity" which has so far included no exanples of magic in christianity, but I have noticed lately that far too many of my contributions have been removed by what I can only call vandalism. The supposed reason for removing this fix to a glaring ommission was some BS about needing an RS. I have no clue what an RS is, but I can assure you that transubstantiation is a magical act, and it is "widely accepted" that this takes place in the roman catholic canon. Ergo, you have removed -trashed- my contribution and removed the only statement on magic in christianity in the article on magic in christianity.

I can only assume that whereas all other religions are viewed as "wierd" by christians, and as they also view magic as "wierd", they dont want to tarnish their own religion as they tarnish others by using the word "magic" in association with it. OK. So Christianity uses no magic and other religions do. You have succcessfullly whitewashed this page and I mean WHITE washed it, by your vandalism. So be it. I'm not going to bother with wikipedia anymore. I have had it with people dumping any chages I make without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.115.195 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing a view point in this?

To wit, where is the sceptical view of magic in this article?

I'm reposting Fuzzypeg's link for adequate framing here : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Principles

I did an unscientific sampling of other wiki articles (ghosts, god, telekinesis, and a sample religion (Christian Science), and I found the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts#Skeptical_analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Existence_of_God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekinesis#Skepticism_and_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Medical_Controversies

In short, all four of them gave a voice to the critics of the paranormal. Shouldn't there be something similar here? Tall Dan 03:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is full of skeptical viewpoint, after all, a lot of the article is about Frazer's view, and if you've read frazer's view, it was basically written from the viewpoint that magick is not real, and people that believe in it are delusional because they can't see reality logically. I'd say there's plenty of skepticism here.

--Arkayne Magii 16:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read Frazer's view, or at least sentences we have on him there. But... he said that in 1911, and we don't seem to have anyone from the scientific or skeptical community in there. Further, that whole section is "Anthropological and psychological origins" not "Skepticism and controversy". As far as I can tell from our Framing advice, we aren't supposed to have skepticism through out the entire article. The article is about magic, let it be about magic. But let there be a sub-heading somewhere that states outright there is controversy, and goes over what the controversy is. Tall Dan 17:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tall Dan, if you would like to add in appropriate material along these lines, go for it. I suspect the main reason there isn't more material along these lines is that serious scientific rebuttals of magical theory are very rare. Specific paranormal effects such as telekinesis, telepathy, or homeopathic treatment are obvious contenders for scientific testing, since they predict a very specific physical or biological effect that should be measurable and repeatable. However magic in the broad sense doesn't lend itself very well to scientific testing, since results can occur in such a wide variety of ways, and normally take the easiest, least miraculous route to manifestation. If, for instance, a magician performs magic to receive money, banknotes don't (normally) materialise out of thin air. Rather, say, an old long-forgotten loan is repaid, or something like that. And many magical effects could be explained psychologically as extreme cases of placebo effect or auto-suggestion. Also, designing any decent experiment would require the scientist to steep themselves in magical theory, something most scientists are both unwilling and unequipped to do.

For instance a long term experiment regarding Astrology finished a couple of years ago. It had thousands of subjects, and was run for several years, and showed no significant correlation between supposed astrological predictors and life events. The conclusion was that Astrology doesn't work. However within the magical community this came as no surprise: of course the experiment would fail, since it effectively removed any opportunity for any synchronicity to occur: astrology requires the alignment not only of the planets and the moment of a person's birth, but also of the moment that the person consults their astrologer and the events surrounding their decision to do so. By removing the opportunity for personal fate to play a role in determining how and when and from whom the test subjects had their fates foretold, synchronicity was simultaneously removed. Or rather, any synchronicity in action was more tied to the fates of the scientists conducting the experiment. Without getting too technical, suffice it to say that that experiment was designed based on a very naive model of what astrology is and how it works; unsurprising considering the designers were expert scientists but not expert astrologers or expert magicians.

I haven't actively searched for scientific treatments of magic, but in the hundreds of New Scientist issues I've skimmed through I've never come across such a thing. I know there are certain findings in the field of cognition that suggest mechanisms for superstition to arise, but these would be best presented in the Superstition article (of course). If you find anything suitable for this article you are very welcome to add it. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that most things should be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism, but the majority of people that edit this article with a "scientific" scepticism end up vandalizing the article, filling it full of harmful negative POV, changing the entire article to say "Magic is not real, and those who practice it are delusional, deranged, or con artists." I put that in quotes because it is almost word for word the various changes towards this POV within this article that I have seen in the past. This is why I defend so heartily the NPOV within the articles dealing with magic(k), and seriously question people who want to add the terms "supposed", "alleged", etc. into the article.

I think that adding a "skeptical and controversial" section is fine, so long as it is balanced. Remember, doing this could easily end up being the same as adding a "Magick is Real" section, but under the guise of skepticism and doubt. So anything that goes into such a section must add something to the article itself, rather than simply being a POV. In other words, the NPOV of such a section would have to be very closely monitored because of the ease of which POV could be implied.

A great example of POV being quietly brought into this article is under the external links section, wherein each link leads to a page about magick by an obviously biased source, and there are absolutely no links to pages or groups that support magick in a positive way. (a point I have brought up before.)

I agree that external links should add to the article and be encyclopedic in nature, but there are plenty of resources out there of an encyclopedic nature that show magick in a neutral and/or positive light without implied bias against it, and some of these links have been on the page in the past, but slowly, all of these links have dissapeared, leaving only those that link to biased groups and information.

This is exactly the sort of thing I worry about when someone suggests "adding skepticism" to the article. The question really is, does this information I have found reflect a healthy skepticism of Magic, or does it instead imply bias and negative POV?

Just a few things to think about.

--Arkayne Magii 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see how a flat statement of "Magic isn't real" would be hopelessly POV, and also impossible to prove. That comment about needing to understand Magic in order to test it isn't true however. Testing and evaluation normally come long before understanding. I don't need to understand electricity to put a key in a light socket. If someone comes up with a key-socket test for magic then there will be a dozen conflicting theories about it in a week and dozens of scientists fighting over a Noble prize in 10 years.

Would it be relevent to bring up the Randi challenge? 1 Million dollars is a lot of money, but no one is rushing forward to claim it. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html Tall Dan 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, an article came out last month showing that the "Randi Challenge" was biased in that in most cases, the applicants for this "challenge" were being judged in the negative, saying that their claims were false while at the same time, none of their evedence was ever even looked at. Someone actually caught him doing this; claiming illigitimacy of paranormal claims without even looking at the evidence. It seems that "The Amazing Randi" of the Randi challenge is so completely biased that the Randi challenge is not in any way a good measure of the legitimacy of a paranormal event. This actually made headline news. It's no wonder no one has ever won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkayne Magii (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the Randi challenge, but I don't recall it being specifically aimed at "magic"... Whatever. And perhaps my point above got lost in my extended waffle, but the main point was that such studies are very rare. I was just surmising why that might be... But go ahead, find the studies, add them to the article, and we'll figure out how to arrange them. Fuzzypeg ☻ 07:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the issue here has nothing to do with skepticism regarding the topic. As an encyclopedic entry, the goal is to offer a description of the phenomenon using methodological distance. Thus, the relevant questions are: what is it? who practices it? what is its history? what are the socio-cultural contexts in which it exists? etc. etc. Therefore, it is neither about proving, nor disproving that magic exists. This is basic historical/anthropological method.

We know that certain things do exist though: we know that people across the globe practice magic (these people exist), we know that this practice has a long history (this practice exists), we know that in Europe and the Middle East, magical systems had a great influence on the development of scientific thought (this influence exists). An encyclopedic entry should make the best effort to describe these things as accurately as possible. Because it is an encyclopedia, and not a how-to book on magic, I don't think it is not necessary for the editors to ensure that "both sides" are fairly represented regarding whether or not magical practices actually work. Why? Because that is not the point of the article, it is not about the efficacy of magic, it is about an encylcopedic description of the phenomenon. Thus, the question of efficacy is not relevant in this context.

