Magic vs. Science!

Dec 30, 2008
53
0
My friend who is a physics major hates magic. He sees the world very logically and believes that the natural "real" wonders of physics and chemistry are much more amazing than any act that a magician could make possible. He noted several demonstrations of science that involve danger and mini miracles. Needles to say, we don't get along too well. He thinks that magicians have a self serving attitude because they wont tell how their tricks work, while scientists want nothing more than to share their work. He also believes that for magic to be entertaining you need to believe in it, and very few people are dumb enough to actually believe.

I thought i would like to open this up to discussion. We were bickering about what the masses of laypeople would be more impressed by. Do you guys think that the regular Joe sitting at home is more impressed by David Blaine or Bill Nye? Take a look at some youtube science demos before you voice your opinion. In todays society, do you think science performances are more impressive than the craft of a magician?

I know I do not post here much, as i do not really perform anymore, but i still love watching magic. So hopefully you guys will get into this discussion!

-Sam the aquaman
 
Sep 1, 2007
109
0
As someone who is studying pure and applied sciences as well as a magician, i find this to be an interesting discussion. I feel though, that your friend simply doesnt understand the concept of magic and magicians.

See, he talks about magicians having a self serving attitude, however i could argue the same about scientists. Scientists only share their work because they are makinf new discoveries, AND in order to gain acclaim. Magicians, on the other hand arent discovering anything unheard of, and we gain our acclaim by NOT revealing what we do.

Essentially, magicians and scientists are working for the same thing; acclaim. The means are simply different, as they are with any different job.

The only argument that can be brought up here is that scientists are helping people by sharing their knowledge. To this, i would argue that magicians are helping people as well by NOT sharing their knokwledge because it allows us to entertain and amuse. After all, laughter is the best medicine.

In no way are we being self serving by not sharing our secrets, simply because people would have no use for it. People have no use for the technique behind the pass unless they are magicians, meanwhile, knowing the amount of carbon that is processed by the benthic community can actually help us combat and improve our understanding of problems such as global warming.

As for his belief that magic is only entertaining if you believe in it, the proof is in the numbers and the performances. Look at the crowds a magician can gather, is he saying theyre all dumb enough to believe in magic? No. In fact, the majority of the audience doesnt. In the same way that for an audience to enjoy a movie they dont have to believe it's real. It suspends reality for a while, and as proved by the increase in television, gamind console and cmoputer sales, this is clearly what we're all looking for; a way to escape for a while.

Science demos will be more interesting to someone who enjoys science, while magic touches a broader range of people. I find sciences demos extremely interesting, but in general, they are dumbed down versions of much more complex findings.

Just a few throughts.

Cheers,
Lucas

P.S. I wrote this very stream of consciousness, so if it jumps around a lot, sorry.
 
Oct 13, 2008
167
0
I will come up with an extended opinion when I get back and research this topic, but let me say this initial thought: at least science will guarantee that you get paid, you know. No offense intended for all the street buskers out there, but put it this way: During the time of Magifest 2009, I had a job as a TA just grading small quizzes and the occasional exam (i.e. practically NOTHING, except the exams) for about $2000 a month. Personally, as I will become a scientist, I think that study is my highest priority, but sleighting a deck of cards to class for stress relief/practice does help.

I'll post a bit more when I get back, but judging from the science demonstrations I've seen, I think that magic is more portable, as a pro. You can't just whip out a 5 gallon water cooler bottle with ethanol vapor inside from your pocket (in the demo, it is ignited and there is a flash of blue inside the jug with a flame for a split-second. Pretty amazing, warrants cameras during class)
 
Dec 30, 2008
53
0
wow what a great first reply! I am geeky myself but i tend to put more appreciation into the performance arts.

Even as a kid, i thought that the magicians that visited our school were way cooler than the high school students that would come in and freeze roses.

hopefully we get some more replies.
 
Oct 13, 2008
167
0
As someone who is studying pure and applied sciences as well as a magician, i find this to be an interesting discussion. I feel though, that your friend simply doesn't understand the concept of magic and magicians.

See, he talks about magicians having a self serving attitude, however i could argue the same about scientists. Scientists only share their work because they are making new discoveries, AND in order to gain acclaim. Magicians, on the other hand aren't discovering anything unheard of, and we gain our acclaim by NOT revealing what we do.

Essentially, magicians and scientists are working for the same thing; acclaim. The means are simply different, as they are with any different job.

Quite true, scientists and magicians are largely successful and considered famous in their own little circles.

The only argument that can be brought up here is that scientists are helping people by sharing their knowledge. To this, I would argue that magicians are helping people as well by NOT sharing their knowledge because it allows us to entertain and amuse. After all, laughter is the best medicine.

In no way are we being self serving by not sharing our secrets, simply because people would have no use for it. People have no use for the technique behind the pass unless they are magicians, meanwhile, knowing the amount of carbon that is processed by the benthic community can actually help us combat and improve our understanding of problems such as global warming.

As for his belief that magic is only entertaining if you believe in it, the proof is in the numbers and the performances. Look at the crowds a magician can gather, is he saying they're all dumb enough to believe in magic? No. In fact, the majority of the audience doesn't. In the same way that for an audience to enjoy a movie they don't have to believe it's real. It suspends reality for a while, and as proved by the increase in television, gaming console and computer sales, this is clearly what we're all looking for; a way to escape for a while.

