Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Science, magic (Was: Re: Great Dragons)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 09:38:28 +1000
Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Science, Ras, is a very humanish idea. In fact it grew into a serious
> idea inside of recorded history. From the greeks to the renaisance, then
> developed to it's current state in the 1800s and 1900s. Science really
> is a very new system.

Historically that's true. But I believe that the essence of science, which
is to form a hypothesis and then to actually go and _test_ it, is not innately
human. It's just an extraordinarily useful way of learning how lots of things
work. It's one technique that dragons would use, when they felt like it.

Ras> [...] I look at dragon magic as magic based on hermetic theory
Ras> (not necessarally the hermetic tradition the Ares wage-mage is used to),
Ras> with perhaps a good dose of keeping magic-use closely related to nature.

Ivy> Well, Ras, this is another one that won't hold up.

I'm pretty sure that in Shadowrun, Shamanism and Hermeticism are terms that
are used quite specifically: to mean spirit/personal/unruly and
force/impersonal/rule-based, respectively. The history of the terms is
interesting, but not central.

I like the idea that dragons are a blend of the two - a deeper understanding
of the nature of magic, that incorporates both mechanistic rules and deep
emotional understanding.

luke
Message no. 2
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Science, magic (Was: Re: Great Dragons)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 20:36:56 -0400
>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
writes:

Luke> Historically that's true. But I believe that the essence of science,
Luke> which is to form a hypothesis and then to actually go and _test_ it,
Luke> is not innately human.

That is called the "scientific method" not science. Science is the
knowledge gained by the scientific method.

Yours, for a more educated ShadowRN :)

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
this space intentionally left blank | fnord fnord fnord
Message no. 3
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Science, magic (Was: Re: Great Dragons)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 19:32:58 -0700
Thanks Rat,

Nice to see that someone is looking out for our education...

And the "scientific method" is what I was talking about. It really is a
pretty young POV. Up till it came into existance people looked at what
they saw, and then tried to explain that.

A lot of people are still in that mind-set.

Ivy
Message no. 4
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Science, magic (Was: Re: Great Dragons)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:59:35 +1000
Ivy Ryan:

> And the "scientific method" is what I was talking about. It really is a
> pretty young POV.

Sure it's young. (Did you know, Archimedes invented it single-handedly?)

> Up till it came into existence people looked at what they saw, and then
> tried to explain that.

There's nothing wrong with that. The critical idea is not in making
explanations, but the idea of making predictions based on your theory,
and testing those predictions. That was the revolutionary step.

> A lot of people are still in that mind-set.

But far less than ever in the past. People use the scientific method lots
I claim, but it goes wrong if their understanding behind their theory is
wrong: `betting' is a prime example.

luke
Message no. 5
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Science, magic (Was: Re: Great Dragons)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 20:00:15 -0700
On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
> > Science, Ras, is a very humanish idea. In fact it grew into a serious
> > idea inside of recorded history. From the greeks to the renaisance, then
>
> Historically that's true. But I believe that the essence of science, which
> is to form a hypothesis and then to actually go and _test_ it, is not innately

Actually, the more likely, and more common way is to look at what happens
and form a theory from that. Most of the world still does that. It
works too, unless you're trying to explain the world. And I don't think
most people, or dragons are trying for that. Their magic works.

>
> Ras> [...] I look at dragon magic as magic based on hermetic theory
>
> Ivy> Well, Ras, this is another one that won't hold up.
>
> I'm pretty sure that in Shadowrun, Shamanism and Hermeticism are terms that
> are used quite specifically: to mean spirit/personal/unruly and
> force/impersonal/rule-based, respectively. The history of the terms is
> interesting, but not central.

Neat concept. I don't agree, because I know that the designer of the
magic system is a Hermetic mage himself.

> I like the idea that dragons are a blend of the two - a deeper understanding
> of the nature of magic, that incorporates both mechanistic rules and deep
> emotional understanding.

As a shamaness I can tell you that you have just described exactly how
working shamans, faced with real operating magic, would approach the
thing. All magic has rules, or it doesn't work. But the rules aren't
something that you use the scientific method on. You do a lot of it by
feel, and sensitivity is more important than theory. Mechanistic rules,
sure, and understanding, definitely, but you work from what works, not
from what you 'think' might work. That's a sure trip to the grave when
you're playing with the power. Contagion, colocation, affinities and
such just don't fit into science.

Of course the dragons have a blend, they've been doing it for millenia,
not years. But their theory isn't what anyone with scientific training
would call "science" at all.

> luke
>
Ivy
Message no. 6
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Science, magic (Was: Re: Great Dragons)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 13:36:21 +1000
Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Actually, the more likely, and more common way is to look at what happens
> and form a theory from that. Most of the world still does that. It
> works too, unless you're trying to explain the world.

That's fine. It's the prediction & test that's important, not how you come
up with the theory.

l> I'm pretty sure that in Shadowrun, Shamanism and Hermeticism are terms that
l> are used quite specifically: to mean spirit/personal/unruly and
l> force/impersonal/rule-based, respectively. The history of the terms is
l> interesting, but not central.

> Neat concept. I don't agree, because I know that the designer of the
> magic system is a Hermetic mage himself.

So? All I see in the rules confirms that he's using the terms in the sense
I stated above.

l> I like the idea that dragons are a blend of the two - a deeper understanding
l> of the nature of magic, that incorporates both mechanistic rules and deep
l> emotional understanding.

> As a shamaness I can tell you that you have just described exactly how
> working shamans, faced with real operating magic, would approach the
> thing. All magic has rules, or it doesn't work. But the rules aren't
> something that you use the scientific method on.

That's the crux of the difference. If you're using a recipe-book (or
solving magical equations), you're taking the hermetic approach.

> You do a lot of it by feel, and sensitivity is more important than theory.

And that's the seat-of-the-pants (heart?), shamanic approach.

> Mechanistic rules, sure, and understanding, definitely, but you work
> from what works, not from what you 'think' might work.

Are you _really_ saying that you don't experiment, based on what you
'think' might work?

> That's a sure trip to the grave when you're playing with the power.

I'd love to see evidence of real magic (not telepathy etc, real magic).
A sure trip to the grave sounds like pretty strong evidence. Can you
tell us more? What does it mean, to be a shaman in the real world?

> Contagion, colocation, affinities and such just don't fit into science.

Not intrinsically. You'd just have to come up with a theory behind them
that would let you make predictions and test them with experiments.
Scientists can be as imaginative and creative as anyone else. Look at
quantum mechanics.

luke
Message no. 7
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Science, magic (Was: Re: Great Dragons)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 09:16:26 +1000
I'd said:

Luke> Historically that's true. But I believe that the essence of science,
Luke> which is to form a hypothesis and then to actually go and _test_ it,
Luke> is not innately human.

Stainless Steel Rat:

> That is called the "scientific method" not science. Science is the
> knowledge gained by the scientific method.

And the scientific method is the essence of science.

> --
> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> |
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
> this space intentionally left blank |

Why does the large blank area to the right fill me with trepidation?

luke@*******.Inc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Science, magic (Was: Re: Great Dragons), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.