As an example of the style of writing refered to when I say "methodological distance," here are two books that deal with the European Witchcraft trials:

Carlo Ginzburg, The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century ISBN 0801843863
Briggs, Robin, Witches and Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft ISBN 0140144382

In both of these texts, the authors never had to tell the reader that either they did or did not believe in magic, nor did they have to include sceptical discussions about its efficacy. If they had it would have been laughable. Instead, there job as scholars was to report on what the beliefs were, and in these contexts, offer explanations as to why the trials were so severe in some areas as opposed to others. These are two highly regarded books on the subject and the quality of their work is why these books are used in graduate seminars on the subject of Medieval European witchcraft and the resulting trials. They are also representative of the approach we should take while writing a wikipedia article.

Please let's keep the content and discussion of magic related to these issues. {deleted irrelevant comment} And on a side note, can we start focusing on cleaning up the organization and adding some citations and references. Looking forward to working with you. GooferMan 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple as this - science is the same where ever it 'happens', e.g. 4 + 5 always equals 9. But it seems that every occult art (and indeed, religion) varies from region to region. It is the invention of man, not the observation. Thusly, they are only as real as we make them, unlike science which is (seemingly) universal. It does'nt matter who is right or wrong, we just need to find what works for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.227.2 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some folks don't quite understand, which is sad. So I will try: If magic was real, it would cease being magic and instead become science. If a system were to exists where these thigns were possible, we would be able to quantify it. As such, Magic cant exist outside of imagination, because any proof of it that was good enough to prove it would make magic into a predictable, testable system -- a scientific field. If magic has rules, it ceases to be magic. if it doesnt have rules or it has a functioning not supported by observation, logic and testing, then it doesnt matter because no one can prove it exists and thus no sources could ever be cited, because it would be unverifiable, and thus inappropriate for wikipedia. Im pretty sure theres an article about this phenomenon somewhere on wikipedia. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Section on Islamic Magic

I expanded the section on Islamic magic. One of the things that I know will come up is the difference between magic and sorcery. That's something that I think we need more discussion on. I noticed that magic and sorcery are treated as the same in this article. However, most anthropological language reserves the term sorcery for negative forms of magic. That's the way my sources used it and I've replicated that here. However, this makes the terms a bit ambiguous in how we are using them in the article. Any thoughts on where to go with this? The reason I ask is that many cultures have a distinction between negative and positive forms of magic. Anthropologists usually keep that distinction by using sorcery or witchcraft as negative forms. At the very least I think there needs to be a discussion in the early stages of the article relating to the various ways these terms are applied culturally. At least acknowledging the negative connotation for some uses.GooferMan 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone inserted the following into the article which I deleted:

(This part of the article is full of wrong informations.for example-in this article ,Fatima(R), the daughter of Prophet Mohammad(SM)is mentioned as his wife!!,(Nauzubillah!).So You can understand how reliable this writing is!!Whoever wrote this article did not know what he was writing or he was misleading people by providing misinterpreted, distorted informations with a bad intention.This type of activity is a direct attempt to cover the truth with the lies,and preaching lies to create misunderstanding about Islam among people.People must be careful about the information pollution and anybody who is seeking true knowldge should find a pure source, If you want to know what Islam say about what, you must nread Holy Quran.Browsing internet,wikipedia or any other thing is no option,Because finding truth is serious business.Thank you)

Yes, I made an error by calling Fatima, Muhammad's wife. That error was corrected. However, making this error, which was an oversight and not a lack of knowledge of Islam on my part, does not constitute calling the facts of the entire section into question. To do that, we must discuss or challenge the sources that I have used. It is a fact that magic exists in Islamic society, just as it has in Judaism and Christianity. It is a fact, that Muslim practitioners of magic have sought to justify their practices as "approved" and morally right. Does this mean that orthdox legal opinions agree? No, it does not, and I think that I made that clear in the section. If I did not, please continue this discussion on the talk pages.GooferMan 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add to Goofer's comments by reminding our editors to assume good faith. If his edits can be put down to a simple error rather than an anti-Muslim conspiracy, then surely that's a more obvious conclusion. This encyclopedia is a work in progress, and at any point in time it will contain many thousands of errors. If you spot one, then help us clean it up, rather than accuse us of having the morals of George Bush. :) Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Developed Introductory Paragraph

I deleted the following sentence: "Magic and sorcery are the influencing of events, objects, people, and physical phenomena by mystical, paranormal or supernatural means."

And developed the introduction more fully. I also deleted the first citation, regarding Gardner's statement: "Belief in magic and the efficacy of various magical practices is under pressure from either organised monotheistic religions or from scepticism about the reality of magic, and the ascendancy of scientism" . This is an obvious observation and doesn't need attribution. To clarify the issue though, I added some explanatory material to the footnotes. GooferMan 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification section "middle ages"

This sentence: "Medieval authors, under the control of the Church, confined their magic to compilations of wonderlore and collections of spells" needs citation and clarification. What is this "wonderlore" and was this time frame exactly limited to just this and collecting spells? Did this period not have any development of thought? We need to back this up with a solid reference.

The sentence: "There were other, officially proscribed varieties of Christianized magic" needs clarification and citation. In what ways were these varieties of magic "proscribed?" Who engaged in them and who proscribed them, etc? The sentence begs more questions than the section provides answers for.

The sentence: "In the 13th century, astrology had some great names: in England Johannes de Sacrobosco, in Europe the Italian Guido Bonatti from Forlì" needs more discussing these individuals. Otherwise, it's just a dangling sentence, just teasing the reader with ever so slightly revealing the information. GooferMan 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

THE simble of the gosts

the simble is when youspeak with the gosts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.19.190.93 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Now why didn't I think of that? Fuzzypeg ☻ 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

White/black magic and elements/chaos

I just removed a brief section that had been added about white and black magic. I believe these have already been covered in this article, and the new section read like an essay containing original research. In particular it characterised magic utilising the elements as white (good), and chaos magic as black. This is a very odd distinction to make, and one which in my experience doesn't correspond with reality. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

From some reading experience this can be a pretty fraught subject, arguments over black and white go back and forth, and worse chaos uses the colour black as its symbol too - but it is not simply 'black' magic. Chaos doesn't see itself as evil directly though many adherents might tend towards that path, it doesn't help that it is often closely connected with Satanism either. - Though of course many Satanists don't see themselves as evil either. As a one time Satanist myself I would regard Jehovah as pretty 'evil', and Satan as the first rebel against him as a controversial symbol of good. - (democracy itself often only begins with rebellion against a king).

Chaos ironically often connects itself more heavily with science, particularly either Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Magically science itself is also often represented by black, it is associated with the Tarot symbol of the Magician (whose description is very similar to a scientist) and black is his colour. (Black being the colour of the unexplored and mystery and mysticism).

A good example of the problem is the upright pentagram in circle, which was once a traditional symbol of both good and evil magic - but has now been largely appropriated by the 'white' side. La Vey has a great deal to answer for in this area as well of course.

Sorry for pontificating, since this only has the status of debate or research its probably not includable in the article. Lucien86 (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I will keep this short so as not to annoy anyone. I would personally like to thank all of the editors who have contributed to the Magic (Paranormal) article recently, and I must say that you have all done a fine job and produced a very good encyclopedic article on the subject - One that I very much enjoyed reading. I applaud your hard work and dilligence! Arkayne Magii (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree it looks much better than it used to. It's still not great though, and may need further ToC tweaks to avoid redundancies. But it certainly fulfills its function of giving a decent overview of the topic. dab (𒁳) 08:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Pullet NOT about conjuring demons

I am once again editting the blurb on the Black Pullet, owing to the mischaracterization of the text as being based on compelling demons to do one's bidding. Evidently, some people have confused the Black Pullet with the Goetia. Please, do not revert.24.239.162.98 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

British Isles part of Europe?