LucasCG, you bring up an excellent point. The versatility of the suspension of reality in magic is what is key to its success. Whereas in science demos, you see something that is clearly possible and expected, magic provides the opposite; that we can see something that is clearly impossible and unexpected. Sure, the ethanol jug is fun to watch, but of course it would do that. On the other hand, would you expect anyone to slam your cig into your borrowed coin as if it were paper? I didn't think so.

And my dear fellow, the last part of your idea :confused:, what was it again, ah yes! :) that magic is a way to escape for a while. For me, doing magic is a great stress relief and allows me to interact more with people on a more intimate level. You don't get that cramming for your next exam. :p

Science demos will be more interesting to someone who enjoys science, while magic touches a broader range of people. I find sciences demos extremely interesting, but in general, they are dumbed down versions of much more complex findings.

Not exactly. Many science demos are quite interesting for a broad range of people because they just look cool. This is what is being discussed here; both magic and science demos look cool, so how do they differ? However, I heartily agree with the last part. Not to be too harsh, but now that you mention it, I believe that science demos are just a way to "show off", like "hey look what this does!" as opposed to "hey look at what I can do!". On the other hand, one can argue the same about magic. Either way, in science demos, they help people understand the underlying principles, but what's the benefit to the scientific community otherwise? I think that science demos are less on a personal level than magic and that's where they differ.

Well, that's quite a mouthful. See what answers you come up with, because I agree, this is a very good discussion.

- SS23
 
Nov 24, 2007
130
0
32
Hermosillo Sonora
you guys need to understand this and you got to undestand it NOW:
There is no war
oppsistes dont fight each other. sames do
hate doesnt fight love. they are opposites
hate on the other side, fight hate.

And get this into your head: Science has nohing to do with people reacting to magic or not!!

MAGIC ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE AND EXPLANATION
Science cannot explain magic because MAGIC ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE AND EXPLANATION.
Doesnt matter how much of a scientist they are.
Magic and science are completly different. Theres it no war. Its just you overthinking the situation.

Peace
 
Dec 16, 2008
115
0
Haha, I have a friend who was major in physics too. He wants to know how every trick work so badly :p. A self-work effect can makes those people sleepless I guess :rolleyes:. Science and Magic are not in the same line to compare.
An interesting thing is: science demo is more attractive for people who know much about science. In contract, people who don't know about magic enjoyed magic much more than a magician does :cool:.
 
Sep 1, 2007
109
0
you guys need to understand this and you got to undestand it NOW:
There is no war
oppsistes dont fight each other. sames do
hate doesnt fight love. they are opposites
hate on the other side, fight hate.

And get this into your head: Science has nohing to do with people reacting to magic or not!!

MAGIC ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE AND EXPLANATION
Science cannot explain magic because MAGIC ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE AND EXPLANATION.
Doesnt matter how much of a scientist they are.
Magic and science are completly different. Theres it no war. Its just you overthinking the situation.

Peace

It should first be noted that this post makes little sense. Granted that the "Hate fights Hate" statement works, love doesnt fight love. The only reason "hate fights hate" is becasue fighting and waring is the action of people with profound hate. When we then look at WHY they hate each other, it more often then not becomes a difference in opinion... which may not be opposite, but sure as hell isnt the same.

Also, you seem to think we're talking about real magic...? Because science CAN explain magic. It's all physics. There's clearly a method behind it, so of course science can explain it. Saying that it cant is just... wrong.

"And get this into your head: Science has nohing to do with people reacting to magic or not!!"
This again... doesnt make sense.

I suggest you re-read the topic and all the posts and try and figure out what we're really talking about.

An interesting thing is: science demo is more attractive for people who know much about science. In contract, people who don't know about magic enjoyed magic much more than a magician does.
I agree with this to a certain degree. I think that it requires a certain amount of knowledge to understand a science demo, but that everyone can enjoy them. Any good demo-er will give you this knowledge in simplified form while they work their way up to the 'climax' of their demo. Daily Planet (on Discovery) for example has a guy who's great at science demos. He goes out on the street and does them for average people who learn a lot from it and really seem to enjoy it.

Also, I would argue that I enjoy watching a good magic performance much more then the average person. You're right in saying that laymen enjoy magic as a WHOLE better. You may be asking how this can be, well i look at it this way:
I can't stand to watch a bad magician; it bothers me. I cant do it. Laymen, however, can still enjoy the show and the magic. A good magician, however, I appreceate much more then the average person. I respect the amount of time, the practice, the routining, the scripting, etc. I even think that a large part of people who go to see a magician like Ricky Jay or something, are magicians going to watch.


Not exactly. Many science demos are quite interesting for a broad range of people because they just look cool. This is what is being discussed here; both magic and science demos look cool, so how do they differ?
Good point. Mostly what I would say here is that science demos don't appeal so much to the masses simply because we're lazy. Like I said before, we want to find a way to escape for a while. Also, the large majority of people do not want to learn more then is required of them. Look at the litteracy levels for gods sake! Science demos, rather then giving an escape, tie us and give us a deeper look into REALITY. They give people the opposite of what they're looking for in entertainment; escape! The highest rated TV shows are sure as hell not on the Discovery Channel! We want to step AWAY, not INTO.

Different strokes for different folks I guess, but I would have to say that the majority of people would chose a magic show VS a science demo if someone walked up to them and asked them on the street. Even just the word "science" gives people a negative connotation because they think it's too complex.

Thats just me ranting a little more... sorry.

Cheers,
Lucas

Also, sorry if anyone takes offense to thinkgs I've said. I'm fairly blunt about stuff, no harm meant at all.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results