What is the highest form of magic?

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
I am using the term in the sense of "Not actually doing what they say they are."

There are well meaning people out there who genuinely believe they have some kind of supernatural ability and use that to help others. I have no problem with those people, but they are technically frauds.

This is also not to say that I don't believe in supernatural abilities at all. I have not seen enough evidence in either direction to make a decision on that front.
 
Aug 17, 2010
411
4
I have not seen enough evidence in either direction to make a decision on that front.

It's next to impossible to prove a negative; the burden of proof is on the positive assertion. Otherwise, any number of non-falsifiable assertions would have to be accepted or entertained.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
It's next to impossible to prove a negative; the burden of proof is on the positive assertion. Otherwise, any number of non-falsifiable assertions would have to be accepted or entertained.

Not really wanting to side track this with a discussion on this, but basically I don't discount the possibility of anything without sufficient proof. I keep an open mind while constantly looking for the explanation.
 
Sep 2, 2007
1,186
16
42
London
It's next to impossible to prove a negative; the burden of proof is on the positive assertion. Otherwise, any number of non-falsifiable assertions would have to be accepted or entertained.

I'll chip in on this to make the observation that any negative assertion can be rephrased as a positive one (e.g. "Telepathy does not exist" could be rephrased as "Human perception of stimuli is limited to that which they encounter via the sense organs or physical contact") so this notion of "burden of proof" quickly becomes meaningless. Any number of non-falsifiable assertions DO have to be accepted or entertained, however tacitly (e.g. "The world didn't only come into existence one second ago", "Some humans can breathe unaided on the moon", "We are actually ants who delusionally perceive ourselves as human", etc.)
 
Aug 17, 2010
411
4
I'll chip in on this to make the observation that any negative assertion can be rephrased as a positive one (e.g. "Telepathy does not exist" could be rephrased as "Human perception of stimuli is limited to that which they encounter via the sense organs or physical contact")

Those are two different claims; one that a phenomenon does not exist (and there's no real way to practically prove that it does not exist without testing every single person on earth - probably multiple times and with multiple methods.). This claim has a burden of proof, which is why it's best to deal only with assertions in their positive form; to do otherwise is a somewhat dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof.

The rephrase describes the limitations of our senses, with no claim to telepathy. Radio waves cannot be directly perceived by any human sense, yet there's overwhelming evidence to support their existence. Apples and oranges.

this notion of "burden of proof" quickly becomes meaningless. Any number of non-falsifiable assertions DO have to be accepted or entertained, however tacitly (e.g. "The world didn't only come into existence one second ago", "Some humans can breathe unaided on the moon", "We are actually ants who delusionally perceive ourselves as human", etc.)

So do you accept that there's a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars that's too small for even the most powerful telescope to detect, and made of a material that evades radio waves and other means of detection? Or would it be up to the person claiming this to provide the proof necessary to justify belief in the claim?

Without subjecting claims to evaluation, then how does one evade cognitive dissonance? You can't hold the beliefs that the world was created last Tuesday and also 5,000 years ago at the same time; these are mutually exclusive claims. How does one determine fact from fiction without evaluating the evidence? Are we ants dreaming of humanity, or brains in vats being fed stimuli? It can't be both... so that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

For any claim, non-acceptance it is not to claim the opposite. If someone tells me that a Giant Snow Demon exists, right now I find there to be insufficient evidence to accept the claim. This does not mean that I assert that a Giant Snow Demon does not exist, nor do I have to prove he/she/it does not exist. The burden is on the person making the claim.
 
Sep 2, 2007
1,186
16
42
London
Those are two different claims; one that a phenomenon does not exist (and there's no real way to practically prove that it does not exist without testing every single person on earth - probably multiple times and with multiple methods.). This claim has a burden of proof, which is why it's best to deal only with assertions in their positive form; to do otherwise is a somewhat dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You've used the expression "burden of proof" and characterised as "dishonest" any attempt to shift it. Shift it, I might add from a side of the argument upon which you arbitrarily chose to place it. My entire point (which you haven't addressed) is that all assertions can be made in a positive and negative form ("Humans are ruled by a higher power" / "Humans are not the highest power acting upon them"). There is no essential "positivity" or "negativity" to any claim about the world. To give a simpler example, "The top card of the deck is not a Heart" is equivalent to a claim of "The top card of the deck is a Club, a Spade or a Diamond" (assuming a standard 52 card deck). So, your contention that the burden of proof rests on whoever is making a positive assertion is equivalent to saying the burden of proof rests on whoever chooses to state their argument using a particular form of words, regardless of meaning. This, surely, cannot be the case.

The rephrase describes the limitations of our senses, with no claim to telepathy. Radio waves cannot be directly perceived by any human sense, yet there's overwhelming evidence to support their existence. Apples and oranges.

You haven't read the rephrase properly, otherwise you wouldn't have used radio waves as an example. A claim about the existence or non-existence of telepathy is EXACTLY a claim about the limits of human senses. Radio waves cannot be directly detected by a human sense, so we don't detect them until they've been interpreted via an intermediate piece of equipment. This piece of equipment converts them into something that is directly detected by a human sense. In other words, the only evidence we have for the existence of radio waves comes from human senses. To assert the existence of telepathy is to assert that humans can receive stimuli via some means other than the currently accepted human senses.

So do you accept that there's a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars that's too small for even the most powerful telescope to detect, and made of a material that evades radio waves and other means of detection? Or would it be up to the person claiming this to provide the proof necessary to justify belief in the claim?

This is just restating your argument without any additional support (unless you count "argument from Bertrand Russell's authority when he was at his least rigorous" as support). I'm not saying that all claims have equal probability of being true, or that it's not possible to formulate an argument as to the comparative likelihood of contradictory claims. I'm just saying that this "burden of proof" argument is a dead end.

Without subjecting claims to evaluation, then how does one evade cognitive dissonance? You can't hold the beliefs that the world was created last Tuesday and also 5,000 years ago at the same time; these are mutually exclusive claims. How does one determine fact from fiction without evaluating the evidence? Are we ants dreaming of humanity, or brains in vats being fed stimuli? It can't be both... so that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Maybe you can't determine fact from fiction. All you can do is assess the relative likelihood of different claims. Ideally without obfuscating the argument by creating a sub-argument about who has the burden of proof.

And, by the way, "Hitchens' Razor" is among the weakest bits of rhetoric I've ever come across. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is, in itself, an assertion without evidence. Therefore, by its own logic, it can be dismissed without evidence. It's just a convoluted way of saying "This sentence is probably false".

For any claim, non-acceptance it is not to claim the opposite. If someone tells me that a Giant Snow Demon exists, right now I find there to be insufficient evidence to accept the claim. This does not mean that I assert that a Giant Snow Demon does not exist, nor do I have to prove he/she/it does not exist. The burden is on the person making the claim.

Again, you're just restating the point which I was arguing against, rather than providing any counter-argument. I understand the point you're making, I'm just disagreeing with it. But, let's for a moment assume your argument is correct and, as you say, "the burden of proof is on the positive assertion". That's a positive assertion, so by your own argument, the burden of proof is on you. I remain skeptical.
 
Dec 18, 2007
1,610
14
64
Northampton, MA - USA
I am using the term in the sense of "Not actually doing what they say they are."

There are well meaning people out there who genuinely believe they have some kind of supernatural ability and use that to help others. I have no problem with those people, but they are technically frauds.

This is also not to say that I don't believe in supernatural abilities at all. I have not seen enough evidence in either direction to make a decision on that front.

Not to side track this thread, but I see the "technicality" as being hair splitting in most instances. For an example, there is a truth about the idea that "all psychic use cold reading" but the reason for this ISN'T the reason most skeptics like to imply, it's the fact that everything (all symbols) have an assigned meaning in life -- a definition -- and as such all things have a positive & negative influence under that definition e.g. it is impossible to not be a "Cold Reader" by today's seriously augmented definition of the term (Cold Reading does not mean today, what it meant just 20 years ago. The meaning has been seriously bastardized and spun since the early 1980s by certain "cults" associated with magic and the atheist movement as a whole).

There are numerous "Readers" in the world who have gotten counseling degrees and higher levels of psychology and sociology based degrees so they could better serve their clients and too, be able to better deal with the naysayers that love to scream about how we, as Readers, aren't properly trained for what we do. Where there is a truth to that, it is not a complete truth. Too, if I'm peddling myself as a Tarot Reader then that's what I'm relying on, the Tarot discipline not a bunch of magic tricks. . . this is true of most all Reading forms. . . it would be incredibly wise for most detractors of this field to study Ron Martin's works as well as Richard Websters & Neal Scyrer's earlier material.

Technically speaking however (and more closely related to the topic) many a legend such as Dante, Thurston, Houdini and of course the masters of mentalism like Annemann, Dunninger & Corinda ALL place solid Reading technique as the "epitome" of magic -- the highest form of enchantment one could achieve in that it is self-contained, requires little to no deception and it gives to the patron what they most love -- to hear good things and positive reinforcements about themselves and their own lives and too, what one does as a Reader is transformational in the real world; a solid Reader can deliver the kind of experience that helps people get out of their ruts in life. The responsible Reader, always seeking to help their clients to become empowered rather than dependent. While we do rely on repeat business, we likewise rely on "trust" and genuine loyalty; two things you cannot hope to gain if you're being duplicitous and manipulative (in the sense of being predatory).

AS TO THE REST OF THIS ARGUMENT. . .

TeeDee, thank you for your input, it's been interesting.

JButterfield, your attitude and thinking seems to be on par with the kind of scenario that's giving "skeptics" of today a very bad name in that you are more cynic and evangelists for atheism than you are true skeptics such as Christopher presents himself. On many levels Christopher and I stand quite close together on this issue in that I am both, believer and skeptic; I've seen and experienced far too much skeptics CANNOT explain without either insulting me by saying I was on drugs or some such thing, painting me as "delusional" which is always a great fall back favorite or then we have the "I don't know enough about this stuff and the subtle deceptions". . . let's take a poll on how many here think I'm lacking in such knowledge. . .

I'm hell on frauds . . . I mean predatory individuals and groups. I've had my life on the line twice when dealing with this sort and exposing them and I never once sought to make headlines with such things because that was never my goal. . . it is the goal of most hacks that think themselves to be "Houdini" and want to preserve their "careers" by playing this game and grabbing the headlines. Sorry, but that's the biggest reason why I refuse to encourage people to read "The Full Facts Book on Cold Reading" (one of the biggest pieces of crap and direct FRAUD ever pawned off on the magic community). But I digress here. . .

My points are dual; if this is an issue for you then start a thread let's not usurp this one. I may have been the catalyst to this one getting side-tracked because of my response to Christopher but I was only seeking clarification from a friend. It was never my intention to invite controversy into this thread and take it in this direction that came as the result of someone's knee jerk retort to what was being kept civil initially. TeeDee's perspective (his first post) being quite correct in that opposite perspective exists in all things and any negative claim can be presented in a positive -- it's called physics or physical dynamics and it applies to all aspects of life, not just where you want to place it and how you want to imply meaning for the sake of your own agenda & arguments. Again, one of the big shortcomings of today's more Cynical face of Skepticism; their attitudes are dogmatic and not inclusive of the greater whole.

Now enough of this talk though, let's get back on track
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results