I didn't claim that the British Isles are not part of Europe, merely that this designation depends on point of view and it's probably safer to make this explicit in the article. Europe has two basic meanings: 'Continental' Europe, in which the British Isles are often not included, since they are not actually part of the continent, and the European Union, of which both the UK and Ireland are members. See Europe#Definition for more info. Because the sentence in question is talking about historical Europe (and the British Isles), the modern political designation of the term 'Europe' is clearly not intended, and we are left with the geographical one.

Before the formation of the EU it was common for British residents to use the term 'Europe' synonymously with 'the Continent', to indicate continental Europe as opposed to the British Isles.

I may possibly have misunderstood you, though. If, by mentioning "OR", you mean that you're not convinced that the inhabitants of the ancient British Isles pursued shamanistic contact with the spirit-world, good authors to read would be Keith Thomas or Emma Wilby. I can supply refs if you wish. Fuzzypeg ★ 00:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, re-reading your comment I see I didn't misunderstand you. Fuzzypeg ★ 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia, and not the British version of an encyclopedia. Referring to "Europe and the British Isles" is parochial and incorrect in the context of a global english-language encyclopedia. In addition, the term "British Isles" is a geographical term and (according to discussions on Talk:British Isles) should be used for geographical articles. Since this is primarily a "cultural" article, it is probably best to use geopolitical terms such as "Britain and Ireland" if you wish to specifically refer to these places. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that the English language has largely been shaped by English points of view and English sensibilities. While not being from the British Isles, I am an English speaker, and where I come from "Europe" is seen as a different place to "Britain". That distinction is not limited to British Isles residents! The problem with using geopolitical terms when discussing history is that political boundaries change so often, and you have to be careful to choose the terms appropriate to the period. Using "Europe" in the sense of "European Union" when you're discussing anything prior to 1993 is clearly wrong.

The term "Europe" is imprecise, therefore it is not wrong to just say "Europe", and it is equally not wrong to say "Europe and the British Isles". It is, however, clearer to say the latter.

Anyway, This is a trifling point and I'm not going to bother arguing any further. Do what you want. Fuzzypeg ★ 23:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support references include explicit mentionings of the British Isles. The term "Europe" as mentioned, has strong indications of exclusion of the UK in many areas. As such, it is worth while to mention that one is also speaking of British culture as well and not merely continental. In fact, perhaps one should avoid referencing "Europe" at all, and merely speak of the West.24.239.162.198 (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What about Buddhism?

Nothing to be said?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.76 (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs substantial work done in lots of respects. If you think something could/should be added about buddhism, who better than you to do it? Fuzzypeg ★ 04:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Adequate framing

There has been a bit of edit warring recently over whether the lead section needs to state that magic is not real. Fortunately there has been a ruling on this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate framing. Further statements to the effect that magic is not real introduce a bias towards one point of view and provide no extra information to the reader. Some (skeptics) will feel their intelligence is being insulted, while others (believers) will feel their beliefs are being insulted. Such statements serve no purpose other than to prove a point. Fuzzypeg ★ 03:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Error

Just for the record...Alchemy is not a magic, but a science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdiepstrap (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a protoscience? Verbal chat 19:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy is the use of chemistry (or proto-chemistry) to effect magical outcomes by employing symbolism and linking it to intention.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A few alchemists may not have linked alchemy with magic, but most European alchemists, I believe, would have been working roughly within the Hermetic tradition, and would have subscribed to the theories of "natural magic" that were prominent in that tradition. Albertus Magnus, for example, wrote much on astrology and natural magic. The theories of natural magic would explain many facets of alchemy, such as the relationship between the "inner elixir" of the alchemist's own being and the "outer elixir" of the laboratory work.

Going back further, the earliest writings still extant regarding alchemy, from Egypt, were compiled together with other, quite definitely magical writings.

The only reason I can see for distancing alchemy from magic is if you hold magic in disdain and alchemy in high regard, or vice-versa. This is a common attitude amongst those who subscribe to a particular pseudoscience, and feel they need to validate themselves as still being sensible and respectable by denigrating all other pseudosciences. Fuzzypeg ★ 21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Perhaps the main picture could best be the Image:Pentacle 1.svg instead of the witch. The witch picture is best used in a seperate section on black magic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.167.177 (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, as the term 'witch' does not immediately refer to 'black magic' but also is used as an alternative term for wiccans. The pentacle would be perfectly fine as a picture in this sense, as although it is used as a symbol of wicca, it's origins and use are far older, and relate to the orbital pattern of the planet venus as seen from earth and observed by many ancient cultures, even predating Pythagoras who is often credited with it's origin and the discovery of it's connection to the planet's orbit. Because of this connection, it has been used in magickal practice by many cultures, and would thus be a fine symbolic referrence to magic and magickal practice in general. However, the image of a person actually in the midst of practicing magick, as the 'witch' picture, would also be equally fitting if one were to go with more of a practical view than a symbolic reference. Either way is fine with me, I just have to disagree on the 'witch' equals 'black magic' concept. -Arkayne Magii (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New Sections, Move/Eliminate Older Ones?

We have added several new sections specifically relating to the theoretical basis and characterization of magical practice and beliefs. With these new sections though the article is rather long. Perhaps some of the older sections (specifically history of Western Magic, and Magic in Religion) would be better served as their own pages with this main magic page reserved for more general information on magic. Magicephs (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Magicephs 5/18/09

I suggest that if needed, content be moved into Ceremonial magic and Magic and religion. The Ceremonial magic article would take most of what has been written here about Western magic, but not things such as modern witchcraft and neopagan magic or neo-shamanism. We should of course still keep brief summaries of the relevant information in this article, with a 'Main article' link. Fuzzypeg ★ 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What is paranormal about psychology and religion?

To the point, I have to say that this page on magic has nothing to really do with the paranormal, so why is it marked as 'paranormal'? The entire article is based around the idea that magic is a psychological effect - "... is the practice of consciousness manipulation and/or autosuggestion to achieve a desired result,", as well as correlations to religion. Now, if it were truly 'paranormal', it would be more on unexplainable effects and the like, ie. reputed effects of magic. As it stands, though, the majority of the page is a history of religious beliefs of magic, which is hardly paranormal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.129.233 (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This is only one view of the matter, and a minority view among those who actually practise magic (even if you only look at Western cultures). Yet it is presented as definitive. This definitely needs fixing. Magic is not a branch of psychology! Fuzzypeg ★ 11:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, magic is an impossibility. if it exists, and can be quantified, it becomes science. If it cant be quantified, then its existance is moot because itd be unverifiable and thus inappropriate for wikipedia. It is *literally* impossible to have an article about magic be about magic. Literally, by definition, impossible. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

How about an opening sentence that loosely follows the Merriam Webster definition ("the art of persons who claim to be able to do things by the help of supernatural powers or by their own knowledge of nature's secrets")? Then a little bit of summary of some of the important points throughout the article. Let's try to word something:

Magic is the claimed art of altering things either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult natural laws unknown to science. It is widely regarded as superstition. Magic has been practised in all cultures, and offers ways of understanding, experiencing and influencing the world somewhat akin to those offered by religion, though it is sometimes regarded as more focused on achieving results than religious worship. Magic is often viewed with suspicion by the wider community, and is commonly practiced in isolation and secrecy. Modern Western magicians generally state magic's primary purpose to be personal spiritual growth, a few seeing magic ritual purely in psychological terms as a powerful means of autosuggestion and of contacting the unconscious mind.

