Poll: Is it acceptable to refer to anything that isn't proved to be science as "Magick"?

[CulixCupric]

Is it acceptable to refer to anything that isn't proved to be science as "Magick"?

I mean, by this is that if we don't have an explanation for it, is it OK to call it magic, as long as you still hold the belief that maybe one day, they'll figure out the science of it?

EDIT1: this idea came from when someone asked me what my definition of what magic was, and all i could reply with was "anything we haven't proved to be science yet." and i felt kind of bad for that answer.

EDIT2: Also, can you explain why or why not it is isn't acceptable?

EDIT3: the first "Yes" was mine.

EDIT4: FYI, I'm a bit disconnected from reality.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Is'nt that what most religions already do?
even if they dont flat-out call it magick.

 

[CulixCupric]

snip

so, should i just call it science?

 

[Tufty94]

No, but your question reminded me of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg

 

[Wuggy]

That's not what Magic is. Magic is paranormal, in direct contrast to science, "an inexplicable force beyond logic" as it were (ie, it's bogus). Something not yet explained by science, is just that, an undiscovered thing. You can call it "magic" all you want, but that only means that you're warping the definition of the word.

 

[AtlantisReborn]

Not acceptable in my opinion. A lot of things used to be called 'magic' like creating fire or something in that general direction. People got the noose for stuff like that. Because it hasn't been proven yet, you shouldn't call it science or magic. If it is explained after a while, you choose science. And if after 200 years of researching people still haven't figured out what it is, you might start going towards Magic.

But above all this is governed by your views on what 'Magick' is.

Some people think that illusionists are magicians, while i see them as smart guys that know how to fool the simple-minded folks.

 

[Vigormortis]

Um...no. No it is most definitely NOT okay.

You see, calling it (and by it I mean, as you put it, something we don't understand yet) magic implies you are already explaining it. You are defining it. This lends itself to people assuming there's no need to actually search for an explanation for the unknown. Since, if you don't get it, you can just say, "It's magic."

That's not only dumb it's dangerous. Besides, I'm fairly certain we're beyond the seventeenth century.

 

[CulixCupric]

No, but your question reminded me of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg

i am enjoying this clip.

"zombies are at an all time low, but fear of zombies is at an all time high."

homeopathic is all placebo effects IMO.

 

[Fasckira]

For a start, I would say "magic" and not "magick".

If you want to call something you dont understand magic then go ahead. I dont think its socially acceptable though; to prove this, attend a lecture on some random space string theory and ask the lecturer to sum up with, "So its all magic?" and see how long the laughter lasts for.

Back in the dark ages, people could be excused for classing everything as magic or witchcraft because we had a very slim grasp on the workings of the world around us. Now a days however we're aware that, to an extent, theres an element of structure to the universe, a set of rules that governs it and although we dont know everything we can still recognise that there is a logic of sorts at work.

So in short, its more acceptable to simply say its "unknown". Using terms like magic will get you branded as an idiot or simpleton.

 

[CulixCupric]

For a start, I would say "magic" and not "magick".

i usually spell it magick, because if I spell it magic, everyone I know instantly thinks magic the gathering.

 

[thylasos]

For a start, I would say "magic" and not "magick".

i usually spell it magick, because if I spell it magic, everyone I know instantly thinks magic the gathering.

The delineated usage of the +k spelling (as opposed to the usage of it when the spelling of the word magic was fluid) was to delineate ceremonial magick as practised by societes such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, from the the sort of magic, i.e. sleight of hand and conjuring tricks one sees at childrens parties.

Regardless, it depends entirely on your definition of magick. Personally, I follow the Dion Fortune one; that is to say, "Magick is the art of changing conciousness at will."

In that case, phenomena currently inexplicable by science (besides the working of the human mind in terms of perception (more and more specifically these days, with the advent of MRI, etc)) don't really fall within the remit of "magick".