Not really, I've just seen that quote way too many times.

Some magic systems are very scientific, though the Potterverse one is so unscientific that it's painfully obvious.

 

Magic should, in my opinion, be the antithesis of science. When you start trying to use science to explain magic, you get stuff like the midi-chlorians in Star Wars. There are exceptions but trying to explain magic by using scientific or pseudo-scientific terms make it more dull and uninteresting in the majority of cases, at least for me.

 

Warburg, in my understanding Clarke's law makes a comparison between super advanced technology that appears to be magic and actual magic-magic. There is nothing wrong wrong with magical not-science magic. There's also nothing wrong with having technology so advanced it resembles magic. I would even say there's nothing wrong with having both in one place.

A passing example of science magic is biotics from ME. Of course that Element Zero is bull and couldn't exist under the laws of physics as we know them, but it's fiction. Yet, "science" is used to explain what is essentially space magic.

But, you know, opinions.

 

"Raises hand" I share that case to.

 

Personally, I support the Clarke quote about "sufficiently advanced technology" with HP Magic. Hell, I think you could explain God in terms of science and technology. And all the nonsensical fairy tale Magic in HP won't change my view on that: it does break our understanding of science, but that doesn't mean we can't relearn science to allow for fairy tale Magic.

With that all said, I have two very distinct Pet Peeves on this subject:

1. When the Magic gets too nonsensical and only exists to either let Harry become an Uber-Wizard or to get the author out of some plot hole.

2. Going too far into the Clarke quote and reaching MOR territory. Just because I support the possibility that science could explain Magic doesn't mean that our current understanding of science can remotely explain Magic right away, never mind outright beating it with some sort of Uber-Science.

 

I personally tend to keep a more open mind(perhaps too much of one) instead of restricting the meaning of the words. Science is the study of the universe, technology is what derives from such learning.

From HP canon we know wizards study the universe(with a focus in magic) and that from there they learn how to use in a myriad of ways(with the wand itself being the greatest one the way I see it) so it is science and technology. How much it matches or has in common to what we studied and derived is immaterial.

I understand the need for distinction so I tend to accept the need for SoD and go on but for me fantastical materials like naquadah, element zero, sakuradite, unobtainium, etc and things like magic, biotics, psionics, advanced biology all ultimately boil down to the same.

TL;DR: If any of us managed to track down Zeus and convince him to rain down a few lightning bolts we learned something about the universe and derived a use from such so that is science and technology respectively.

 

What... How could you possibly explain the Christian God "in terms of science and technology" when you can't even prove(or disprove, don't get your panties in a twist Christians) said God's existence?

 

Really the only relevant question about this whole magic and science question is is it possible to study magic using the scientific method of experimentation and observation?

If yes, then magic is scientific. Evidence points that HP magic is scientific (the alternative is that all the theory they teach in Hogwarts is actually bullshit, having at most a placebo effect on learning).

It only really becomes a problem when an author tries to create some kind of grand unifying theory of magic and ends up failing spectacularly.

 

Magic = Dark Matter since science can't explain it is yet, but we know it's there.

 

Isn't there any other thread for this sort of argument?

 

• When people bash Seamus for not believing Harry. The "you should know him better by now" argument is bull; sharing a dorm room and classes with someone doesn't mean you really know them.

• When people call Ginny a slut. I agree that she's a bitch but having one boyfriend a year for three years doesn't make you a slut.

• When people make Dumbledore straight or give him kids. He's gay, get over it already. If you want your Mary Sue to have a powerful dad to explain where she gets her abilities from, make Grindelwald her father.

 

Hey, uh Cookie, you okay over there?

Anyway stories that redeem Voldemort, the Malfoys and that lot. They were bad people get over it and stories where Harry is basically Hermiones bitch.

 

By that I assume you haven't read any stories with Mpreg so that both Dumbledore and Grindenwald are the parents?

Anyway something that once again came to annoy me, fanfics that go on huge paragraphs detailing every single aspect of a ship, vehicle, weapon or whatever.

 

STOP. NOW.

God yes. Why do they think we want to know how many hours their characters cuddle for each night, or the position? Someone needs to teach these authors to leave certain things to the reader's imagination.

 

Cookie, your avatar and your sig both perfectly compliment the content of your posts in this thread.

 

New pet peeve: lack of Naruto filter on ff.net

 

Like, for crossovers?

 

Yes.

In some fandoms all of the top crossovers are with Naruto.

 

Everyone misunderstands that damn Arthur C Clarke quote, using it to say magic and advanced technology are the same thing/work on the same principles/part of the same system. That's the complete opposite of what the quote means.

The quote is saying that from the position of ignorance, magic and technology appear the same, even though they are most definitely not the same. In the absence of ignorance, the apparent similarity disappears.

This is overly-simplistic:

1. The word "science" is used to indicate the body of currently accepted scientific theories just as much as it is used to indicate the scientific method.

2. When you survey the diversity of scientific practice, you quickly realise that there's no such thing as "the scientific method". There are common features, but there's no single practice that is universal to all science -- not even empirical confirmation.

Not necessarily. You're making a false dichotomy: that magic either has no rules or a single set of rules. You're ignoring the possibility that magic is pluralistic: that it is rule bound, but that there are multiple different sets of rules - different perspectives on magic that are equally "true" (i.e. empirically adequate) but which explain magic in fundamentally different ways. Under this structure, theory is still important - you need a narrative to use magic, and perhaps different narratives for different magics - but it is not apt for scientific investigation, because there's no single "truth" to be uncovered. You can observe all you like but it won't do you any good, because the observable facts underdetermine the theories.

 

Dumb that down for me.

If there's multiple sets of rules, used from different perspectives, how does that logically scan?

I'm only asking because 'theory' at Hogwarts, or regarding magic in general, has always baffled me when I really start thinking about it. Kind of like the minutia of time travel, and is ultimately equally relegated to the 'just don't think about it' section of my mind.

Basically, wtf is 'theory' at Hogwarts, and how is there seven years worth?