What do you think? It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what's currently there. Fuzzypeg ★ 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though honestly the entire article could take a big work-through due to the fact that it's missing a lot of vital things that people will be looking for. I mean, in this day and age, I'm surprised there's no "Magic in popular culture" section in the article (Though I'm not saying it's entirely necessary either). Much of the article is still based on the presumption that magic exists as a psychological force, rather than standing on the borderline. Since we're trying to present fact here, we cannot present theories and presumption as solid information. The biggest problem I find, personally, though, is that the article is so large and comprehensive about the singular view, that I fear we may need to write it entirely from scratch again in order to get a neutral viewpoint.Xander T. (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Before rewriting the article from scratch, I think the first thing to do would be get it into some rational order and see what we've got. I would start by taking the early Theories of magic and Theories of magic and religion sections and merging them into the later Theories of magic and Magic, ritual and religion sections. That would leave Common features of magical practice as one of the first sections (after Etymology). Thus we would have some actual description of what magic is before we get into the laborious scholarly theories of what motivates it.

I would also rearrange the subsections within the Common features of magical practice section, to the new order: Rituals, Magical symbols, The Principle of Similarity, The Principle of Contagion, Magical language, Magicians, Witchcraft.

There are a couple of subsections that I think should ultimately not stand on their own, but be worked in with other sections where appropriate. These are the Theories of adherents section (a large and fairly arbitrary pot-pourri of Western theories), and the Varieties of magical practice section, which lightly brushes over classifications of magic that could be better and more fully explained elsewhere, and then gives a large list of magical traditions which I suspect would be better linked inline in relevant sections.

I think things would immediately look much better if we made these changes. It would also be much clearer where and how to expand the article. Any thoughts? Fuzzypeg ★ 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Magic as a Psychological System

Those who would postulate magic as simply a psychological process not aimed at changing external phenomena are simply deluded. Now, whether magic is actually able to effect it's aims is a different argument altogether. I contend that the first paragraph should be reedited because it simply does not correlate with historical or contemporary facts about the practice of magic, except for perhaps certain conception of magic created by tradition influenced by the New Age. --121.54.17.6 (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian

Whether or not they are deluded, they are a sizeable minority of the Western magical community, and their approach is thus worthy of mention. WP doesn't cast judgement. Fuzzypeg ★ 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Gak! I just read a bit more of the article and I see what you're referring to! My comment still stands, but I would emphasise the word "minority" and rearrange the article to reflect this. Furthermore, I think it should be pretty obvious that the description of magic and magical worldviews should be represented first in the article, before their deconstruction by anthropologists and psychologists. In the Christianity article the beliefs of Christians are not prefaced by a lengthy section trying to explain what needs such false beliefs could possibly fulfill in its believers! Of course, the description of magic may need to draw a lot from the work of anthropologists, since Western magicians are prone to describe magic only within their own culture; but the description should precede the deconstruction. And of course, all major points in the article need to be briefly summarised in the lead section. Fuzzypeg ★ 11:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

While the most recent revisions are often an improvement, I'm puzzled why 97.117.82.163 unwikified so many links. Is there a rationale for doing so?

Peccavimus (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bismillahi Rahmanir Rahim In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful

Chapter 72 of the Quran - The Jinn ( Unseen Creatures) magic in Islam is viewed as work done by the devils among the jinn and with the participation of human being whom likewise wanted to achieve powers. communication with what others called to be spirits of the dead is not true. ghosts are just jinns who imitate the appearance and form of a dead person or any one whom the jinn wants to imitate. to achieve the power to perform black magic, spells etc. human being take the assistance of a devil from among the jinn on condition that this person will submit to the will of the devil from the jinn. in short, a person can achieve sorcery just by worshipping shaytan, and submitting to the devils demand. the devil can posses anyone he wants except the one protected by Allah, (Exalted be He).modern technology lead the devils among the jinn to project themselves as creatures from outer space like UFO, E.T. . the jinns can travel even as fast as a wink of an eye (chapter27 the ants:40). they project themselves also as ghosts to make people believe that dead person comes back to life.., dwarfs, fairies, mermaids or any horrible creatures which just appear to anyone but concealed to others are just jinn. they exists as human exist. Fortune tellers have friends from among jinn who whisper to them the life of a person who is seeking help from fortune tellers. each person has a jinn companion since the birth of every child and start to push every person to do evil the moment a person reach the age of maturity where he identifies right from wrong. The Quran which challenge both all jinn and mankind combined to produce the like thereof explain clearly the nature of these unseen creatures which for so many years puzzle the mind among mankind who has not read the Quran.Chapter17 The Journey by Night verse 88.To obtain clear knowledge about this creature check it out from an uathentic, unchallenge source. Find out about jinns from Quran. , —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.133.11 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Theories of Magic

There should never be two section headers with identical titles, especially headers of the same level. Having one with a capital M and one with a lowercase M doesn't count as a solution. Per Help:Section: "Headings of sections (including subsections) should be unique on a page. Using the same heading more than once on a page causes problems" - but that's just common sense anyway... Some guy (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be reorganization of sections anyway. The opening discussion entitled "theories" actually describes the basics of anthropology... which this article is not directly about. That segues into "magical thinking" which again this article is not directly about. The next topic is "pychological theories" which is moot as a direct discussion as anyone who prescribes foremost to "magic (paranormal)" is obviously going to disagree with prevailing psychological theories which are predominantly debunking. So... my suggestion is to move this portion of the article down with a subheading more specific than simply "theories of magic" (perhaps "causal perspectives", or more obviously "anthroplogical and psychological perspectives") and let direct discussion of magic that is more integrative, neutral and perhaps with a perspective of a broad cross cultural overview start off the theory section. - Steve3849 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Causal perspectives" could become a really important section, since many magical philosophies don't subscribe to causation in the usual sense. This is not well explained in the article at present. For instance the article currently states that when magic fails it is generally blamed on poor performance of the prescribed ritual. But a shoddy or failed ritual is seen by many as simply an indication that the magic wasn't 'supposed' to be effective: the intended magic is not in line with Divine will/providence/the Gods/fate, so it fails and the ritual goes awry. The whole framing that a magical operation causes a magical result is an unsophisticated view I would expect from uninformed outside commentators but not from experienced practitioners.

More generally, I think it would be valuable to clearly separate the views of magicians (of any culture) from the essentially debunking views of psychologists and materialist skeptics. This would probably please both camps. Fuzzypeg ★ 11:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Gramarye / Grimoire

I am writing in hope that someone more conversant with the rules and editing techniques might address a small issue I think I've found. I typed Gramarye into the search box and was redirected to magic. If Gramarye redirects anywhere I believe it should go to the stub article Grimoire (from which it almost certainly derives). 60.234.101.126 (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be right :) I'll change the redirection to Grimoire Xxglennxx (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Xxglennxx (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam view

"Though it presents a generally contemptuous attitude towards magic (Muhammad was accused by his detractors of being a magician)," The sentence is extremely strange. It should be explained more, or be told in another PoV.Mohamed Magdy (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not fiction

A system of thought is not a work of fiction just because skeptics disbelieve in it. If you can find specific things that occur in works of fiction, mark them or delete them.

I'm also uncertain why it's necessary to include a skeptical argument in every single article on the paranormal. Should we also include a pantheistic argument, an idealistic argument, and an argument for every single metaphysical view that might apply to the topic? I think it's well established that skeptics don't believe in the paranormal. That doesn't mean it's not a valid area of study or worthy of an article. In fact, including a skeptical argument in every article on the paranormal is POV itself. Peccavimus (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Contrast between magic and religion seems spurious

According to the article:

Related to both magic and prayer is religious supplication. This involves a prayer, or even a sacrifice to a supernatural being or god. This god or being is then asked to intervene on behalf of the person offering the prayer.

The difference, in theory, is that prayer requires the assent of a deity with an independent will, who can deny the request. Magic, by contrast is thought to be effective:

by virtue of the operation itself;
or by the strength of the magician's will;
or because the magician believes he can command the spiritual beings addressed by his spells.

