“Tautological denial of magic” seems like a total misunderstanding of the scientific method. If you know there’s something “magical” you still can study it’s effects on the real world.
Like someone here already commented, this is what we do in case of medical studies, “how good does this thing work compared to something that gives the illusion of working”, the same can be done for whatever you define as your “magic”.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Randi doesn’t need to rely on it.
The only thing he has to do is explain how the magic trick works.
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
An ollie is a trick. Debunk an ollie for me.
AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 year ago
You are using a different definition of trick than the one in the person you are replying to. Every demonstration of magic thus far has involved hiding information from the person the magic is being performed for, to make it look like something was done that was not, in fact, done.
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Yeah, I’m using a different definition of trick in order to provoke that person to realise they’re using an inappropriate definition to this situation.
Here, I’ll show you a magic trick that involves no deception: