 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010Prescriptive
If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or something prescribed it? Could the laws of physics be described as prescriptive? Cheers, jak > If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or > something prescribed it? Could the laws of physics be described as > prescriptive? No. Water turns from a liquid to a solid state (ice) below a certain temperature. This is not because some physicist has said that it should.  SignatureJames >If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >something prescribed it? Yes >Could the laws of physics be described as prescriptive? Depends on your theological perspective... SignatureIan D >>If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Depends on your theological perspective... Indeed. But the laws of physics, as we know them, are written by humans. They are based on observation and describe how things work. They are "descriptive". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>>something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are based on observation and describe how things work. They are > "descriptive". There is, of course, a distinction to be made between "the laws...as we know them" and the actual laws (if there are any). SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >> Could the laws of physics be described as prescriptive? > > Depends on your theological perspective... The traditional descriptions leave out a lot of detail. "Let there be light" was presumably preceded by things like "Let Planck's constant be ...". (OK, OK, I know. Planck wasn't even born then. But an omniscient being should have been able to predict his existence.) (If that argument doesn't convince you, just substitute "Let My constant be ..."). SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >something prescribed it? They're usually proscriptive, even if labeled incorrectly (asbos). >Could the laws of physics be described as prescriptive? Oh, so there must be a prescriber... is that where you're going? SignatureJohn >> If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >> something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, so there must be a prescriber... is that where you're going? Oh my hypothetical being. I hadn't noticed that. Are we back to the tree in the quad, then? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>> something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Oh my hypothetical being. I hadn't noticed that. Are we back to the tree >in the quad, then? Not in my hemisphere. SignatureJohn >>>> If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>>> something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Not in my hemisphere. Isn't "When a tree falls in the forrest, does it make a sound?", universal, or are you talking about something else? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>>>> something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Isn't "When a tree falls in the forrest, does it make a sound?", > universal, or are you talking about something else? I think Berkeley's "tree in the quad" argument is a bit older than that question, although they're related. Bishop Berkeley's argument, if I recall it correctly, runs something like this. 1. Obviously a tree cannot exist unless there is someone there to observe it. 2. On the other hand, it is absurd to suppose that the tree goes away whenever I look the other way, and returns when I look back again. 3. Therefore the tree must have some sort of continuity. 4. Therefore someone must be watching it all the time. (Some people these days would call this "intelligent observation" [*], in order to get it into the science curriculum.) 5. Therefore a god exists. 6. Besides, a god who sees every sparrow fall would certainly notice the abrupt disappearance of a tree, because lots of sparrows would suddenly lose their footing. It's years since I read the original wording, so I might be misremembering some details. [*] As distinct from unintelligent observation. Berkeley never stated this explicitly, but I suspect that he believed that a sparrow's visual cortex was too small to keep an entire tree in existence. Very many years later, physics was to face a similar question: is a cat sufficiently self-aware to collapse a wave function? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>>> If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>>>>> something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Very many years later, physics was to face a similar question: is a cat >sufficiently self-aware to collapse a wave function? Good old Schrodinger, but I must say I liked his equation substantially better than his cat, which annoys me whenever I read about her. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>>>> something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Isn't "When a tree falls in the forrest, does it make a sound?", >universal, or are you talking about something else? The trees are all bare a whiteness blankets the quad chatter on indoors. SignatureJohn >>>>> If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>>>> something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Isn't "When a tree falls in the forrest, does it make a sound?", > universal, or are you talking about something else? Something close to it: it's a bit of venerable[1] collegiate humor with a Berkeleyan flavor (as in the Rt. Rev. George, not as in University of California at): There was a young man who said "God Must find it exceedingly odd When he finds that this tree Just ceases to be When there's no-one about on the Quad." Which is supposed to have provoked the reply: "Dear sir your confusion is odd I am always about on the Quad So you see that this tree Continues to be Since observed by yours truly", signed, God [1] Earliest citation at Google Books appears to be 1943. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>>>>> If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or >>>>>> something prescribed it? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Continues to be >Since observed by yours truly", signed, God Since observed by, yours faithfully, God. Scans better. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >"Dear sir your confusion is odd > >I am always about on the Quad [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Scans better. What about this rule we've been told about, on when to say "faithfully" -- does it fit? >> >"Dear sir your confusion is odd >> >I am always about on the Quad [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What about this rule we've been told about, on when to say "faithfully" > -- does it fit? Yes, you've got "Sir" and "faithfully" which is fine. As would be "Dear reader" and "sincerely". You just shouldn't have the two 'S's SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> >"Dear sir your confusion is odd >> >I am always about on the Quad [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >What about this rule we've been told about, on when to say "faithfully" >-- does it fit? Which rule is that? All the versions of the limerick I've seen until this thread have used "yours faithfully". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >> Since observed by, yours faithfully, God. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which rule is that? It's not a rule in the US, but I've seen it mentioned here a few times. Nick reminded me which way it goes -- you're supposed to say "Yours sincerely" if you begin with a name, and "Yours faithfully" if you don't (like "Dear Sir"). I think "faithfully" looks rather elegant. In the US, it's pretty much down to "Yours truly" or "Sincerely yours" or "Sincerely". SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> >> Since observed by, yours faithfully, God. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I think "faithfully" looks rather elegant. In the US, it's pretty much >down to "Yours truly" or "Sincerely yours" or "Sincerely". Well, that fits too then. I think I was taught that at school. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:44:35 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Scans better. And is in /The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations/ that way (p. 4): Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd: /I/ am always about in the Quad, And that's why the tree Will continue to be, Since observed by Yours faithfully, God. (Anonymous. The original is credited to Mgr. Ronald Knox.) -- Jerry Friedman > If a law is deemed "prescriptive" does that imply that someone or > something prescribed it? No: it means the law prescribes what you must do (e.g. carry ID, e.g. keep to the left, e.g. pay for social insurance.) Proscriptive law proscribes (forbids) what you must not do, e.g. steal, e.g. marry more than one spouse, e.g. say offensive things about El Supremo. > Could the laws of physics be described as prescriptive? They are usually described as descriptive. They are also prescriptive in one or both of two senses: 1. They dictate how physical objects must behave. When two moving objects collide, their vectors after the event are 100 per cent determined by their vectors before the event. 2. Some people also believe God organized the universe to be as it is: thus either the Creator God also created the laws of physics or else the Creator God is not omnipotent (if himself oblliged to obey prior laws of physics.) SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) [...] >> Could the laws of physics be described as prescriptive? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Creator God is not omnipotent (if himself obliged to obey prior laws of > physics.) Just musing: can "prescriptive" be applied to rules other than those that apply to sentient entities capable of choosing whether or not to abide by the prescription? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Thanks Eric, and thanks everyone for your responses. Just for the record, I am an atheist of the Dawkins variety. I am in a discussion with some fundamentalist Christians. They are arguing that the laws of physics (nature, the universe) are NOT prescriptive, and therefore can be broken at will. Yes, I know that is a strange tack for fundamentalist Christians to take, I would have guessed that these laws were prescribed by their god, but no, they think that as prescriptive laws CANNOT be broken, miracles would then not be possible. I agree that the laws are NOT prescriptive, simply because that would necessitate a prescriber for which I see no evidence. They are adamant that "prescriptive" requires NO prescriber, because the dictionary does not explicitly state a requirement for one. I have come here to get a fresh view, as I'm starting to doubt my own judgement in this matter. So the crux of my query is, is the accepted meaning of prescriptive that there must always be a prescriber? And if there is no prescriber, they are not prescriptive? Cheers jak >So the crux of my query is, is the accepted meaning of prescriptive >that there must always be a prescriber? >And if there is no prescriber, they are not prescriptive? And then there is this: prescription n. the method of acquiring an easement upon another's real property by continued and regular use without permission of the property owner for a period of years required by the law of the state (commonly five years or more). Examples: Phillip Packer drives across the corner of Ralph Roundup's ranch to reach Packer's barn regularly for a period of ten years; for a decade Ralph Retailer uses the alley back of Marjorie Howard's house to reach his storeroom. In each case the result is a "prescriptive easement" for that specific use. It effectively gives the user an easement for use but not ownership of the property. (See: prescriptive easement) When I first saw your query, I thought that "prescriptive" had something to do with a period that could expire, but was too lazy to look it up (my reading glasses were in another room). SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > Just for the record, I am an atheist of the Dawkins variety. I am in a > discussion with some fundamentalist Christians. > > They are arguing that the laws of physics (nature, the universe) are NOT > prescriptive, and therefore can be broken at will. . . . The discussion on these terms is pointless, because whether the laws can or cannot be broken is unaffected by such word or words as we choose to apply to them. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > or cannot be broken is unaffected by such word or words as we choose to > apply to them. I agree, Eric, but like cryptic crosswords, the thrust and parry of pointless debate keeps my elderly brain active and is a pleasant distraction until the opposition descends into silly arguments like "I call these things X and the dictionary says X is Y + Z so your observation that X is Y + Z + 2 must be wrong." Cheers, jak >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >things X and the dictionary says X is Y + Z so your observation that >X is Y + Z + 2 must be wrong." For the benefit of your fundamentalist Christian friends try this: God the Creator has created the universe which operates according to physical laws. He/She/It has also created a set of moral laws for humans. God has prescribed both sets of laws. The physical laws are simply the way the physical universe works. The laws are not outside the objects in the universe. The laws simply determine the nature of the objects in the universe. They are the way things are. Believers in divine intervention (miracles) say that God can intervene and change the normal working of things. The universe is a machine that will run the way in which it was designed to run unless God sticks a hand in to change the way it works. The moral laws do not control the way humans behave. They tell humans how they *ought* to behave. There is then a system of rewards and penalties for good behaviour and bad behaviour. We humans can observe and describe the way the universe works and express this description in what we call the Laws of Physics (and other scientific disciplines). We cannot prescribe physical laws we can only describe them. When it comes to human behaviour humans can prescribe laws to attempt to control the behaviour of themselves and other humans. Like God we can apply penalties to those who disobey those laws. It is unfortunate that the single word "law" is used for two very different purposes. I hope you can find some way of shortening the above for the purposes of your discussions. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >It is unfortunate that the single word "law" is used for two very >different purposes. I can see a "theory" discussion looming. SignatureIan D On Dec 29, 7:26 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> > They are arguing that the laws of physics (nature, the universe) are NOT > >> > prescriptive, and therefore can be broken at will. . . . At whose will? (As Cormac McCarthy might say.) I've never had much luck--though some of my physics students seem capable of breaking the laws of physics without even wanting to. To me a prescriptive law would be one that tells you something you have to do, such as the American law that male citizens turning 18 have to register for the draft. Whether the law can be broken at will (like that law or the one forbidding murder) or can't (like the laws of physics, I strongly suspect) doesn't have anything to do with what I mean by "prescriptive". > For the benefit of your fundamentalist Christian friends try this: > > God the Creator has created the universe which operates according to > physical laws. This is one religious view, but not the only one. There are also supernaturalist (?) views that everything that happens in the material world is the result of sentience--either material things are sentient, or angels make everything happen. Either way, you could say that the laws of nature are prescriptive, but much more generally obeyed than human laws. > He/She/It has also created a set of moral laws for > humans. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > machine that will run the way in which it was designed to run unless God > sticks a hand in to change the way it works. ... As I said above, this is not necessarily the only religious view. In fact, I suspect it was uncommon till Kepler and Newton (but I don't know). > It is unfortunate that the single word "law" is used for two very > different purposes. Yep. -- Jerry Friedman > Thanks Eric, and thanks everyone for your responses. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > god, but no, they think that as prescriptive laws CANNOT be broken, > miracles would then not be possible. For once I agree with Eric: our definition of a word, whether it be by dictionary or otherwise, does not change reality in the slightest. Still, I can't help commenting on the topic of miracles. It seems to me that an all-powerful god, with the ability to set up the laws of physics, would hardly be so stupid as to build loopholes into the laws. Miracles, as I understand them, are violations of the laws governing the universe. Sure, if you're in charge of the laws then it's possible to allow exceptions, but would any self-respecting god really do this? It would be shoddy design. [1] Second-rate stage magicians can do miracles. I would have serious doubts, though, about the bona fides of a would-be god who is unable to rise above the temptation to imitate second-rate magicians. [1] Oops, there's that word. The "intelligent design" community has already provided adequate evidence that their hypothesised designer is seriously lacking in intelligence, so perhaps we're talking to the invincibly ignorant here. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [...] > Still, I can't help commenting on the topic of miracles. It seems to me > that an all-powerful god, with the ability to set up the laws of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > allow exceptions, but would any self-respecting god really do this? It > would be shoddy design. . . . Believers who speak of miracles always amaze me, because they seem not to understand that they are being, in a word, blasphemous, in that they are attributing to God limitations of a kind that ill-assort with omniscience and omnipotence. The core of the problem, I think, is an inability on their part to actually comprehend what all those omni's imply coupled with an inability to think outside the conventional conceptions of temporality. Leaving aside the question of what sort of meta-time an eternal being who created time and space might be thought to operate in, consider: before the capital-C Creation an omniscient God would foresee exactly, to the fall of a sparrow's feather, every event in the entirety of time and space for every possible set of initial conditions and laws, and would then, with omnipotence, create the universe (or universes?) within which those initial conditions and laws are such that all things will (or, speaking timelessly, do) proceed as wanted, obviating the need for "miracles"--which did they occur would thus, in effect, say "I couldn't get it _quite_ right." (That view does not conflict with free will, but this is a.u.e. not alt.religion or whatever, so I'll stop here.) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >"miracles"--which did they occur would thus, in effect, say "I couldn't >get it _quite_ right." But aren't those laws of human, rather than divine origin? They are human perceptions of what makes the universe tick, and those perceptions change from time to time, if people like Thomas Kuhn are to be believed. I'll say no more on that to avoid the dreaded p word. But isn't a "miracle" something that prompts you to say "Wow!" It doesn't necessarily have much to do with the "laws" of nature. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > But aren't those laws of human, rather than divine origin? Whether they are of divine origin starts Very Big Fights. But I find the idea of their being of "human origin", um, bizarre. > They are human perceptions of what makes the universe tick, and those > perceptions change from time to time, if people like Thomas Kuhn are to > be believed. My knowledge of Kuhn's work is limited to a couple of Wikipedia articles, but it reminds me of what someone once said about another work: "The part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." (That is often attributed to Sam'l Johnson, but apparently without ground.) As best I can make out, Kuhn appears to feel that because humans are imperfect, and occasionally let subjective preferences bias their thinking, science as a tool is forever condemned to be subjective knowledge. Without entering into extended discussion, I'd sum my reaction as Nero Wolfe's favorite pejorative: pfui. Human perceptions of natural law do indeed change from time to time, but in general follow a path that, while now zigging and now zagging, generally tends toward a more complete and more precise description of how things work. Einstein's work, for example, did not "overthrow" Newton's: it only expanded it. But this is (to use Bancroft Pons's favorite pejorative) kinderspiel. > But isn't a "miracle" something that prompts you to say "Wow!" It > doesn't necessarily have much to do with the "laws" of nature. A "miracle" as used in the old, original, theological sense means some occurrence impossible under natural law and thus requiring (and manifesting) direct supernatural influence in the mundane world; looser uses, meaning any dramatic but quite unlikely event, are transferred senses. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ [Miracles] >A "miracle" as used in the old, original, theological sense means some >occurrence impossible under natural law and thus requiring (and >manifesting) direct supernatural influence in the mundane world; looser >uses, meaning any dramatic but quite unlikely event, are transferred >senses. But what would a well-educated person in Caligula's Rome think of television, the motor car etc? Would he think of them as miracles, or as extensions of something (we call it technology) that they had already started to develop. I'm still unsure whether Arthur Clarke's famous quote about advanced technology seeming miraculous is actually true to people who are not lost in superstition. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England [...] > But what would a well-educated person in Caligula's Rome think of > television, the motor car etc? Would he think of them as miracles, or > as extensions of something (we call it technology) that they had already > started to develop. I'm still unsure whether Arthur Clarke's famous > quote about advanced technology seeming miraculous is actually true to > people who are not lost in superstition. Given the proviso "well-educated", I daresay such a person would have the same reaction we would to an exhibition of some tech way beyond our own: good work, how do you do it? I have always thought Clarke's remark demonstrated a sharp misunderstanding of both technology and magic. (I am well aware that he knew tech stuff, but that's not quite the same thing.) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > technology and magic. (I am well aware that he knew tech stuff, but > that's not quite the same thing.) It would be interesting to see an explanation of television, a cell phone, a remote control, a computer, a web site, or nearly anything technological we take for granted that was geared at somebody, even a scientist, from anywhere before, say, the seventeenth or eighteenth century, who has absolutely no experience with electricity, radio, etc., that didn't come off as sounding like magic, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. I don't think I could do it. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > etc., that didn't come off as sounding like magic, protestations to > the contrary notwithstanding. I don't think I could do it. I don't think anyone could do it. SignatureJames >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >I don't think anyone could do it. But do you have to? How much does the average well-educated person know about quantum mechanics or how a TV actually works? Discounting trickery or sleight of hand, there are only two explanations for things that apparently break the laws of physics: they are either magic or we simply do not know enough about the laws of physics yet to explain them. "Magic" is a loaded word. To believe that it's at all possible is, to me, to be superstitious, to believe in the supernatural. They had machines in the 19th century; Newton was around at that time and scientific thinking was quite advanced. They even had machines of sorts in Roman times. The ancient Greeks speculated about atoms. I think that Clarke's remark treats humanity as some sort of cargo cult that will always view high enough technology as supernatural. but I think he's underestimating us. In every age there must have been people who said "There must be a natural explanation for X", where X is something out of mankind's experience. If not, science would never have got off the ground. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >supernatural. They had machines in the 19th century; Newton was >around at that time and scientific thinking was quite advanced. We think of Newton as a scientist. His science was a small part of what he did. He was also active in theology and in studies of the occult. I have read only a little on his non-scientific activities but this chimes with what I have read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies > They >even had machines of sorts in Roman times. The ancient Greeks [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >natural explanation for X", where X is something out of mankind's >experience. If not, science would never have got off the ground. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [...] > We think of Newton as a scientist. His science was a small part of what > he did. He was also active in theology and in studies of the occult. > > I have read only a little on his non-scientific activities but this > chimes with what I have read: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies Definitely true, but needing qualification. Despite Keynes's calling Newton "the last of the magicians", the "occult" involved was not so much "magic" as we today understand the word as the older sense of "hidden" knowledge. In short, he is better described--as he often is--by the phrase "the last alchemist". I have somewhere, though I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment, a little book titled (as best I remember) just that--"Newton: The Last Alchemist". (Curiously, I find sources outside the Wikipedia article on Newton, including others on Wikipedia, that state that that also was Keynes' actual phrase for Newton.) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>>>> [...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > chimes with what I have read: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies But surely science in the modern sense, all nicely sorted out into chemistry and physics and so on, didn't exist then? It was quite in order for a natural philosopher to study alchemy as well as falling objects. I think theology was considered a separate branch of knowledge than natural philosophy, and I believe he was quite an original - or at least unorthodox - theologian, too. I keep meaning to read more about him; he seems to have been a much more complex character than is shown by the two or three line biographies accompanying Newton's Laws in introductory physics texts. Cheryl > I think that Clarke's remark treats humanity as some sort of cargo > cult that will always view high enough technology as > supernatural. but I think he's underestimating us. In every age > there must have been people who said "There must be a natural > explanation for X", where X is something out of mankind's > experience. If not, science would never have got off the ground. Clarke didn't say that people will view high enough technology as magic. He said that sufficiently advanced technology is *indistinguishable from* magic. There's a difference. Pick anything you like and imagine the sort of explanation someone would give for a magical way to do it. Then imagine that somebody gives essentially the same explanation (because that's as close as he can come using terms you can understand) and follows it up with "But of course, there's nothing magical about it. It's all the sort of science one learns in high school in the 27th century." No magic involved. You just wave this stick and say these three words and a being from the seventh dimension is summoned into the circle, and it will answer one question about something that will happen in the future. Simple science. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired |for their resemblance to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger. (650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > Clarke didn't say that people will view high enough technology as magic. > He said that sufficiently advanced technology is *indistinguishable > from* magic. There's a difference. Indistinguishable by whom? The person--or persons--operating it knows perfectly well that it is tech, whether or not he or she really grasps how it works. So if someone is having trouble distinguishing, that is because that someone is being, in a word, fooled. If we stuck David Letterman's old pal KayMar the Discount Magician in a time machine and ran him back a few centuries, his ordinary stage conjuror's stuff would probably convince not a few--maybe most--that he was doing magic. Is the fact--presumed fact--that a few very low-tech mechanical toys (if any: I'm not expert on stage magic) coupled with training in deception and rapid hand movements are "indistinguishable from magic" some deep insight worth memorializing in an apothegm? The proposition also is silly because it depends on the victims--there is no better word--being _conceptually_ unable to distinguish tech and magic (that is, phenomena that are regular from those that flow purely from will). [...] > No magic involved. You just wave this stick and say these three words > and a being from the seventh dimension is summoned into the circle, and > it will answer one question about something that will happen in the > future. Simple science. In fact, did it work, it would be. That's another one that fans on science-fiction/fantasy forums get entangled over: but any phenomena that are literally regular are part of science. Magic is, by definition, that which is not regular, which is purely _ad hoc_ imposition of will on reality; anything that _is_ regular--that always works the same way, that can be discovered by diligent application of the scientific method--is science. Science has not (yet) found any indications that there are sticks with the property that waving them while saying certain particular words will invoke a being from another continuum (nor any definite assurance that there are such places), or that any such beings could see into our future. But if it did, well, that would indeed be a revolution in science--but not magic. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > how it works. So if someone is having trouble distinguishing, that is > because that someone is being, in a word, fooled. Does that assume someone is doing the fooling? I'm sure you don't need me to list sf stories in which the writer's contemporaries or others come across incomprehensible artifacts of a more advanced civilization. As far as the characters are concerned, the artifacts might as well be magic, though the makers aren't engaged in any deception. Then there's the sf where what appears to be magic turns out to be technological. Your favorite example (I think) and mine is Gene Wolfe's "Sun" books, where the distinction is often problematic. > If we stuck David > Letterman's old pal KayMar the Discount Magician in a time machine and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rapid hand movements are "indistinguishable from magic" some deep insight > worth memorializing in an apothegm? The only thing I could find on the context of Clarke's Third Law was a Usenet post by none other than Mark Brader (whose style when correcting mistakes hasn't changed since 1991). He said Clarke stated it in a footnote about his other two laws. http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.arts.sf.misc/msg/e4185210a85826fc You can see the footnote here: http://books.google.com/books?ei=_sM-S53KC4zKNfqDhdEB&cd=1&id=YXXZAAAAMAAJ&dq=Pr ofiles+of+the+Future&q=Third+Law#search_anchor So it's not clear what Clarke had in mind. I suspect he was saying that in writing sf or supposed non-fiction about the very distant future, one can imagine technology as being so advanced that we wouldn't be able to see its limitations; a science-fiction writer is as free as a fantasy writer to invent anything he or she wants. > The proposition also is silly because it depends on the victims--there is > no better word--being _conceptually_ unable to distinguish tech and magic > (that is, phenomena that are regular from those that flow purely from > will). But that's not the distinction. Magic has often been imagined as involving regular phenomena--for instance, alchemy was presented that way, and astrology books still tell you that if you were born under this sign, you'll have these qualities. Or in sf, I think you like Jack Vance's /Dying Earth/ books, which present magic that way. The distinction is that technology works better than magic--not that magic doesn't work, since it can work as a placebo. And if you're imagining explaining the conceptual difference to somebody who's sharp with concepts, you might have trouble convincing the person that the placebo effect is on the side of science, not magic. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In fact, did it work, it would be. Here I agree with you. > That's another one that fans on > science-fiction/fantasy forums get entangled over: but any phenomena that > are literally regular are part of science. Magic is, by definition, that > which is not regular, which is purely _ad hoc_ imposition of will on > reality; Is that definition in some dictionary? > anything that _is_ regular--that always works the same way, that > can be discovered by diligent application of the scientific method--is > science. > Science has not (yet) found any indications that there are sticks with > the property that waving them while saying certain particular words will > invoke a being from another continuum (nor any definite assurance that > there are such places), or that any such beings could see into our > future. But if it did, well, that would indeed be a revolution in > science--but not magic. What if it worked, but not regularly? I must admit I'm inclined to define magic in a way that may not be in any dictionaries. I'd say it's methods that don't work (or at best work as placebos) and are part of or resemble folklore and the beliefs of pre-tech societies. -- Jerry Friedman [...] > Magic has often been imagined as involving regular phenomena--for > instance, alchemy was presented that way, and astrology books still > tell you that if you were born under this sign, you'll have these > qualities. But that is exactly the point: practitioners in those fields fully believed that they _were_ investigating sciences, not magic (though "science" would not then have been their terminology). That their science turned out to be grossly wrong doesn't mean it wasn't science: other (apparently) dead-wrong but once-believed-in principles include phlogiston and the luminiferous aether. [...] >> Magic is, by definition, that which is not regular, which is purely > _ad hoc_ imposition of will on reality; > > Is that definition in some dictionary? Interesting question. What the OED has is a mess, qualified and re- qualified. The AHD is briefer and clearer: "The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural." I think we can take it as read that "supernatural" means that which is not natural; that means, of course, that--as with the OED-- the "definition" is no such thing, merely a tautology (magic is unnatural control of the natural by that which is not natural). But it does show clearly that magic is power or force that is "not natural". (The OED's muddle includes notes to the effect that "magic" as defined in the Middle Ages, which is chiefly when the term was operative for anything other than sleight-of-hand entertainment, was held to be divided into two sorts, one of which was termed "natural magic", which-- still per the OED--pretty much corresponds to today's "science".) The conceptual problem is that any sort of "magic" that follows laws yet corresponds in general form--spells, enchanted artifacts, or the like--to the classic conception of magic is something that can only--we are today awfully sure--exist in fantastic literature. (Then again, we are awfully sure that the aether doesn't exist, but no one has ever actually disproved its existence: it was shaved off the face of science with Occam's razor after Einstein's work made it needless.) Thus, moderns have great difficulty conceiving natural laws that are in their operation "magic-like"--which is fine for dealing with the universe but not so fine for dealing with certain flavors of fantastic literature. Indeed, a high percentage of speculative-fiction readers have great difficulty grasping the concept of "regular magic" as simply an alternative, fictional science. As to dealing with a reasonably sophisticated person from before the flowering of science (say, prior to 1800, to take an artificial and hazy divider) about what is or isn't magic, that's in a reply elsethread and would be tedious to duplicate. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > other (apparently) dead-wrong but once-believed-in principles include > phlogiston and the luminiferous aether. I don't agree. They believed they were investigating regular phenomena and determining laws that governed them, but science didn't exist. They used /a priori/ reasoning, ancient authority, and untested principles (such as correspondences between gods, planets, metals, days of the week, etc.) where scientists rely on experiment and observation. So I'd say that according to the usual definitions, they were investigating regular phenomena but not scientifically. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > divided into two sorts, one of which was termed "natural magic", which-- > still per the OED--pretty much corresponds to today's "science".) Except the practitioners' approach. > The conceptual problem is that any sort of "magic" that follows laws yet > corresponds in general form--spells, enchanted artifacts, or the like--to > the classic conception of magic is something that can only--we are today > awfully sure--exist in fantastic literature. But none of this corresponds to the distinction you're trying to make between regular phenomena (science) and the /ad hoc/ imposition of the will (magic). First, you haven't said whose will--the wizards' and witches', or the demons and spirits they work with (in some pictures of magic)? More important, your two categories don't exclude each other. The supposed imposition of the will on matter could work in a regular way. Most important, there are centuries or millennia of use of the word "magic", including lively contemporary use, and as far as I know, none of it excludes regular phenomena. The distinction in dictionaries is between "natural" and "supernatural", not between "regular" and "ad hoc". If you want a word for what you're talking about, "magic" isn't it. > (Then again, we are awfully > sure that the aether doesn't exist, but no one has ever actually > disproved its existence: it was shaved off the face of science with > Occam's razor after Einstein's work made it needless.) Sort of depends on your definitions. If the ether is defined as the medium of light vibrations, it doesn't exist. > Thus, moderns have great difficulty conceiving natural laws that are in > their operation "magic-like"--which is fine for dealing with the universe > but not so fine for dealing with certain flavors of fantastic > literature. Indeed, a high percentage of speculative-fiction readers > have great difficulty grasping the concept of "regular magic" as simply > an alternative, fictional science. ... Even editors have that problem. And I'd say it's not that simple-- atmosphere makes a difference, and reading about spells and sortileges is different from reading about ray guns and rockets. -- Jerry Friedman [...] >> But that is exactly the point: practitioners in those fields fully >> believed that they _were_ investigating sciences, not magic (though [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > say that according to the usual definitions, they were investigating > regular phenomena but not scientifically. That is so. I should certainly not have used the word "science", which has a relatively modern origin and exact sense. But they did (as I think you are agreeing) believe that they were investigating phenomena that obeyed impersonal universal laws, and not "magic" in the sense of things whose outcome is _ad hoc_. [...] >> (The OED's muddle includes notes to the effect that "magic" as >> defined in the Middle Ages, which is chiefly when the term was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Except the practitioners' approach. Probably. But, though the "scientific method" as an accepted system has a fairly late arrival date, that is not to say that no one prior to that time was using its concepts; observation and even experiment are not precluded by the lack of an over-arching principle of a critical hypothesis and a crucial experiment. (And something much like the modern scientific method was in use around 1000 A.D. in some areas.) >> The conceptual problem is that any sort of "magic" that follows laws >> yet corresponds in general form--spells, enchanted artifacts, or the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > witches', or the demons and spirits they work with (in some pictures of > magic)? That point is not material: persuading a spirit-being capable of magic to do some for one is arguably not really "doing magic"--the spirit does it-- but in the end it comes to the same thing: the phenomenon occurs as the result of mere will imposing itself on reality. > More important, your two categories don't exclude each other. > The supposed imposition of the will on matter could work in a regular > way. I think that oxymoronic. As I remarked elsewhere, the superlative of "not regular" cannot literally be utter lawlessness owing to the possibility of constructing the statement "lawlessness is the law"; but reality being made to conform itself to a will by the action of nothing but that will is about as close as can be gotten to utter lawlessness. > Most important, there are centuries or millennia of use of the > word "magic", including lively contemporary use, and as far as I know, > none of it excludes regular phenomena. The distinction in dictionaries > is between "natural" and "supernatural", not between "regular" and "ad > hoc". If you want a word for what you're talking about, "magic" isn't > it. Well, that's the crux, isn't it? "Supernatural" is, rather by the nature of the word, that which is above nature. If nature is, um, natural--that is, comprises that which follows universal laws (whether or not we or anyone has fully determined those laws)--then the supernatural is that which is not bound by laws. To say that it is bound by a different set of higher laws, or some such thing, is oxymoronic, in that what follows laws is "natural"--part of nature. Moreover, whether "magic" in customary acceptances is the wanted word is cart before horse: what's being sought here is a mental tool to allow a hypothetical ancient to perceive the difference between the impersonal and universal operations of the world and supernatural _ad hoc_ phenomena. In conversation with such an ancient, one would necessarily clarify terminology as a starting point: the words we use aren't what matters, we can use whatever he or she is comfortable with; what matters is the distinction between natural law and supernatural influence, because what we want to get to is validation (at least on a logical plane) that our equally hypothetical time-carried tech device does not rely on supernatural means for its operation. >> (Then again, we are awfully sure that the aether doesn't exist, but no >> one has ever actually disproved its existence: it was shaved off the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sort of depends on your definitions. If the ether is defined as the > medium of light vibrations, it doesn't exist. Well, somebody's definitions. [The aether] moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space- filling medium if one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter) as the condition thereof. -- Albert Einstein, 1920 [W]e are rather forced to have an aether. -- Paul Dirac, 1951 To the extent that we can credit a Wikipedia article, we have this: "Today the majority of physicists hold that there is no need to imagine that an aether (as a medium for light propagation) exists," which clearly implies that there still exists a minority who do so imagine. But the point, being quite subsidiary to the issues here, is not really worth spending much time on. >> Thus, moderns have great difficulty conceiving natural laws that are in >> their operation "magic-like"--which is fine for dealing with the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > atmosphere makes a difference, and reading about spells and sortileges > is different from reading about ray guns and rockets. Very true. Most discussions of the topic on sff forums end up with the majority concluding, in about these words, that if it "feels like" fantasy, it is. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >obeyed impersonal universal laws, and not "magic" in the sense of things >whose outcome is _ad hoc_. I'm not sure that I want to jump into the thread at this late stage, but I don't think I can let pass the idea that "magic" is something which has an ad hoc outcome. Countless grimoires, spell-books and other records down the ages demonstrate that magicians of all sorts (including witches, sorcerers, etc) had very clear recipes for achieving very precise results. Countless legends and stories gleefully recount the unpleasant consequences of using an eye from the wrong sort of toad or failing to pronounce a demon's name correctly. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >(including witches, sorcerers, etc) had very clear recipes for >achieving very precise results. I think that *is* ad hoc. OED's first two sense of ad hoc: a. For this purpose, to this end; for the particular purpose in hand or in view. b. attrib. or as adj. Devoted, appointed, etc., to or for some particular purpose. > Countless legends and stories >gleefully recount the unpleasant consequences of using an eye from the >wrong sort of toad or failing to pronounce a demon's name correctly. The purpose of magic is to intervene to produce a deviation from the otherwise "unmolested" natural course of events. Whether this is done by the manipulation of the natural world within the rules of that world or is done supernaturally I'll leave to believers . SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > or in view. b. attrib. or as adj. Devoted, appointed, etc., to or for > some particular purpose. Nowadays it's often used as a term of abuse, not exemplified in the OED. The derivative "adhocracy" has both positive and negative connotations: "A flexible and informal style of organization and management, characterized by a lack of bureaucracy. Also (depreciative): bureaucracy characterized by inconsistency and lack of planning." SignatureJames >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > characterized by a lack of bureaucracy. Also (depreciative): > bureaucracy characterized by inconsistency and lack of planning." A pejorative use we are familiar with is implicit in those nonce- (or, indeed, ad hoc) formations: we can say things like "Ad hoc solutions just won't do: we've got to set up something permanent." The senses covered may include "temporary", "make-do", "hand to mouth", etc. SignatureMike. > >>> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > characterized by a lack of bureaucracy. Also (depreciative): bureaucracy > characterized by inconsistency and lack of planning." Apologize to those who have seen this from me before, but a friend of mine in grad school used to say, "Ad hoc is Latin for bullshit." I think he was thinking of phrases like "ad hoc assumption", but "ad hoc committee" probably didn't discourage this use. -- Jerry Friedman >>>[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >the manipulation of the natural world within the rules of that world or >is done supernaturally I'll leave to believers . But I think you'll find that magicians believed, just as scientists did and do, that "they were investigating phenomena that obeyed impersonal universal laws". If phenomena did not obey these laws, how could you hope to affect them? You may argue that this was illusory, but the whole idea of the grimoire was to keep a record of reproducible prescriptions for achieving particular ends. The whole thing is predicated on a universe of order, reason and cause-and-effect. The magician may not know the mechanism by which the result is achieved, any more than someone taking as aspirin necessarily knows the mechanism by which their headache is banished, but the spell is used just as the aspirin is used: a specific, prescribed action to produce a specific, predictable result. The acts of magic which were found over time to work reliably are the ones we nowadays tend to call "medicine", or in some cases "psychology" or even "banking". In some cases we know quite a lot about how they work. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:24:06 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" > The acts of magic which were found over time to work reliably are the > ones we nowadays tend to call "medicine", or in some cases > "psychology" or even "banking". In some cases we know quite a lot > about how they work. And sometimes we don't. When I was a practicing geneticist I heard various techniques (or aspects of them) described as "witchcraft". What was meant there was that empirically they had been found to give the best results, but the reason wasn't known (things like the concentration of manganese ions in a buffer used for transformation for example, IIRC). The implication was very much that you followed the rules, made the mixtures exactly right, "said the right incantations" etc, all would work. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > The purpose of magic is to intervene to produce a deviation from the > otherwise "unmolested" natural course of events. That's also the purpose of most other technologies. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> The purpose of magic is to intervene to produce a deviation from the >> otherwise "unmolested" natural course of events. > >That's also the purpose of most other technologies. Yes. I clearly did not express clearly what was somewhat fuzzy in my mind. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >> like--to the classic conception ofmagicis something that can only--we > >> are today awfully sure--exist in fantastic literature. Okay. > > More important, your two categories don't exclude each other. > > The supposed imposition of the will on matter could work in a regular [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reality being made to conform itself to a will by the action of nothing > but that will is about as close as can be gotten to utter lawlessness. This makes no sense to me. When I exert my will to move my arm, it moves, quite regularly, with understandable exceptions (and maybe more exceptions coming in my future), by means that science understands better and better. When Prospero exerted his will to give Caliban cramps, Caliban got cramps, quite regularly (it appears). This is magic, part of the domain of fantasy--to us, whether or not it was to Shakespeare. The distinction has nothing to do with will or law. > > Most important, there are centuries or millennia of use of the > > word "magic", including lively contemporary use, and as far as I know, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of higher laws, or some such thing, is oxymoronic, in that what follows > laws is "natural"--part of nature. The difference, from your point of view and mine, is that one set of laws works reasonably well and the other works poorly or not at all. From the point of view of people who believe in the supernatural, there may indeed be two or more sets of laws, one called "natural". But "natural" simply doesn't mean "following laws". I don't know why you say it does. > Moreover, whether "magic" in customary acceptances is the wanted word is > cart before horse: I'd say that when you're using words, the first question is whether one of their customary acceptances conveys your meaning. > what's being sought here is a mental tool to allow a > hypothetical ancient to perceive the difference between the impersonal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > plane) that our equally hypothetical time-carried tech device does not > rely on supernatural means for its operation. I think the closest you could get is to say the Game Boy or hologram doesn't involve angels or demons or any kind of spirits. > >> (Then again, we are awfully sure that the aether doesn't exist, but no > >> one has ever actually disproved its existence: it was shaved off the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > point, being quite subsidiary to the issues here, is not really worth > spending much time on. Sometimes subsidiary points are the most fun. But in this case I won't explain why those quotations don't, or may not, disagree with what I said. > >> Thus, moderns have great difficulty conceiving natural laws that are in > >> their operation "magic-like"--which is fine for dealing with the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > majority concluding, in about these words, that if it "feels like" > fantasy, it is. I may have urged that conclusion in some of those same discussions you read in rasfw ten or more years ago. -- Jerry Friedman [Magic and technology] >But that's not the distinction. Magic has often been imagined as >involving regular phenomena--for instance, alchemy was presented that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >concepts, you might have trouble convincing the person that the >placebo effect is on the side of science, not magic. On the repeatability of experiments, science states that provided the experimenter is competent the results should be independent of who performs the experiment. In the case of magic it appears that only certain people -- wizards, warlocks etc. -- can do it and others can't, to the point where such others suffer terrible fates for trying. This suggest to me that magic, if it exists, is connected with psi powers, if they exist. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England [...] > On the repeatability of experiments, science states that provided the > experimenter is competent the results should be independent of who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suggest to me that magic, if it exists, is connected with psi powers, if > they exist. A first problem there is a confounding of the experimenter with the subjects of the experiment. The experimenter would not be the purported magic-worker, but one who is testing others for magical abilities. (Saving the case--not uncommon in reality through even the early twentieth century--when the experimenter was the subject, an unwise approach for more than one reason.) But even with that minor caveat, it remains so that a quite scientific experiment can reveal differences in ability to perform a task among a set of subjects. If the experiment is to state which pieces of paper (or whatever) are of different colors, performing the experiment with a reasonably large, representative segment of the population will give, for differing subjects, different results (owing to the occasional incidence of partial or complete color-blindness). Thus, for magic, that some can do it and some can't is no criterion. The real question is whether any can do it repeatably. If it were to be shown that some can, the next questions are whether or not their ability can be described as owing to previously unknown or misunderstood laws of nature, such as John Campbell's old fave, those "psi powers". If some putative wizard could indeed repeatedly perform acts that breach our current understanding of natural law, can we incorporate his workings into an extended natural law? The crux, I firmly believe, is whether or not the practitioner is directly impressing his or her will on reality itself, with no intermediary force beyond that will. Obviously, when we say that natural law is regular and that by definition magic is irregular, we can't quite mean that, because there's always that semantic fallback (an echo of Aleister Crowley): complete lack of law is itself a law. What we mean is that _fiat_ (or perhaps better, _sit_) is the whole of the law of magic: that reality responds to the magic-worker's mere will. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[Magic and technology] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >trying. This suggest to me that magic, if it exists, is connected >with psi powers, if they exist. Do you have a cite for that? A list of publications by "science", and possibly his or her qualifications? I've heard rumours that it has been found that the presence of an observer alters the result of an experiment. No cites, but perhaps it was also "science" who said that. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >I've heard rumours that it has been found that the presence of an observer >alters the result of an experiment. No cites, but perhaps it was also >"science" who said that. It is the process of observation that can affect the result of an experiment. Observation, to a greater or lesser extent, involves interaction with that which is being observed, or interaction with external effects that the observed object or phenomenom might cause. There is nothing magic about this. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>I've heard rumours that it has been found that the presence of an observer >>alters the result of an experiment. No cites, but perhaps it was also [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >There is nothing magic about this. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the strange field of quantum mechanics that resulted from it often appear to be mysterious and without explanation, which meets the definition of magic as I understand the word. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:21:40 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > can't, to the point where such others suffer terrible fates for > trying. But that's exactly the same as your provision that the experimenter must be competent (sometimes even including the terrible fates). Warlocks and witches have their competence at magic because of some combination of talent and training, like competent experimenters, and willingness to get on good terms with powerful beings, like experimenters who will write grants. > This suggest to me that magic, if it exists, is connected > with psi powers, if they exist. Well, I'd have said that psionics was an attempt to think about apparent magic powers scientifically. -- Jerry Friedman > It would be interesting to see an explanation of television, a cell > phone, a remote control, a computer, a web site, or nearly anything [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > etc., that didn't come off as sounding like magic, protestations to > the contrary notwithstanding. I don't think I could do it. I can't explain how any of those work in any but the most general terms - and I'd probably get the explanations wrong. I was taught a bit about what electricity is and how you get the picture in the (now almost archaic) TVs, but a few probing questions would probably get me into a corner mumbling 'well, no, I don't know exactly, but it's science, not magic. I KNOW it's science and not magic because that's what everyone else says' - which would not be terribly convincing to any logical thinker who was trying to figure out whether he was trying to deal with developments of natural technology or magic. SignatureCheryl >I can't explain how any of those work in any but the most general terms >- and I'd probably get the explanations wrong. I was taught a bit about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >thinker who was trying to figure out whether he was trying to deal with > developments of natural technology or magic. On the Greek island of Naxos in earlier times whirlwinds were thought to be caused by Nereides and other exotika dancing. Now there are weather stations all over the country, and reliance on meteorology is taken as a sign of modernity. It is regarded as authoritative, though most villagers have little idea of the principles, and this has become a substitute for empirical observation on the part of most villagers. Yet meteorological forecasts are not noted for their accuracy. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> It would be interesting to see an explanation of television, a cell >> phone, a remote control, a computer, a web site, or nearly anything [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > any logical thinker who was trying to figure out whether he was trying > to deal with developments of natural technology or magic. That's what I meant about "protestations to the contrary notwithstanding". I think that at some point any of us would get to "energy flowing along wires from a distant source of power" into a box that "receives images sent as invisible waves of energy (that can pass through walls) from a far-off place" and anthropomorphically "causes them to appear on the screen". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |support of government. Truth can Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > That's what I meant about "protestations to the contrary > notwithstanding". I think that at some point any of us would get to > "energy flowing along wires from a distant source of power" into a box > that "receives images sent as invisible waves of energy (that can pass > through walls) from a far-off place" and anthropomorphically "causes > them to appear on the screen". I suspect you are overestimating the difficulties, given a couple of assumptions: one (as originally given) is that one is addressing a well- educated person; two is that both of you have some time; three is that you make clear that this is going to require quite a bit of explaining, going right back to basics. From there, I think one reasonably familiar with modern science without himself or herself being a scientist (or engineer) and tolerably eloquent could proceed satisfactorily. In fact, that is roughly speaking what we do when we school children, save that the "some time" expands into years; but for an intelligent but merely ignorant adult not seeking highly detailed understandings, that should be highly compressible. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > intelligent but merely ignorant adult not seeking highly detailed > understandings, that should be highly compressible. While I have no doubt that given a sufficient amount of time, probably a good fraction of the years it takes people nowadays[1], you could start at the beginning and (assuming you had the appropriate books and materials) bring them up to the level at which they could understand the explanation, I think you underestimate the difficulties[2] ... and perhaps are reframing the task. I've always assumed that the scenario is "What's that?" "What does it do?" "Oh, really? How does it work?" Is there a five-minute answer that you could give that would be materially different from what someone at the time would give as a "magic" way to do the same thing? A two-hour answer? A two-day answer? If so, could you do it for a well-educated person from 1300? 1000? 400? [1] By positing well-educated people, you save some time. By positing people who haven't grown up around technology and who have grown up in a society that takes magic and mytsticism for granted and therefore will have to unlearn certain reflex reactions, you probably have to spend some extra. [2] Remember that you're talking to somebody who has probably never seen a machine more complicated than a clock or windmill or a chemical reaction more complicated than a gunpowder explosion. Who has never seen action at a distance that doesn't involve a human agent. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the |channel on our televisions...... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus" (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >While I have no doubt that given a sufficient amount of time, probably >a good fraction of the years it takes people nowadays[1], you could [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Who has never seen action at a distance that doesn't involve a > human agent. If anyone could do it, it would be David Macaulay, author of "The Way Things Work"...so what if he has to bring in woolly mammoths to help with the illustrations?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? [...] > While I have no doubt that given a sufficient amount of time, probably a > good fraction of the years it takes people nowadays[1], you could start [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If so, could you do it for a well-educated person from 1300? 1000? > 400? I am supposing something in the two-hour region, though less--perhaps much less--might do, depending on the depth of understanding the hypothetical ancient might want. I don't think the era much matters once it is well before the industrial revolution. The very first step, which requires no technological knowledge at all, just common sense, an open mind, and perhaps five minutes, is to establish the fundamental difference between magic and technology. Though participants in science-fiction/fantasy fan forums can manage to keep their knickers in a twist for days or weeks over the question, it really is not complicated in concept, and I doubt any even moderately sophisticated ancient would have any problem grasping that difference. Once that is established, the rest is merely a question of level of detail. I suppose the next step would be to make the ancient appreciate that there are phenomena that take place on scales too small and too large for ready perception by the unaided human senses. Then it's a matter of choice: perhaps some simplistic, '50s-high-school-level atomic physics to open with (depending, I suppose, on the particular gadget being discussed). > [1] By positing well-educated people, you save some time. By positing > people who haven't grown up around technology and who have grown up > in a society that takes magic and mysticism for granted and > therefore will have to unlearn certain reflex reactions, you > probably have to spend some extra. The positing was done upthread, and not by me. But I think it's fair dinkum, because explaining how things work, or even the basic ideas of science, is difficult even dealing with a distressingly large fraction of the contemporary population. > [2] Remember that you're talking to somebody who has probably never > seen a machine more complicated than a clock or windmill or a > chemical reaction more complicated than a gunpowder explosion. Who > has never seen action at a distance that doesn't involve a human > agent. Obviously, lacking a time machine with which to make field tests we cannot be sure. But I really think it would not be that hard. (And is not the warmth of sunlight action at a distance?) The ancients' ability to deal in complexity is easy to under-estimate: consider the Antikythera computing device (recently written up again in _Scientific American_). That's one whacking great load of both immense mechanical ingenuity and understanding of practical astronomy. Or see-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > and I doubt any even moderately sophisticated ancient would have any > problem grasping that difference. This could be interesting. I'm willing to play Clarke's advocate here. Explain it to me. Bear in mind, though, that being well- educated, I've been taught that magic is something that can be learned and mastered and that there are principles behind it and that prayer works. > Once that is established, the rest is merely a question of level of > detail. I suppose the next step would be to make the ancient > appreciate that there are phenomena that take place on scales too > small and too large for ready perception by the unaided human > senses. Ah, so you're going to describe something that I conveniently can't see and can't test. Priests are like that everywhere. > Then it's a matter of choice: perhaps some simplistic, > '50s-high-school-level atomic physics to open with (depending, I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ideas of science, is difficult even dealing with a distressingly > large fraction of the contemporary population. Agreed. >> [2] Remember that you're talking to somebody who has probably never >> seen a machine more complicated than a clock or windmill or a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cannot be sure. But I really think it would not be that hard. (And > is not the warmth of sunlight action at a distance?) Okay, dosen't involve a human agent or a deity or some other being. But that's not really what I meant by "action at a distance". I was thinking of doing something *here* in order to get something to happen *there* without it being clear that something is moving from here to there. Building a fire to heat a room is probably the only such example an ancient would have encountered, as it wouldn't have been clear how the heat got across the empty space. > The ancients' ability to deal in complexity is easy to > under-estimate: consider the Antikythera computing device (recently [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_technology > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology Yeah. Some of them apparently had a good understanding of gears. I'm not sure how you're going to leverage that to explain a hydrogen bomb. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Specifically, I'd like to debate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |whether cannibalism ought to be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |grounds for leniency in murder, |since it's less wasteful. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > This could be interesting. I'm willing to play Clarke's advocate here. > Explain it to me. Bear in mind, though, that being well-educated, I've > been taught that magic is something that can be learned and mastered and > that there are principles behind it and that prayer works. That is terminology (the explanation has not yet begun: this is till post reply). If an ancient comprehends "magic" as including both natural and supernatural phenomena, one cannot--by sheer definition--persuade him or her that a modern tech device is not magical, because by his language's uses, it is. But that is not the crux--the crux is that the device operates by means of impersonal principles that can indeed be learned and mastered. Without trying to set down verbatim such words as I might use (which in any event would depend in part on running feedback, whether verbal or by body language), I would begin by developing the theme that all things that occur must be in one of two classes: those that reflect the operation of impersonal natural laws and those that represent the express particular intervention of some mind with the power to supersede natural law; any phenomena in the latter class, being by definition "supernatural", must ultimately flow from divine authority, and so are subject to no comment from me (save that it seems clear from the progression of affairs in the world that any such supernatural interventions must be relatively few). The issue is simply to decide whether some particular artifact achieves its results by natural or supernatural means. But to go any further--or, really, even that far--with our hypothetical ancient, I need to know the terms of the discourse. Am I presenting to him as a time traveller from the future? (Which point I would have to demonstrate, though were I to be in such a position it may be assumed that I would have prepared myself with some details of then-current near- future history as I apparently did with his or her language.) Or am I merely a traveller from a far but contemporaneous land? It matters to such things as making analogies, such as comparing his or her culture with other, much more primitive ones known to that culture. >> Once that is established, the rest is merely a question of level of >> detail. I suppose the next step would be to make the ancient [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah, so you're going to describe something that I conveniently can't see > and can't test. Priests are like that everywhere. I daresay you can't make a horseshoe either, unless you have a forge and some blacksmithing skills. So horseshoes are magic, QED. One reasons from first principles, and most or all phenomena known to an ancient can be explained within a consistent framework of natural law. As well have a blind man say that color doesn't exist because your explanations of it conveniently can't be seen or tested by him. But I think you're mixing your metaphors: a priest is exactly what I *don't* claim to be. [...] >> Obviously, lacking a time machine with which to make field tests we >> cannot be sure. But I really think it would not be that hard. (And is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > an ancient would have encountered, as it wouldn't have been clear how > the heat got across the empty space. First, I didn't know quantity counted, and assumed one example would do. And fires and the sun are not quite the same, anyway. But just to pile it on, Thales wrote a treatise on magnetism, which was also known in the fourth century B.C. in China; and "electricity" is a word deriving from the Greek word for amber, owing to its long-known (to the Greeks and, I'd wager, most early cultures) association with electrostatic fields. So even if the weak and strong nuclear forces are pretty modern, the rest of the action-at-a-distance fields were scarcely occult knowledge--in any sense of the word--to most or all of the ancients. >> The ancients' ability to deal in complexity is easy to under-estimate: >> consider the Antikythera computing device (recently written up again in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yeah. Some of them apparently had a good understanding of gears. I'm > not sure how you're going to leverage that to explain a hydrogen bomb. Give me a wit long enough and I'll move its possessor's mental world. People who can think clearly and cleverly can usually be made to understand things, even complex things, explained clearly enough. (And a hydrogen bomb is not, save in engineering details, that hard to describe; 15-year-olds of my youthful acquaintance could and did describe their workings.) And "clever with gears" is pretty dismissive of the knowledge of that the Antikythera_mechanism simply acted as a tool to reference. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ On 02 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > is simply to decide whether some particular artifact achieves > its results by natural or supernatural means. To a mediaeval thinker, however, I believe that you wouldn't get past your starting position of separating occurrences into your two classes: to ancient scholars, the premise is fundamentally flawed. In a world view which ascribes all physical manifestations to the supernatural operation of a deity, any dividing line between natural and supernatural initiation of occurrences is nonsensical (not to mention heretical). > But to go any further--or, really, even that far--with our > hypothetical ancient, I need to know the terms of the discourse. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > phenomena known to an ancient can be explained within a > consistent framework of natural law. But in a unified and theistic world view, the "first principle" is that all laws have one source: natural law and supernatural law are indivisible, and no natural laws exist independently of the super-natural force of the deity. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed [...] > To a mediaeval thinker, however, I believe that you wouldn't get past > your starting position of separating occurrences into your two classes: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > supernatural initiation of occurrences is nonsensical (not to mention > heretical). First, it was already posited that we are dealing with a sophisticated representative. We also did not specify a particular era, save that it be "pre-scientific", which could mean anything from 1800 or possible 1700 back, so mediaeval and ancient are not synonyms. But even at the height of religious fervor in the middle ages, I doubt a relatively sophisticated mind, even by the standards of the time, would take supernatural as the axiomatic source of all phenomena. Second, a firm belief that all things flow from God is no barrier to a belief in natural law. I daresay even a middle-ages Pope would acknowledge that his God had set up natural laws for the world, else the term "miracle" has no referent, as the falling of a stone from the hand would be a miracle if there were no natural law, making sainthood a wee taddie hard to recognize. [...] > But in a unified and theistic world view, the "first principle" is that > all laws have one source: natural law and supernatural law are > indivisible, and no natural laws exist independently of the > super-natural force of the deity. Well, we just did that one. "Natural law" need not be thought independent of the deity's making: it's merely a convenience he set up for humans, so that we aren't continually getting rain up our noses from its falling up from the ground. The point, remember, is supposed to be to persuade our hypothetical ancient that some techie device we're supposedly showing off to him is not powered by "magic". The argument that everything whatsoever occurs solely at God's instant-to-instant whim in fact says that there cannot be any such thing as "magic", so everything must be 100% Heaven-approved, solving the problem at a blow. Of course, there could then be no such thing as free will or evil, either, so that one might need to spend a night in the shop. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ On 02 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > mind, even by the standards of the time, would take supernatural > as the axiomatic source of all phenomena. I'm afraid your doubt is insufficient evidence, as I still think that your understanding of the nature of pre-modern scientific thought is weak. > Second, a firm belief that all things flow from God is no > barrier to a belief in natural law. It was, however, a fundamental barrier to dividing natural and super-natural laws into two separate and distinct categories. > I daresay even a > middle-ages Pope would acknowledge that his God had set up > natural laws for the world, else the term "miracle" has no > referent, as the falling of a stone from the hand would be a > miracle if there were no natural law, making sainthood a wee > taddie hard to recognize. It's not that a mediaeval Pope would reject the idea of natural laws; what would be rejected is the separation of the mechanisms behind natural and super-natural occurrences into two categories. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well, we just did that one. Well, no, I don't think we did: your rationale (which I've left below) remains a post-Renaissance (or even a post-Enlightenment) one. As I read it, you proposed starting your explanation by stating that there are two classes of occurrence: natural (explainable) occurrences, and super-natural (unexplainable) occurrences. I suspect that an educated and sophisticated mediaeval audience would stop you at that point, and say that the mechanisms behind super-natural occurrences may have been unknowable, but that didn't mean they were unexplainable: they were precisely the same mechanisms as those behind the natural occurrences, the only difference being that we were not privy to them. > "Natural law" need not be thought > independent of the deity's making: it's merely a convenience he [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "magic", so everything must be 100% Heaven-approved, solving the > problem at a blow. I agree with that: magic, of course, was as heretical as postulating that natural laws existed or operated independently of the deity. But it further supports the view that the separation of natural and super-natural occurrences into two categories would fall at the first intellectual hurdle. > Of course, there could then be no such thing > as free will or evil, either, so that one might need to spend a > night in the shop. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed [...] > I'm afraid your doubt is insufficient evidence, as I still think that > your understanding of the nature of pre-modern scientific thought is > weak. I'm not sure where that gets us if I doubt the validity of your doubt; that cycle could go on indefinitely. Instead of doubting, let's try the expedient of looking at actual evidence. Wikipedia, for what it's worth, defines 'miracle' as "a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be attempted to be explained by divine intervention"; that signifies "laws of nature" whose "interruption" would be a notable exception to their normal functioning. The Catholic Encyclopedia--which seems (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/) to be authoritative--states that "in the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns." *Determinism*, ok? Also, speaking of 'miracle' it says: "The term miracle here implies the direct opposition of the effect actually produced to the natural causes at work." And what do we suppose "natural causes" signifies there? >> Second, a firm belief that all things flow from God is no barrier to a >> belief in natural law. > > It was, however, a fundamental barrier to dividing natural and > super-natural laws into two separate and distinct categories. The Catholic Encyclopedia (which I repeatedly quote because it was the easiest and quickest source for Christian concepts Google turned up) does not agree. As you see, it is replete with references to the "determinism" of inanimate things and of "natural causes", and in general has no trouble distinguishing between the natural and the supernatural. Indeed, the very word "supernatural" necessarily implies such a distinction, else it has no referent or meaning. [...] > It's not that a mediaeval Pope would reject the idea of natural laws; > what would be rejected is the separation of the mechanisms behind > natural and super-natural occurrences into two categories. Aside from repeating what I just said, let me note that any such rejection is immaterial to the original point, which is whether or not some thing or phenomenon derives from the operation of natural law or of "magic". Of 'magic', the already quoted Encyclopedia says it "is the attempt to work miracles not by the power of God, gratuitously communicated to man, but by the use of hidden forces beyond man's control. Its advocates, despairing to move the Deity by supplication, seek the desired result by evoking powers ordinarily reserved to the Deity." After a remarkably long, scholarly, and indeed fascinating history of early magic, it remarks that: "Two main reasons account for the belief [in magic]: first, ignorance of physical laws. When the boundary between the physically possible and impossible was uncertain, some individuals were supposed to have gained almost limitless control over nature. . . . [T]hey knew the mystery of numbers and in consequence their powers exceeded the common understanding. This, however, was natural magic. But, secondly, belief in the frequency of diabolical interference with the forces of nature led easily to belief in real magic." Note the reference to "natural magic", apparently meaning simply what we now call science--"physical laws" understood and manipulated by those knowing "the mystery of numbers". Note also the characterization of what we might call "real magic" as "diabolical interference with the forces of nature", implying that whatever the cause, such things exist--but are clearly separate and distinct from "physical law". [...] > Well, no, I don't think we did: your rationale (which I've left below) > remains a post-Renaissance (or even a post-Enlightenment) one. > > As I read it, you proposed starting your explanation by stating that > there are two classes of occurrence: natural (explainable) occurrences, > and super-natural (unexplainable) occurrences. Well, you read it wrong: the parenthetical words are supplied by you, not me. I am well aware that, to the ancients, supernatural occurrences were readily explicable by resort to either a deity or a counter-deity, as we saw at length above. That has no relevance to the plainly well-accepted division of phenomenon into those deriving from the operation of physical/ natural law and those representing _ad hoc_ supernatural intervention in the operation of such law. > I suspect that an educated and sophisticated mediaeval audience would > stop you at that point, and say that the mechanisms behind super-natural > occurrences may have been unknowable, but that didn't mean they were > unexplainable: they were precisely the same mechanisms as those behind > the natural occurrences, the only difference being that we were not > privy to them. But you are taking great swings with your weaponry at a straw man. Explainability is irrelevant. If a thing or occurrence follows the familiar patterns of everyday life, it is a manifestation of natural law. If it appears to nontrivially breach those familiar patterns--as our hypothetical techie device would in their era--then, given the posited sophisticated person, it becomes a case of deciding whether the artifact or its operations are supernatural or simply following natural laws not yet well known or understood. The difficulty (or lack of it) in persuading our equally hypothetical ancient as to which is the case is what this subthread is entirely about. [...] > I agree with that: magic, of course, was as heretical as postulating > that natural laws existed or operated independently of the deity. No: it wasn't. Performing it was probably heretical, but acknowledging its existence wasn't--indeed, _denying_ it might have been. Magic was seen as, again, "diabolical interference with the forces of nature". That is no more independent of the deity than the mere existence of diabolic forces, which was universally acknowledged by both the church and the laity of the middle ages. (Incidentally, the discussion was supposed to be generic to all pre- scientific cultures, but seems to have become bogged down in the middle ages and the specific things believed then.) > But it further supports the view that the separation of natural and > super-natural occurrences into two categories would fall at the first > intellectual hurdle. As we now--I certainly hope--see clearly, that is utterly wrong. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ On 02 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > "supernatural" necessarily implies such a distinction, else it > has no referent or meaning. Is it fair to assume that the said Encyclopaedia is a current edition? That is, that its explanations of phenomena reflect Catholic/Christian doctrine as it currently stands in relation to modern (post-Renaissance/post-Enlightenment/post-Darwin) science? If so, it's not really relevant to how these things were viewed by a mediaeval mind: it reflects attempts to resolve earlier certainties with contrary scientific evidence of independent natural causes established since then. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this, though, so I shall now retire from the discussion. (It's Sunday, and there's cricket to watch from South Africa.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 02 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote >> The Catholic Encyclopedia (which I repeatedly quote because it >> was the easiest and quickest source for Christian concepts [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Catholic/Christian doctrine as it currently stands in relation to >modern (post-Renaissance/post-Enlightenment/post-Darwin) science? It reflects modern (post-Renaissance/post-Enlightenment) Catholic theology which was originally developed in the 13th century, and was a precursor to modernity. And that is the problem. It's mired in modernity. >If so, it's not really relevant to how these things were viewed by >a mediaeval mind: it reflects attempts to resolve earlier >certainties with contrary scientific evidence of independent >natural causes established since then. Actually it seeks to resolve earlier fuzziness, ambiguity and paradox by reworking it in accordance with rationalism. >I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this, though, >so I shall now retire from the discussion. (It's Sunday, and >there's cricket to watch from South Africa.) Probably not. The problem with modernity is not that moderns think it is a useful way of thinking, but they think it's the ONLY way of thinking. I think I'll go and watch the cricket too. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > It reflects modern (post-Renaissance/post-Enlightenment) Catholic > theology which was originally developed in the 13th century, and was a > precursor to modernity. > > And that is the problem. It's mired in modernity. Doctrinal attributions to, for example, Augustine (354 – 430) do not strike me as examples of thought "mired in modernity", but I guess when you are clearly drowning, you clutch at straws. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >strike me as examples of thought "mired in modernity", but I guess when >you are clearly drowning, you clutch at straws. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion, or can you just porst ad hominems? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk On 03 Jan 2010, Steve Hayes wrote >> I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this, >> though, so I shall now retire from the discussion. (It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think it is a useful way of thinking, but they think it's the > ONLY way of thinking. I think I'll go and watch the cricket too. Fairly even honours today, I'd say -- England for a while there, but Kallis hauled it back for you guys. Shall watch tomorrow with interest. (Big fan of tests rather than other forms of the game.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>On 02 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > thinking. I think > I'll go and watch the cricket too. My sister's daughter-in-law is raising her children to pray before meals, a custom the rest of us have universally given up. She got into an argument with her brother-in-law (my nephew) over the real celebration of January 1 in Church Calendars. When Tony said it was to commemorate the Circumcision, she insisted that "No. It is something to do with Mary." I looked it up in the CE and found one citation that indicates a sop to Mary-lovers and other feminists. Some of the prayers in the Mass are devoted to Mary. Poor Joseph, left out again. But maybe those prayers emphasize that Jesus was a Jew by virtue of his mother's Jewishness. It's OK. Revisionism happens, re-happens, et cetera ad infinitum. From: http://www.newadvent.org/ (Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > C > Feast of the Circumcision) "The earliest Byzantine calendars (eighth and ninth centuries) give for the first of January both the Circumcision and the anniversary of St. Basil. The Feast of the Circumcision was observed in Spain before the death of St. Isidore (636), for the "Regula Monachorum", X, reads: "For it hath pleased the Fathers to appoint a holy season from the day of the Lord's birth to the day of His Circumcision" (P.L., LXXXIII, 880). It seems, therefore, that the octave was more prominent in the early centuries, and the Circumcision later. It is to be noted also that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not forgotten in the festivities of the holy season, and the Mass in her honour was sometimes said on this day. Today, also, while in both Missal and Breviary the feast bears the title "In Circumcisione Domini et Octav Nativitatis", the prayers have special reference to the Blessed Virgin, and in the Office, the responses and antiphons set forth her privileges and extol her wonderful prerogatives. The psalms for Vespers are those appointed for her feasts, and the antiphons and hymn of Lauds keep her constantly in view. As paganism passed away the religious festivities of the Circumcision became more conspicuous and solemn; yet, even in the tenth century, Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, rebuked those who profaned the holy season by pagan dances, songs, and the lighting of lamps (P.L. CXXXIV, 43)." >>>On 02 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >left out again. But maybe those prayers emphasize that Jesus was a >Jew by virtue of his mother's Jewishness. And your point is? Looks like a bit of a non sequitur to me, SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:36:43 GMT, HVS >>> <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > And your point is? Modernity and revisionism. What else? > Looks like a bit of a non sequitur to me, ? What do you mean? Of course, you probably don't celebrate (or otherwise commemorate) the Circumcision until a week or so later than we do in the West. However, I wonder at the Moscow NY eve celebration, which coincided with those of the rest of Europe. I confess I would be confused between State and Church observances, were I to live in Russia, or Greece. >>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:36:43 GMT, HVS >>>> <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >> Looks like a bit of a non sequitur to me, >? What do you mean? I was asking you the same question. I didn't see the connection between what you wrote and what you appeared to be replying to. In other words, it whooshed me. >Of course, you probably don't celebrate (or otherwise commemorate) the >Circumcision until a week or so later than we do in the West. >However, I wonder at the Moscow NY eve celebration, which coincided >with those of the rest of Europe. I confess I would be confused >between State and Church observances, were I to live in Russia, or >Greece. Well actually in this neck of the woods we do, and they do in Greece as well, though in Russia and Serbia churches follow the old calendar, so New Year (AmE New Years) precedes Christmas. But that was the topic of two different threads, wasn't it? But, since you seem to be interested: The Scripture Readings for January 1, 2010 Today's commemorated feasts and saints... THE CIRCUMCISION OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (379). Martyr Basil of Ancyra (ca. 362). http://www.oca.org/Reading.asp?SID=25&ID=&M=1&D=1 SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>>> It reflects modern (post-Renaissance/post-Enlightenment) >>>>> Catholic [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > appeared to be > replying to. In other words, it whooshed me. I hope you now see that my little story is not a non-sequitur. >>Of course, you probably don't celebrate (or otherwise commemorate) >>the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > different > threads, wasn't it? No. I mean, I am not trying to re-introduce the previous thread about when the New Year is celebrated. I commented about the New Year only in the sense of the celebration of the Feast of the Circumcision, and some modern trend toward the changes in how that feast may be interpreted. (I don't think the evolution of believers' thinking is much different from the way language usage evolves. The respective Churches conservatively maintain an orthodox or dogmatic interpretation, while the everyday practitioner strays from dogma in his private thoughts and beliefs.) Were I in charge of my niece's spiritual growth, I might take her in hand and re-educate her in the Canons, to save her and her children from what appears to be a heresy, and, at that, one that derives from a wish by parts of the Roman Catholic Church to cater to the political correctness of the feminist movement. But thanks for the links. I did read them. > But, since you seem to be interested: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.oca.org/Reading.asp?SID=25&ID=&M=1&D=1 >No. I mean, I am not trying to re-introduce the previous thread about >when the New Year is celebrated. I commented about the New Year only [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >a wish by parts of the Roman Catholic Church to cater to the political >correctness of the feminist movement. Perhaps it whooshed me because i can't see the trees for the wood. What I was thinking about was a particular way of thinking, a way of seeing thing, what Kugh called a paradigm, if you like, not a changed understanding of the meaning of one celebration. It's kind of mentality that sees the need to have a fixed definition of "miracle", so that you can then use the definition to determine precisely what phenomena are included and excluded. And the are defined in accordance with a rather abstract concept, like the "laws of nature". That's different from the kind of mentality that just says "Wow! Awesome!" Of course the way of thinking that began with Schlasticism developed into what we call the scientific method and a few other things. It lead to the kind of thinking that has characterised moderrnity, shaped by the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. It certainly has its uses. But it's not the only way of thinking about things. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > If so, it's not really relevant to how these things were viewed by a > mediaeval mind: it reflects attempts to resolve earlier certainties > with contrary scientific evidence of independent natural causes > established since then. . . . Since it frequently quotes from "fathers of the church", who include Augustine, I don't think its doctrines are especially modern. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Who has never seen action at a distance that doesn't involve a > human agent. I've just read Eric's response to this and agree pretty much with that. I think that in all ages of mankind there have been people who, in response to something quite beyond belief, would react by thinking "That's neat; I wonder how it works" rather than "&deity help us", and putting it down to supernatural forces that we can know nothing about. I believe that superstition will always be with us while we remain human, and while what we call intelligence is distributed on a Gaussian curve. There will always be people who believe in good and bad luck, destiny, and everything that derives from &deities. But as I've said before, the universe's kimono is open, and cleverness and ingenuity will eventually allow us to model in our language how it works. Would we expect everyone to understand it? No; you don't have to understand how a car works in order to drive. As to how to explain atomic physics to an Ancient Greek, it isn't likely to be necessary. I thought that time travel had been proved impossible by Hawking et al. As to superior technology meeting inferior on earth, the record isn't good. American Indian meets white man, for example, or the Europeans invading south America. The Europeans were not interested in teaching the Aztecs how to make ocean-going vessels, or in preserving their way of life. But we know better than that now, some will say. I don't think so. While we countenance war as a problem-solving mechanism, particularly between peoples who disagree about how to worship any particular version of &deity, we cannot call ourselves civilised. The "explanation" situation might come about if some other race that has discovered FTL travel visits us. Leaving aside all of the reasons why they might do that, some possibly malevolent, if the secret of FTL is well beyond our grasp as we know physics today, their best solution might simply be to tell us to concentrate our research on areas a, b, c etc. and we'll eventually get there. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > I've just read Eric's response to this and agree pretty much with > that. I think that in all ages of mankind there have been people > who, in response to something quite beyond belief, would react by > thinking "That's neat; I wonder how it works" rather than "&deity > help us", and putting it down to supernatural forces that we can > know nothing about. So these people ask and get an answer and the local shaman says "See, that's just what I've been telling you". And at the level the explanation comes through, he's probably right. Something in the box listens to three invisible entities up in the sky who tell it where it is and it figures out how get wherever you want to go and tells you, in a woman's voice, which way to go and when to turn? My old master told me that he knew someone who had imprisoned just such a demon. Unless you're going to fall back on "If it demonstrably works, it's technology; if not, it's purported magic, however equivalent the explanations are", I don't see how you're going to get around it. And I'd say that while in all ages there may well have been such people, in most ages before the last couple of centuries, you'd have been hard pressed to encounter one. Or, rather, most intelligent people didn't assume that "supernatural forces" implied "that we can know nothing about". Magic *was* the explanation, and people tried hard to understand how it worked. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it |suggests handing it over to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |lizard. (650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Robin Bignall filted: >[Miracles] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >famous quote about advanced technology seeming miraculous is actually >true to people who are not lost in superstition. Recall how Doc Brown marvelled at the clunky VHS camcorder in the first "Back to the Future"...the time machine that he would invent thirty years later was almost dismissed entirely when he got a look at "a portable television studio".... Not long ago I tried to imagine a version in which someone from 2009 would make a similar unexpected trip to 1969...what everyday item that he might reasonably expect to be carrying could show a technically-minded contact?...not a cellphone; it wouldn't function without the tower infrastructure.... (In a few days it'll be 2010...within the next five years we should see the invention of hoverboards, "Mr Fusion" home nuclear reactors, pizza that can be "re-hydrated" in seconds, clothing that dries itself when wet and adjusts its size to the wearer, and holographic sharks to advertise movies)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? [...] > (In a few days it'll be 2010...within the next five years we should see > the invention of hoverboards, "Mr Fusion" home nuclear reactors, pizza > that can be "re-hydrated" in seconds, clothing that dries itself when > wet and adjusts its size to the wearer, and holographic sharks to > advertise movies)....r How can you overlook the most prominent of all: the personal jet backpack? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Eric Walker filted: >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >How can you overlook the most prominent of all: the personal jet backpack? Funny, we got those in 2000 according to some other primary sources, but BTTF didn't show anyone using them...safety regulations, probably.... Somewhere I've got a 1939 jokebook that assumes personal flying vehicles (and police giving them tickets) in 1960....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Eric Walker filted: >>How can you overlook the most prominent of all: the personal jet >>backpack? > > Funny, we got those in 2000 according to some other primary sources, > but BTTF didn't show anyone using them...safety regulations, > probably.... Long before that. The one in _Thunderball_ (1965) is real http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Rocket_Belt They didn't let you fly for very long, though. There are several early "personal flying devices" (packs, platforms, and flying cars) on display (some with demo videos) at the Hiller Aviation Museum near San Francisco. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Reality is that which, when you 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stop believing in it, doesn't go Palo Alto, CA 94304 |away. | kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Philip K. Dick (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Recall how Doc Brown marvelled at the clunky VHS camcorder in the > first "Back to the Future"...the time machine that he would invent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > technically-minded contact?...not a cellphone; it wouldn't function > without the tower infrastructure.... The self-contained parts of it would function. With things like iPhones, that would include games, most apps (including a calculator), a camera (including video), photos, a music library, a voice recoder, phone book, etc. It would function until the battery ran down, and if you were sufficiently tech-savy, you might even be able to jury-rig a cable to recharge it (a simply matter of getting the right voltage to the right pin). If, as in the movie, you had been recording something for posterity, you would probably have a digital video camera, possibly part of a digital still camera. If your time machine is in your car, you probably have a remote control keyfob that would still function. The LEDs on the display and, especially, the brakelights (or, even better, a white LED flashlight) would be fascinating. (LEDs were available, but were still very low power, extremely expensive, and only available in a few colors.) While your cell phone wouldn't work without towers, your car's radio would have no problem with the available signals, and its ability to search for stations would interesting. You might even have a CD or two to show him (and demonstrate, using your car's stereo). If you were wearing modern athletic shoes, they would probably be something he would recognize as not the sort of thing one would find in 1969. Your money, credit cards, and driver's licene, with color-shifting ink and holograms would be a curiosity. Oh, and your digital watch, by itself, would be of great interest, not to mention its ability to work as a stopwatch, alarm, timer, etc. And, of course, if you had a notebook computer with you, you'd have all sorts of things to show him. I suspect that my thin and lightweight (for their power) progressive-bifocal glasses would be interesting. (Although I see that progressive lenses are actually reasonably old, and were commercially available by the early '60s. Plastic lenses appear to have come out in the early '60s, but though they were lighter, they were as thick as glass ones until the '80s.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Just sit right back 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | and you'll hear a tale, Palo Alto, CA 94304 | a tale of the Stanford red |That started when a little boy kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | named Leland did drop dead (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ But what would a well-educated person in Caligula's Rome think of television, the motor car etc? Would he thinkof them as miracles, or as extensions of something (we call it technology) that they had already started to develop. I'm still unsure whether Arthur Clarke's famous quote about advanced technology seeming miraculous is actually true to people who are not lost in superstition. .. .. A related question: What was the first invention that an an aue certified time traveler might leave beind on a table in a gazebo that would have been seen as magic or incomprehensible? The time time traveler would have to go back 100 or 300 years before the actual invention, I expect. The travel could leave some instructions. The telescope might be one such. At least while onlookers were allowed to engage at speculation at a distance, before they were allowed to take it apart. We can continue on to MIOTSK (Miraculous Inventions of the Second Kind) -- if sophisticated onlookers can take apart the invention and still not figure out how it works. Perhaps the telegraph was the first such. Or penicillin. -- -- ------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ------------------------------------------------------------ (The Doozies are history) (And what is the proper tense for that hypothetical?) [...] > A related question: > What was the first invention that an an aue certified time traveler > might leave beind on a table in a gazebo that would have been seen as > magic or incomprehensible? The time time traveler would have to go > back 100 or 300 years before the actual invention, I expect. The > travel could leave some instructions. Looking at Wikipedia's "Timeline of historic inventions" is interesting. Regrettably, I can't offer "alcoholic beverages" (10th millennium BCE) owing to the "gazebo" constraint (gazebos are at least 5,000 years old, going back to Egypt, but they already had alcohol). Silk (3630 BCE) doesn't quite seem an "invention". Maybe plywood (3500 BCE)? Cement (not exactly dated)? More details on some of the inventions listed there would allow better choices, but so also would some idea of the whenabouts of the gazebo in question . . . . SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >going back to Egypt, but they already had alcohol). Silk (3630 BCE) >doesn't quite seem an "invention". An invention can be the use of something for a new purpose. The word "silk" is very often used to mean silk fabric. In that sense silk could be said to have been invented in 3630 BCE (or thereabouts). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> But isn't a "miracle" something that prompts you to say "Wow!" It >> doesn't necessarily have much to do with the "laws" of nature. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >uses, meaning any dramatic but quite unlikely event, are transferred >senses. That depends on what you mean by "old" and "original". That sounds like the kind of definition propounded by 13th-century Scholasticism and its derivatives -- I'm not sure how "original" it is. And here's an example of relatively recent usage: "The year 1989 was a year of miracles, an annus mirabilis. Yet the explanations about the causes of communisms demise differ. Americans answer that it was the result of U.S. policies. A Democrat would say it was the human rights policies put in place by Jimmy Carter, namely détente with a human face. A Republican would credit Ronald Reagans policies, which initiated an arms race that the Soviet economy could not match. " http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/volumes/2009/reflections-on-1989/annus-mirabilis.html I'm not sure what "laws of nature" were broken in those events, though some would certainly see the hand of God in them. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > And here's an example of relatively recent usage: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'm not sure what "laws of nature" were broken in those events, though > some would certainly see the hand of God in them. Those are simply, and obviously, metaphorical extensions of the term. I don't suppose anyone really thinks Thomas Alva Edison was practicing the black arts at Menlo Park. When people with theological considerations uppermost in their minds use the word "miracle", they are not speaking of political agreements, no matter how promising or unexpected. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >uppermost in their minds use the word "miracle", they are not speaking of >political agreements, no matter how promising or unexpected. So would you say it is what Fowler calls a "popularized technicality"? What about other metaphorical extensions of theological terms, like Weber's use of "charismatic"? Or the popular and metaphorical extention of "iconoclastic"? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > So would you say [miracle] is what Fowler calls a "popularized > technicality"? No. There is nothing technical about "miracle". If we say the wind was howling, is that a "popularization" of the "technical term" 'howl'? > What about other metaphorical extensions of theological terms, like > Weber's use of "charismatic"? I know nothing of Weber. Please spare yourself the effort of instructing me. > Or the popular and metaphorical extention of "iconoclastic"? OK, I give up: what about it? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >OK, I give up: what about it? You seemed to be arguing that "miracle" should only be used in the technical theological sense in which it was used by Scholastic theologians especially in the 13th century, thus tying their meaning to a certain period, culture, and intellectual milieu. . I was wondering if you interpreted other terms in similar ways. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > You seemed to be arguing that "miracle" should only be used in the > technical theological sense in which it was used by Scholastic > theologians especially in the 13th century, thus tying their meaning to > a certain period, culture, and intellectual milieu. . That is probably the root of the difficulty: I am not so arguing. I am saying that in discussions focussed on theological matters, words, barring clear evidence to the contrary, need to be taken as having been used in their theological sense when such a one exists and differs from other senses, especially more modern or metaphorical ones. As a reminder, the source quotation at issue here is: But isn't a "miracle" something that prompts you to say "Wow!" It doesn't necessarily have much to do with the "laws" of nature. So no, _in this context_ a miracle is not *merely* that which excites awe or surprise: it is something impossible within natural law. In other contexts, it need not be literal: it's a miracle that such a simple matter is so hard to understand. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >contexts, it need not be literal: it's a miracle that such a simple >matter is so hard to understand. But that is precisely the point that I disagree with. *One* theological system, the scholastic one, defined miracles in terms of breaking laws of nature, but that does not mean that all theological systems do so, nor do they insist that something cannot be a miracle unless it broke some natural law. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > But that is precisely the point that I disagree with. *One* theological > system, the scholastic one, defined miracles in terms of breaking laws > of nature, but that does not mean that all theological systems do so, > nor do they insist that something cannot be a miracle unless it broke > some natural law. OK, List for us some theological systems within which the concept of "miracle", if it exists as a component of the theology, means "Gee, I would never have expected that." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >"miracle", if it exists as a component of the theology, means "Gee, I >would never have expected that." This isn't really the place for theological discussions that go beyond the topic of the meanings of words, but pre-Scholastic theology would be one example, and post-Scholastic theologies that were not influenced by scholasticism, or that reacted against the scholastic view. Here's an explanation of some of the problems with the scholastic view: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/miracles-and-creation/ Scholasticism was in some way a precursor of modernity, and the Enlightenment provides and extreme development of that. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] >>OK, List for us some theological systems within which the concept of >>"miracle", if it exists as a component of the theology, means "Gee, I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Scholasticism was in some way a precursor of modernity, and the > Enlightenment provides and extreme development of that. OK, so the answer to "provide some examples" is no example but--from someone who complains about doctrinal quotations being tainted by modern views--a quotation from one contemporary individual who prefaces his remarks on the topic with "It seems to me". Let us not lose sight of the original point: that a reasonably but not extraordinarily sophisticated--for his or her times--person of a pre- scientific-age culture could and would accept without undue strain that there is an order in nature that is regular, deterministic, and universal: rules that all things and phenomena follow save in cases of supernatural intervention (which no one is trying, in this hypothesis, to deny to such a person). That's all. To argue against that proposition is to argue that there were cultures in which the common belief of their more sophisticated members was that there is no pattern or regularity in affairs and that every last detail of existence is _ad hoc_, meaning that when it rains from the sky down instead of the ground up, we were just lucky that day. As I say, adduce an example of such a culture. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >As I say, adduce an example of such a culture. Why? I was objecting to your rather narrow definition of the term "miracle", and gave examples to illustrate usage that was wider than the narrow definition. The original point was about the circumstances in which laws may be said to be prescriptive or descriptive, SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >views--a quotation from one contemporary individual who prefaces his >remarks on the topic with "It seems to me". Here is another example, from an Orthodox Jewish point of view: One Orthodox Jewish perspective on miracles is that nature itself is a miracle, therefore there is no "violating the laws of nature" since the laws of nature are also part of hashgacha pratis (lit. guidance of all the particulars, or "divine providence"). In fact the ethical mussar masters would often say that a big problem in keeping bitachon, or faith, was in treating routine events, such as "nature" as if they are routine rather than also a miracle. A more general observation is that this thread appears to have had its origin in a discussion between someone who describes himself as a Dawkins-type atheists and some people he describes as "Christian fundamentalists" about whether the "laws of nature" are prescriptive or descriptive, and it appears that the answer to that question is believed to have some bearing on the likelihood of miracles occurring. Now though it has become an utterly banal cliche to talk about "thinking outside the box", I think the cliche was coined for cases like this -- both Dawkins atheists and fundamentalists are in the same box in this instance. Both agree that miracles are basically contraventions of the laws of nature; the only difference is that one group says they don't happen and the other group says they do. They are agreed on what miracles are. But I think that depends on one particular theological definition of "miracle", which is fundamentally a scholastic one. So the Dawkins atheists and the Christian fundamentalists are here two sides of the same Enlightenment coin. But not everyone defines or understands "miracles" in those terms. I'm not concerned here with the question whether miracles do or don't take place -- I'm content to let the Dawkins atheists and Christian fundamentalists tear each other to pieces over that. But I am concerned about the meaning of the word, which I believe is wider than either party appears to imagine. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > [...] > > > But aren't those laws of human, rather than divine origin? > > Whether they are of divine origin starts Very Big Fights. But I find the > idea of their being of "human origin", um, bizarre. ... The laws of nature that we know are undeniably of human origin. Many such laws have been invented, some work better than others, some work so well that people have believed them, but they're all human inventions. Possibly some of the best laws now known match parts of the true laws of nature, assuming such things exist. > > But isn't a "miracle" something that prompts you to say "Wow!" It > > doesn't necessarily have much to do with the "laws" of nature. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > uses, meaning any dramatic but quite unlikely event, are transferred > senses. The word is from Latin /miraculum/, whose meanings include "a wonder" (ultimately from Latin /mirus/, "wonderful"). Lewis and Short cite Suetonius's phrase "miracula septem", the seven wonders of the world. So the original sense was indeed "something that prompts you to say 'Wow!'" (I wonder how you say that in Latin.) > My knowledge of Kuhn's work is limited to a couple of Wikipedia > articles, [...] Clearly. > As best I can make out, Kuhn appears to feel that because humans are > imperfect, and occasionally let subjective preferences bias their > thinking, science as a tool is forever condemned to be subjective > knowledge. This was not really Kuhn's view. It might be the view of some who read (arguably, mis-read) Kuhn and extended his insights to (or beyond) their logical conclusion/the point of absurdity (depending on your point of view). Actually, the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn gives a quite good and dispassionate account of the (somewhat complicated) question of what views Kuhn held on the realtionship between scientific knowledge and subjectivity. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > Thanks Eric, and thanks everyone for your responses. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > god, but no, they think that as prescriptive laws CANNOT be broken, > miracles would then not be possible. Sounds to me like either they or you got the words reversed. "Thou shalt not commit murder" is a prescriptive law, and it is broken all the time. "A dropped apple [on this earth] falls downward" is descriptive, and I never heard of an apple that floated away instead. Prescriptive laws have the element of "should" -- you should do it this way -- and so there is always the suggestion "you could choose to do otherwise, but there may be bad consequences." I can imagine that some descriptive laws are stated with a sort of "should" element, as in, "based on what we've seen, this should happen 90% of the time -- there is a 90% chance of this happening." That feels totally different to me than the "should" of prescriptive advice. Prescriptive: this is what you should do. Descriptive: This is what you can expect to happen (sometimes stated, "This is what should happen.") SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >Thanks Eric, and thanks everyone for your responses. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >that there must always be a prescriber? >And if there is no prescriber, they are not prescriptive? Since this thread started I've become curious about some aspects of this. As others have pointed out, the "laws of nature" are not prescriptive but descriptive. I won't go into the question whether prescriptive laws need a prescriber, but I'm pretty certain that descriptive laws need a describer. In other words, the "laws of nature" are human constructs, based on human observation, experience and description. As our knowledge of how the universe works increases, so the "laws of nature" change, to take into account this broadened understanding. I don't follow the reasoning of your fundamentalist interlocutors, especially the notion that prescriptive laws cannot be broken. If that were the case, there would surely be no need for the criminal justice system, or am I missing something? The discussion has provoked me into trying to learn more about the history of the concepts of "laws of nature" and "miracles". It seems that some assume that there is a necessary connection between them, which I doubt. Fopr the most part I don't think it is merely a usage question, though of course it does affect the way in which one uses such terms. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >As others have pointed out, the "laws of nature" are not prescriptive but >descriptive. I won't go into the question whether prescriptive laws need a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >works increases, so the "laws of nature" change, to take into account this >broadened understanding. The phrase "the laws of nature" can be used in two distinct ways. Science assumes that nature, the universe, works according to certain principles. These are sometimes called the Laws of Nature. They exist regardless of whether or not they are known by humans or any other species. The principles are the way things are. They are about the inherent nature of things, the "Nature of Nature". An underlying assumption of science is that these principles apply uniformly throughout the universe. Given a particular arrangement of matter and energy certain things will happen regardless of where this arrangement is in the universe. Science is a process of exploration and discovery. Part of the process is an attempt to understand "why things are the way they are", that is, what are the Laws of Nature. Our human statements of our discoveries about "why things are the way they are" are descriptive of the Nature of Nature as recognised by us -- so far. Science uses the word "law" in a limited sense, in a way that is more superficial than fundamental. For instance, Newton's Laws of Motion describe the relationships between forces and motion. They are a statement of observations, but do not attempt to explain "why". Following more observational and theoretical work by a number of scientists Newton's Laws were refined by Einstein as Special Relativity. Scientists speak more of theories and hypotheses rather than laws. A drawback with the use of the word "law" in relation to the workings of the universe is that it tends to imply a law-giver. Our experience with human laws and law-givers is one of change, arbitrariness and sometimes stupidity. We also have the concept of law-breaking. The experience of scientists is that the underlying principles of the universe, the nature of nature, are/is constant. The principles are inherent in the energy and matter of the universe. They are intrinsic, unlike human laws (statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, etc.) which are external to the people whose behaviour they attempt to control. Any given instance of energy or matter behaves and interacts with other things the way it does simply because that is what it is and does. It is not "obeying" some external diktat. There are some scientists who are Christians believing in a Creator God who believe that following the act of creation God upholds and maintains the universe. In practical terms this upholding and maintaining keeps the underlying principles, the nature of nature, constant. They do not believe in physical interventions by God that would alter those principles. If we accept (even if just for the purposes of discussion) the existence of a creator of the universe, that creator can be said to have prescribed the existence of the universe ("Let there be light", etc.). We humans as part of that universe can only describe it. We are not able to prescribe changes to the underlying principles of it. That mysterious human attribute we call "free will" allows humans to prescribe laws to attempt to control human behaviour. It also allows humans to break such laws. The most successful acts of prescribing by humans are things that we don't normally think of as prescribing: the design and construction of things, for instance fences, houses, and machines of various types. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>As others have pointed out, the "laws of nature" are not prescriptive but >>descriptive. I won't go into the question whether prescriptive laws need a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >species. The principles are the way things are. They are about the >inherent nature of things, the "Nature of Nature". I don't disagree. I think you said something I was saying in a somewhat more verbose way. Can anyone find a reference to the word "scientist" before 1840? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>As others have pointed out, the "laws of nature" are not prescriptive but >>>descriptive. I won't go into the question whether prescriptive laws need a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Can anyone find a reference to the word "scientist" before 1840? The OED has this: 1834 Q. Rev. LI. 59 Science..loses all traces of unity. A curious illustration of this result may be observed in the want of any name by which we can designate the students of the knowledge of the material world collectively. We are informed that this difficulty was felt very oppressively by the members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, at their meetings..in the last three summers... Philosophers was felt to be too wide and too lofty a term,..; savans was rather assuming,..; some ingenious gentleman proposed that, by analogy with artist, they might form scientist, and added that there could be no scruple in making free with this termination when we have such words as sciolist, economist, and atheist but this was not generally palatable. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.