In practice, when prayer doesn't work, it means that the god has chosen not to hear nor grant it; when magic fails, it is because of some defect in the casting of the spell itself. Consequently magical rituals tend to place more emphasis on exact formulaic correctness and are less extempore than prayer. Ritual is the magician's failsafe, the key to any hope for success, and the explanation for failure.

This whole explanation is wracked with difficulties. For a start, there are religions which do involve the attempt to "control" deities or divinities: In Vodou the Asogwe has power to constrain the Loa; the Romans kept their statue of Saturn bound in chains most of the year.

Secondly, religions even at the more familiar end of the scale (such as most Christian denominations) incorporate rituals whose success depends only on the actions being performed (how ever shoddily) and the intention of the priest to perform them (even if the priest is misguided or in a state of sin). These are the sacraments, such as the transubstantiation of wine and wafers into blood and flesh (which is held to be an actual, and not merely a symbolic change). The sacraments are held to be effective ex opere operato, that is, by the work itself.

Thirdly, magic is not all like the medieval ritual magic that the article seems to be describing here. Modern ceremonial magic, as influenced by the Golden Dawn, almost universally sees magic as being effective by virtue of the magician's close harmony with their higher self, and thus their close harmony with God. They are able to evoke spirits and influence them only by virtue of having already invoked god-forms and thus having become agents of divine expression. For those struggling to follow me, the rituals are considered to work because it is in God's will that they do. See Francis King and Stephen Skinner, Techniques of High Magic p. 176. Enochian magic perhaps blurs this a little, but I think most practitioners would still feel the same about Enochian magic.

And numerous magicians don't assume magic will be automatically effective at all. I suspect this is the vast majority of practitioners.

If we now turn from the magicians to the anthropologists and historians, we find that the dichotomy between religion and magic has been largely abandoned. Ramsey MacMullen, the eminent historian, has this to say:

"... even a generation ago, it would have required considerable discussion: namely, the relationship between magic and religion and the exact meaning of the two terms. For historians of the West, knowing only their own discipline and only the one Judeo-Christian religious tradition, these matters used to be intellectually as well as theologically indigestible. Now, the lessons of anthropology grown familiar, it is common to accept the impossibility of separating magic from religion and to move on to more interesting subjects." (MacMullen Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries pp. 143--4)

MacMullen gives a survey of this change in thinking in an endnote, charting the shift which began in the mid 1970s and is now mostly complete.

Just my few thoughts... Fuzzypeg ★ 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A nice definition of magic by the Ciceros

In their book The Essential Golden Dawn: An Introduction to High Magic, Chic and Sandra Tabatha Cicero discuss a number of well known definitions of magic, and give one of their own, which I think is concise, elegant, very informative, and representative of most magical traditions. They first quote definitions by 1) Crowley:

Magic is the Science and Art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will.

('Will' here refers to the magician's higher will, rather than mundane wants and desires.) But the Ciceros say this is inadequate because it describes things everyone does, and doesn't really capture what magicians specifically do.

2) Dion Fortune:

Magic is the Science and Art of causing change in consciousness to occur in conformity with Will.

Again, while this acknowledges the importance of consciousness in magic the Ciceros hold this is not the full story.

3) Donald Michael Kraig (from Modern Magick p. 9):

Magic is the science and art of causing change (in consciousness) to occur in conformity with will, using means not currently understood by traditional Western science.

The Ciceros then offer their own definition, which I think would be valuable to this article (pp. 70-71):

Magic is the art and science of causing change to occur in conformity with will. This change can occur 1) in the outer, manifest world; 2) in the magician's consciousness; and 3) most often in both, for changing one often changes the other. Magical change occurs in a way that is not currently understood by modern science because it works through the Unmanifest—through subtle manipulations of the invisible, spiritual realms. However, the workings of magic are subject to natural law. The effects of magic are sometimes clearly visible in the physical world and other times they are only apparent on a personal, spiritual level. The workings of magic are not limited by the constraints of time and space.

I'm posting this here in case anyone agrees that this might be useful to the article. Fuzzypeg ★ 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert per Fringe?

Verbal has reverted some changes I made, stating that they contravened WP:FRINGE. However my changes only consisted of wording and grammatical changes to make a paragraph more coherent and readable without changing its meaning. Oh, and I added a dubious tag, which should not be removed without at least some discussion.

I am an experienced editor of several years, and well aware of WP policies. Verbal, I think you need to explain what it is you are taking exception to in my edits, and what particular part of WP:FRINGE you are reverting on the basis of.

Also, when marking an edit as a revert, it is usual practice to keep it a pure revert rather than including your own additional edits. This keeps diffs simpler.

Looking forward to hearing your views (and anyone else's -- it's very quiet here). Fuzzypeg ★ 23:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Magic in the twentieth century: should perhaps be rearranged

This section currently focuses almost entirely on Wicca, with brief sidelines to the Golden Dawn and Crowley's groups. I suggest it follow a more chronological order and mention the Golden Dawn first, Crowley second and Wicca and neopaganism third, with whatever other things we want to throw in there as well, but definitely reducing the emphasis given to Wicca. The whole section seems to have been taken from an imperfect recollection of Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon.

I would also reduce the emphasis given to the fact that Wicca and its derivatives blend magic and religion. Ronald Hutton thought this was noteworthy, on the basis that (as he claimed) religion and magic have always occupied different spheres. However, the view that any clear distinction can be made between magic and religion has been falling out of favour with historians since the 70s and with anthropologists even longer (see my post under #Contrast between magic and religion seems spurious), so that Hutton is now very much in a minority. Hutton being the monolith that he is, perhaps we should keep this claim in the article, but attribute it to him? Fuzzypeg ★ 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reworded lead

I received no response to my suggestion of a rewording (anyone home? -echo -echo), so I've gone ahead. The final clause with the citation-needed tag is a carry-over from the previous wording, put into its correct context. While I don't doubt the statement, I have no source to support it, so the tag stays.

If anyone really objects to modern Western magic receiving a whole sentence in the lead section, I would be open to discussion of taking that sentence out and leaving it for the appropriate section further down (which needs a lot of work -- in fact the whole article seems to have no clear structure to it). One of the main reasons for having that sentence there is to create a context in which to place the pure-psychological definition of the earlier lead. Cheers, Fuzzypeg ★ 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start on the rearranging work

Following the discussion at #What is paranormal about psychology and religion? and elsewhere on this page I have had virtually no response (just one favourable response), so I'm proceeding with reorganising the article. I'm going to pause here, though, and state what I think needs to change next, and again leave time for other editors to comment.

I think we should aim for roughly a three-part structure:

A description of magic
Theories regarding magic
Magic in specific settings (specific cultures, times, geographical areas etc).

I shouldn't need to say this, but I will: I expect all sections ultimately to be tied back to reputable sources, relying wherever possible on scholarly, academic commentators.

The current sections on history of Western magic and the various other sections such as Magic in Hinduism should all be gathered roughly together in the third part of the structure I've outlined above. I expect these all to be fairly brief, with details migrated out into their main articles. Currently, for example, the History of Western magic section is probably way too large, considering that other major cultural regions such as the Indian subcontinent receive a tiny fraction of that space.

Also, I suspect that the current theories of practitioners section will need to move into the Western magic section, in the third part of the article (and will need substantial improvement and reduction), because most of it is specific to modern Western ceremonial and neopagan magic, or at least the supporting citations come from practitioners in those fields.

So, any thoughts? Comments? Criticisms? Cheers, Fuzzypeg ★ 06:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconding that favorable response, and having every confidence in your insightful ministration, I'm only too happy to leave these thorny issues in such capable hands.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The intro defines the topic. Current "claimed art of altering things either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult natural laws unknown to science" "widely regarded as superstition" broken frame for article. Magic, real or not, is application of supernatural means-- claimed or not. Unknown to science not element of magic, no reference for that. Regarded as superstition not supported by reference, not relevant for intro. All faith based belief systems considered superstitions. more helpful to term as faith based. Just some suggest. THI (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done some of these rearrangements. Next to do, I think, is start considering splitting out the entire section on Western magic into a new article. It needs a lot of improvement, of course, but I think the process of improving it may also enlarge it quite rapidly (it's a huge subject area), so I'd suggest splitting it out first.

