:: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
:: I disagree. The point is that ALL "magic" IS "science", that the
:: only difference is our level of understanding of it.
: Howard Brazee <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: But most anybody has a dividing line and can point to "magic" and
: "science". You're saying that they all understand science and don't
: understand magic?
I supplied examples that, it seems to me, indicate cases where science,
named as such, is not understood, and vice versa. So I'd disagree with
somebody saying that.
And note: such a definition of "magic" renders it a property entirely of
the observer/audience, and not of the process/object/whatnot under
discussion. Yet, as an descriptive term it's applied to
processes/objects, not observers/audiences.
Sometimes it's convenient to do that, but in this case it seems largely
INconvenient, especially since "X is magic" and "Y is science", as a
language
usage, doesn't mention "to whom" at all. Hence, misleading, inconvenient,
less-than-useful, etc, etc. IMO.
Wayne Throop throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sheol.org/throopw
|