A summary of Western magic should of course remain in this article, with a main article link to the new article, whatever it ends up being called.

Perhaps we should call it Western magic? Any other ideas? Fuzzypeg ★ 20:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally would not break out western magic from art. Just my suggestion (sufficiently notable, not sure if helpful to reader to break out). THI (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt in the good faith of these changes, but unfortunately my impression is that the article is as much of a mess as it ever was. It desperately needs a clean structure, and it needs to be cut down to a bare-bones WP:SS article with lots of sub-articles. The article is especially schizophrenic about "western magic", half of the time it discusses western magic implicitly, and the other half it goes out of its way to demontrate how oh-so-globalized its approach is.

"Western magic" is a useful concept on only in a modern context. Historically, "western magic" has always been perceived as eastern (Chaldean, Egyptian, Persian and what have you), and it is impossible to draw up a history of magic based on a "western vs. eastern" paradigm. There needs to be a straightforward "history" section, besides a straightforward "anthropology" one. Only in a section on contemporary magic may it make sense to distinguish western esotericism from Chinese or Hindu magic. --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sympathetic Magic or "Principle of Similarity"

Currently the "Principle of Similarity" section is, clearly is talking about causation. "is the thought that if a certain result follows a certain action, then that action must be responsible for the result" Which is clearly Causality "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first"

Sympathetic magic on the other hand, is "like affects like", so a doll in the shape of a person, affects that person, sympathetic magic from voodoo. http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/paranormal/bldef_sympatheticmagic.htm

Similarly a drawing of an event, lead to that event occuring. for instance there were many instances of 9/11 imagery before 2001. Elspru (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sympathetic magic vs collusion with demons?

I'm not convinced these two options really represent the breadth of scholarly (or ancient) thought on the subject. I haven't read the cited book: is it written from a Christian perspective? If so, I'm not sure the Christian preponderance with diabolism should go in the lead section; we have a separate section further down for Christian views of magic. If not, is the book really saying what's reported?-- that if any external agency was involved it was an evil one? I know the Greeks cast aspersions on 'impious' magic, but there were also pious varieties of what at least nowadays would be called magic. And in other cultures, ancient and modern, magic that resorts to what it considers evil agencies is very much a minority! Clarification is needed: perhaps an extended quotation from the relevant passages.

Furthermore, the text has been poorly inserted, without attention to the flow of text that it now interrupts, and without fixing punctuation. Fuzzypeg ★ 23:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say the first thing to do is read the source, then we can discuss what is meant. the issue is "how would magic work" and there are two theories as stated. In ancient times Magic is not defined by what happens but in its agent of causation and purpose, and as such was outlawed in the Roman period. The second issue is valid- the article we have is poorly organized and finding a place to place the text was difficult so I placed in the beginning so that it could be discussed. Hardyplants (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed "demons" to "spirits", which may not resolve every issue, but it struck me that the notion of demons is particularly culture-bound and may suggest inappropriate conclusions even about those magical traditions that do invoke various spirits, even evil spirits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is some what fuzzy. During the Greco-Roman period gods and spirits were the domain of religion while demons or evil spirits were the domain of magic and sorcery. After the Christian period all spirits were classed as demons. Hardyplants (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Some references that could be incorporated into our article include: [1] and [2] and [3]. Hardyplants (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the new sentence so it doesn't interrupt the pre-existing sentence. I have not changed its wording.

Now, I observe that the inserted text talks about 'the ancient world', but here you are talking about ancient Rome, with a nod to the Greeks in the phrase 'Greco-Roman'. The Greeks and the Romans don't constitute 'the ancient world'. This is rather what I expected, since the concept of 'demons' as understood today is a fairly culturally specific thing, tied to Zoroastrian-derived dualism. You find this idea particularly in late Roman religion and in Christianity and its offshoots.

This is why I asked for some specific quotes from the source you cite: I suspect that you may not have accurately captured the author's framing (e.g. substituting 'ancient world' for 'Roman religion'). I understand it may not be possible, but if there are a few choice quotes you could copy for us that would help us better understand the context and framing of what you've added, that would be great. I don't currently have access to the book to read it myself.

Thanks in advance, Fuzzypeg ★ 20:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to follow the link in the reference, I try to include links to all my sources when possible so they can be checked. Demon is a concept that predates Christianity and was spread out among many different cultures in the ancient world. Hardyplants (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I recall you gave a link to it in google books. But no preview of the book was available. 86.131.160.64 (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Oops, not logged in! Fuzzypeg ★ 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of section on islamic magic

I rewritten the whole section,reason is very simple.here we have to tell what the religion says about Witchcraft NOT what the society does. for example HOMOSEXUALITY and ADULTERY are very much common nowadays in christian dominant societies like United states and United kingdom so on this Basis COULD I ASSUME THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ALLOWED IN CHRISTIANITY.its very simple thing if you want to understand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberghaffar (talk • contribs)

Your edits are being reverted because you are blanking sourced content in favor of inserting your personal opinion in the article. That is not allowed - see the policies on neutral point of view, reliable sources, and no original research. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Magic spell

Magic spell redirects to Magic (paranormal), but there is not much about spells itself, their origin, their relation to language, writing and wishes. Please compare for example Pyramid Text utterances or Coffin Texts. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Why is there an etymology section in this article? The article is supposed to be about magic itself, not about the English word "magic". We wouldn't explain the etymology of magia in this article, because that's not the topic being described. Etymology of a word belongs at Wiktionary. --Yair rand (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, no ongoing discussion, majority oppose the move Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Magic (paranormal) → Magic —

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Brandmeister t 22:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- And, presumably, the existing page Magic to Magic (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Object Magic is a stage art, slight-of-hand performance. Hence magicians like David Copperfield and Kris Angel. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. I'd agree it's the primary topic. Stage magic gets its name from the paranormal original, but I think the latter is still the main usage of the term for most people around the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Mild Oppose. It is unclear to me whether there is a primary topic. Although Magic (paranormal) seems to pretty consistently get more hits than Magic (illusion), both get an awful lot of views. My take would be to leave this as a DAB page, but it wouldn't break my heart if the requested move were made. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, unless someone can produce some evidence that this is the primary topic. I'm skeptical. Powers ^T 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Nobody has yet made a sufficient case as to why this should be the primary topic. As per WP:JUSTAPOLICY, you cannot just point to a guideline without explaining yourself. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Tend to support. Stage magic is clearly a derivative use of the term magic, and I think its practitioners mostly prefer to be called illusionists anyway. In other words, it's "fake magic". Magic in the strict sense refers to the subject of that article. (Whether there exists any such thing is of course entirely beside the point.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. (if I may, given I don't have an account). This is definitely not a "primary topic". The term "magic" still refers mainly to conjuring, mentalism, and illusion. Evidence of this can be found in book classification such as the Dewey Decimal System where "Magic" (i.e. conjuring, mentalism and illusion) is classified in 790 (together with Sports, Games, Camping and Fishing) under the broader 700 which encompasses "art". Under the DDS the supernatural are gathered under 130. This classification can also be found in general book stores. Similarly, the places where tricks and props are purchased from are termed "Magic Shops"; the Australian Society of Magicians (www.magicians.org.au) is an association of conjurers, mentalists and escapologists not people that claim to be able to manipulate the physical universe via supernatural means. All magic is "fake magic" the only difference appears to be that one is primarily oriented towards deceiving others for entertainment (and sometimes for exploitation eg. cold/warm readers claiming to commune with the dead) and the other is oriented primarily at self-deception. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment You say all magic is fake magic, but the subject of this article, if it existed, would be real magic. Your point is apparently not that the subject of this article is fake magic, but rather that the persons who claim to practice it are not really doing so, but are doing fake magic instead. But that's entirely beside the point. Wikipedia has lots of articles on things that don't exist, and nonexistence is no impediment to being the primary topic. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  - Response to comment. That last bit was obiter dictum and it appears it has distracted you from my main point. The term "magic" in most usage refers to conjuring, presdigitation and mentalism and to some extent escapalogy -- it is what most people think of when they hear the word. I provided evidence from book classification, self-identification from the largest magicians' association in the southern hemisphere and a retail category (i.e how they advertsie in the Yellow Pages). In my experience where persons are looking for Harry Potter-esque magic -- i.e. the other fake magic where its practitioners think its real -- they will usually go to the "New Age" or "Metaphysics" (a misnomer) section of a book store or the DDS 130 (Parapsychology & occultism) section of a public library. Further, many people seeking Harry Potter-esque magic will search for "magick" even thouh that applies to a specific type of Harry Potter-esque magic. The phrase "fake magic" was yours not mine and I am in essence arguing that it is an ineffective criterion for classification. You seem to be arguing above that it is a good criterion and hence reason for promotoin to primary topic. All of your reasoning and evidence in relation to this matter is flawed: (1) People that perform conjuring, presdigitation and mentalism do still call themsleves "magicians"; (2) stores that supply to the persons from (1) are still known as "Magic Shops"; (3) Both the DDS and general book store structure puts the books from persons in (1) in the "Magic" category. My point in stating that "[a]ll magic is fake magic" is to clarify that the criterion of falseness vs. genuiness simply will not work because it is unable to discriminate between conjuring, presdigitation and mentalism on the one hand and attempting to cause changes in the physical Universe by uttering magic words or scribbling things on a piece of paper -- they are both fake i.e. the mentalist is no more able to read your mind than Crowley was able to become invisisble. Assuming a priori that ceremonial magic, spells, sygils etc are "real magic" is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry and this a priori assumption is implicit in your use of the dichotomy false vs. real magic. The proponents' views should be accurately recorded but so too should the scientific/scpetical view. Arbitrarily designating Harry Potter-esque magic as "real magic" -- and hence making this a primary topic -- smuggles in an apparent legitimiacy where none has been demonstrated. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    - No, my criterion does distinguish between causing (not "attempting to cause", but "causing") changes in the physical universe by supernatural means, and sleight-of-hand etc (btw I'm not sure what you mean by "conjuring"; I think the primary meaning of that word has to do with summoning spirits). Whether it is possible to cause such changes by supernatural means is a separate issue and beside the point; the meaning that I assert to be primary is about causing such changes (not "attempting to"), whether such a thing is possible or not. --Trovatore (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
      - Conjuring is that branch of magic that achieves its apparent effects by sleight-of-hand eg. coin magic, rope tricks etc. I believe you are thinking of evocation the practice of attempting to summon disembodied minds of various kinds. I say attempt -- here and above -- because that is the extent of process, it starts and stops at intention in the same way that it would if I attempted to fly by flapping my arms 114.76.75.113 (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        No, I mean conjuring. In the strict sense, conjuring refers to summoning spirits. The sleight-of-hand meaning is an extension.
        No it isn't. Conjuring (sleight of hand) is an ancient performance art 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        
        You cannot conflate attempting to do something with doing it, even if doing it is impossible!. The subject of this article, and the principal sense of the word magic, is about doing it, not attempting to do it. It is 100% irrelevant whether anyone ever actually does it or even can. --Trovatore (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        There is no "doing it" in this context hence there can only ever be "attempting to do it". Conflation requires at least two components and I can only see one, namely "attempting to do it". If doing something is imposssible, eg. finding a married bachelor, then there is no point talking about married bachelors as if they exist and the earnestness of married bachelors seekers. If some misguided person sets of on Quixotic project to locate a married bachelor then we don't discuss this individual's behaviour as if he is on to something that we have missed instead we say "he is attempting to find a married bachelor" and draw the neceassry conclusions 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        Not parallel. A married bachelor is logically impossible; any impossibility of summoning spirits is a contingent fact about the world. Discussions of summoning spirits are really discussing summoning spirits, not attempting to so. Of course you can also discuss attempting to do so, but it's a different discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        The same argument applies to nomological (im)possibility. Excluding many-worlds arguments and confining our attention to the only world that we know and operate in the argument is just the same 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        No, in fact, it does not apply. The philosophical status of counterfactuals is fraught, but they are an essential part of our thought.
        Counterfactuals aren't "an essential part of our thought". I refer you to Mario Bunge's Chasing Reality: Strife Over Realism (chapter 5). Bunge offers the example of Newton stating his second law of motion in counterfactual form to illustrate the point that counterfactuals are not propositions proper and hence can't have truth value assigned to them and that they are nothing more than "heuristic or rhetorical tricks, not law statements belonging to scientific theories". (p.93 )
        Let it stand that I disagree with Bunge. Formally, sure, you can state scientific theories without counterfactuals. We, as humans, cannot understand the world without them. If you claim to, I think you are deluded.
        
        If you can state scientific theories about the world without the use of counterfactuals then you can also operate in the world at a pre-scientific level without them. Bunge is correct and I don't think anyone cares about what you think of Bunge -- Bunge is perhaps the finest philosopher of science (being an actual theoertical physicist and published philosopher) of our time. Regarding me being deluded, you have embarassed yourself with your display of cultural and philosphical illiteracy with your nonsensse about potions and Split Infinity and your anachronistic use of terms such supernatural, paranormal and magic. I think you are as wrong about me being deluded as you are about every other thing you have opined on in this page114.76.75.113 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        
        A better analogy than married bachelors would be tachyons. Most physicists believe that tachyons do not exist. Nevertheless, the subject of our tachyon article is (or had better be; I haven't looked recently) really tachyons, even though they probably do not exist. --Trovatore (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        Please. This is a false analogy. Tachyons are postulated for their purported explanatory and/or predictive value. Magic (paranormal) possesses neither explanatory onr predictive power so it fails even on an instrumentalist account of knowledge 114.76.75.113 (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        Not so. There is no observed phenomenon that tachyons are put forth to predict or explain. They are posited merely as possible solutions to equations, that would be very interesting if they existed. The other half of your claim also fails, or at least would fail if magic existed, which is a contingent question and therefore does not touch the heart of the issue. --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        There need be no observable phenomena and I didn't even allude to observable phenomena -- you are fighting straw men. Positing something -- albeit fictional -- to solve an equation can be understood and justified on (epistemic) fictionalist grounds. To this (limited) extent tachyons do have explanatory power. "If magic existed" is based on your fetish for counterfactuals which are -- as Bunge correctly notes -- merely rhetorical or heuristic tricks. The only function of "if magic existed" (which isn't even a proposition) is to assist in the production of works of fictional entertainment such as the Harry Potter series and to make D&D games more interesting 114.76.75.113 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I wouldn't support the move even if it was just Magic (paranormal) vs. Magic (illusion), as both are very notable sense of the word. Now consider that in order to move, Magic (paranormal) would have to beat out Magic (illusion) combined with the Orlando Magic, Magic: The Gathering, etc. So yeah, oppose. SnowFire (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. Conjuring is objectively a conceit, an open pretence that Magic (paranormal) is in use. Magic (paranormal) is the originating concept in this sense. The big question though is: "Do the masses really care about the original?" Against my expectations, yes they do. This article gets 50% more hits than Magic (illusion) does. This result plus primacy as the concept behind the names of all the 'spinoffs' leads me to support this. 91.84.47.33 (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The notion that magic (paranormal) is the originating concept of magic (illusion) is questionable. Magic (illusion) can be traced back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians where it was used to entertain the royal court. The ancient-Greeks had street performers, performing magic tricks. There is some evidence that the term "magician" was applied pejoratively to those claiming magic (paranormal) abilities, i.e. it was an accusation of deceit and trickery. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  - One of the books of the Pentateuch (I assume it's Leviticus but am not sure of that) says that magicians must be put to death. I don't think it meant illusionists; that's a little harsh. --Trovatore (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    - You do realise that the Pentateuch was written in Hebrew and the word "magician" doesn't actually appear in the original texts 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
      - Nor in the ancient Greek, for that matter, though admittedly there might have been a cognate word. --Trovatore (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        I can read some Koine Greek and the proscription is against φαρμακεία which 'roughly' translates to 'sorcery', which is quite distinct from magic (paranormal) as it is understood today. I am only able to read Hebrew with great difficulty but I am confident that I will find a similar word in the Old Testament. You are being anachronistic 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        How is it different from paranormal magic as understood today? More specific, maybe; you might not call all magic sorcery, but surely all sorcery is magic. --Trovatore (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        φαρμακεία actually transliterates to pharmakeia, the etymological root for pharmacy and pharmacology. Sorcery then -- not now -- was concerned in a large part with administering poisons and potions which to a pre-scientific Byzantine mind drew there efficacy from some un-Godly force. The notion of magic and sorcery as you seem to understand it is quite modern and would be alien to the Hebrews and Greco-Romans 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        Hmm, magic effected by means of potions is a reasonably contemporary concept, I think. At least it shows up in Piers Anthony's Split Infinity trilogy and in Harry Potter. Of course we now reinterpret what was going on in the ancient Middle East as something non-supernatural, but now who's being anachronistic? --Trovatore (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        You think wrong. You are being ridiculously anachronistic. φαρμακεία is merely the administration of poisons and other drugs there is no "magic" (as you understand it). The proscription appears in Galatians 5:20 which predates Split Infinity. The idea of potions extends all the way back into the ancient world. There was no clear conception of science in the Greco-Roman world that would have permitted the conception of "magic" to form. Also, in the Greco-Roman world people didn't self-identify as "magicians" -- they did what they did because their practices were a natural consequence of their worldview. When an Australian aborigine "pointed the bone" to curse his enemy he didn't believe himself to be practicing "magic" -- how on earth would he arrive at the concept of "magic". This sort of compartmentalisation of human culture is entirely modern and largely a product of the emergence of science. The ancient Israleites didn't have a conception of "religion" or of "Judaism" -- what they believed and did was their life, the Truth with a capital 'T' The notion of paranormal is entirely parasitic on the notions of normality and naturalness. In the absence of any developed conception of naturalism there can be no concept of supernatural or paranormal. I re-iterate, you are being anachronistic.114.76.75.113 (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        
        We are still recovering from your claim that "magic effected by means of potions is a reasonably contemporary concept" but I have recomposed myself to inform you that the article under which this discussion is taking place bears an image of Circe offering the cup of potion to Ulysses. Circe is a sorceress from ancient Greek mythology which was described in Homer's Odyssey -- which is believed to have been written in 8th century BC. According to the myth Circe's potion turned people into animals. 8th Century BC << AD 1980 (Year of publication of Split Infinity) 114.76.75.113 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Support: The subject of Magic (illusion) derives from the subject of Magic (paranormal). Illusionists used to called themselves magicians because they pretended to be using magic(paranormal). In time, most of their trickery was debunked, and the more appropriate term "illusionist" appeared. Nonetheless, a lot of this illusionist retain the "magician" title as a legacy. The term "magician" has always referred to a practitioner of magic (paranormal). Illusionists using the title "magician" are claiming to be using magic (paranormal), either as a commercial stunt or because they are charlatans. Basically, the argument here is that magic(paranormal) predates magic(illusion), and that modern uses of magician, magic,etc, in the 'illusion' context refer first to the concept at magic(paranormal) and then to magic(illusion).--Legion fi (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose There's a distinction between stage magic and spiritual/paranormal/occult magic. Stage magic is done by slight of hand tricks and is solely for entertainment value. However, this particular type of magic tends to dip into realms beyond "let me hide a card in my sleeve and trick people into thinking it disappeared". Whether one believes in this sort of thing or not, it is NOT done just for entertainment value. There is a spiritual value behind these sort of things. FUTURI (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone stated or even suggested that "magic(paranormal)" is done for entertainment value and that is irrelevant to the point. The issue is fundamentally about who owns the term "magic" or perhasps what do most people mean when they hear or use the word "magic"? If "magic (paranormal)" is made the primary topic i.e. "magic", that would fly in the face of English language usage in Australia, NZ, US, UK and Canada where the word "magic" continues to be associated with conjuring, illusion, sleight of hand, mentalism etc even though it is also associated with witchcraft, occult, paranormal etc. Such a move would also be incompatible with library book clasification schemes such as Dewey and the shelving categories specified by publishers for bookstores. The current arrangement which directs "magic" to a disambuiguation page reflects the dual usage of the term and I think should be retained. Arguments based on the alleged derivative nature of magic (illusion) are misguided and after all irrelevant since all that matters is conpemporary usage of the term in the English-speaking world. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Edit: For some reason I was an idiot and typed in strongly support instead of strongly oppose. I oppose the renaming. This is my final say on the matter. FUTURI (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Support: illusion is an emulator of the reality commonly percieved of the ability of those who practice magic. To define them with brackets seems to state that magic is subject to the state of its practitioner, yet only a magician who practices magic can be truly called a magician; any other person referenced by this title does so inorder to employ a guise and mystify an audience. It is the art of the illusionist to facilitate the idea of magic and its underlying principles, and to recreate them and make them observable. That being said, the mimickery preformed by the illusionist does not necessarily factually represent what magic really is. As a completely unbiased observation, to describe magic would be to say that is a practiced formed around the philosophies, beliefs, and practical applications of the will to form, change, or effect a moment in time, and the variables inherent in that particular moment. Also, to define magic as being paranormal is to only define it with in the scope of science, because as the words meaning suggests, and I quote: "a term that designates experiences that lie outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation or that indicates phenomena that are understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure."... I wasn't aware that wikipedia was a scientific journal, and that it's topics had to be scoped within a scientific perspective? The only term to properly, and logically use to name this page would be "magic", without bracketed definitions.LeafromOZ (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, what an awful, ungrammatical, barely comprehensibe, tortured piece of English. For example, "As a completely unbiased observation, to describe magic would be to say that is a practiced formed around the philosophies, beliefs, and practical applications of the will to form, change, or effect a moment in time, and the variables inherent in that particular moment". So "will" has "philosophies" and "beliefs"? Do you just mean to say, "magic is a practice formed around certain philosophies and beliefs that employs the will to effect an outcome"? What is the function of adding the phrase "a moment in time"? Also using "change" and "effect" is redundant, if something is changed it has been effected and if something is effected it has been changed. The phrase "and the variables inherent in that particular moment" similarly serves no purpose other than to lengthen the sentence it is appended to. All of the elements that constitute a situation can be construed as variables, i.e. the variables define the event or situation. If you change a situation (eg. cause someone to not show up to a job interview by giving them a cold) you have _ipso facto_ changed the variables of the situation and vice-versa. Also a "moment" is a an informal measure of time, i.e. a very brief period of time. A moment -- a very brief period of time -- doesn't have any "variables", it is the events and processes that occur during that period of time that have "variables". Your opening sentence "illusion is an emulator of the reality commonly percieved of the ability of those who practice magic" is also appalingly bad but I think you are trying to say something like: "Illusion is a theatrical imitation of the popular perception of the abilities of magicians" -- which has already been stated, albeit with better English. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I know I'm late chiming in. However, I think that "Magic" should remain a disambig page as there are many subjects that can fall under the category of magic. However, I believe that a lot of people object the paranormal label attached to this magic article. I would like to propose that this article be moved from "Magic (paranormal") -> to either "Magic (occult)" or Magic "(esotericism)."207.237.208.153 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)