>>21469908
bump

>>21469908
There are very few settings that have that kind of connection. You might actually want to check tvtropes.

>>21469908
Yeah, what you're talking about is applying the scientific method to magic. The reason so few settings do that is the same reason that alchemy remained a concept for so long before we figured out chemistry. Human nature, historically speaking, is to mystify the mysterious, rather than analyzing it. Settings that apply the scientific method to magic, though, tend to result in a lot of magitech, aka magical technology, aka applied magic. The lightning rails in Eberron, the lost age of the solars in Exalted, and so on.

It was a reactionary development in the 2e years. Early on at TSR, the game wizards did not recognise a distinction between science and magic - they were terms for the same thing that reflected the sophistication of the users. Jim Ward was the most vocal defender of this view.

In the 2e years, hocus-pocus and mysticism started being taken more seriously as alternatives to science, leading to aberrations like Spelljammer and Eberron.

>>21469908
What I really don't get is people seeing science and magic as fundamentally different things. The scientific method can be applied to literally anything.

>>21470366
This, think of hwat could happen in any setting if you apply science to its magic.

>>21470509
you annoy the god of magic, that's what happens.

>>21470545
>god of magic
In a generic pantheonic setting with a god of magic who wants people to be mystified rather than educated? Yes, probably.

>>21470366
magic is generally portrayed mystical and unknowable, it's not so much that you can't apply science to it at all but your ability to discern much information from the process will be limited

>>21470568
So you use divination to measure it, or instruments with bits made of magically-resonant materials. You study the cause and effect, formulate hypothesis and disprove them until you manage to put together a proper theory. The scientific method can be applied to literally anything.

>>21470568
is portrayed as if its meant to be unknowable.
But in its actual portrayal its never actually incompatible with science in any setting.

Hard too know is not the same as unknowable.

>>21470568
In most settings, wizards seem to know a great deal about magic, it's just that wizardry approaches magic in much the same way that alchemy approached chemistry. It would be trivial for wizards to formalize the study of magic into a science, rather than an art, if they had access to the philosophical grounding of the scientific method.

File: 1352297758479.jpg-(82 KB, 720x479, 1344540899486.jpg)

Why hasn't this been posted yet?

>>21470596
this obviously depends on the setting, but the way i see it, you can measure the effects of magic and put together theories, but actually understanding magic at it's fundamental level is not possible, either because humans don't have the ability to understand it (because the human mind simply can't bend round whatever esoteric fuckery is unpinning reality) or because humans lack the tools to get at that esoteric fuckery

it doesn't matter how hard you apply the scientific method to something, if you physically lack the ability to collect the evidence necessary to come to grips with it, then you won't be able to develop any kind of fully-developed theory. it's like locking someone in a bunker deep underground and asking them to come up with a theory on star formation. they can't even see the stars.

>>21470661
>measure the effects of magic and put together theories, but actually understanding magic at it's fundamental level is not possible
How do you think we study physics? We measure the effects of forces and put together theories. You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding how the scientific method is actually employed in the real world and how that would related to a fictional world. I could recommend a few books on the philosophy of science and the history of science if you're interested in becoming better-educated.

>>21470661
don't mistake our own failings for the failings of science.

>>21470661
Literally everything you said also applies to quantum mechanics, and we don't have magical divination spells to help us with that.

>>21470698
>Inb4 decanter of endless water-rockets
>inb4 nuclear fusion via magic

>>21470742
>nuclear fusion via magic
Why bother with that when you could just build a reactor around a Tungsten Rod of Permanent Heat Metal?

>>21470751
not direct enough. Just get a weapon enchanted with shock and plug it straight into the powergrid.

>>21470698
listen, you patronizing cunt, the explicability of the universe is not something that can be taken for granted. there is no guarantee in any given case that it is physically possible for us to create and apply the tools required to gather the empirical evidence necessary to formulate a well-informed theory. as einstein puts it, "the eternally incomprehensible thing about the world is it's comprehensibility".

>You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding how the scientific method is actually employed in the real world and how that would related to a fictional world.

there is no "understanding" how anything might be applied to a fictional world. the author's word is law. so if science doesn't work in a setting, it doesn't work in a setting, no matter how much that rides you the wrong way.

>>21469908
The real answer?

Most setting makers are luddites and/or overly romantic twits who fancy themselves as "artist," and thus willingly blind themselves to what science actually is, and how mysticism actually evolved in human cultures.

The rest do it in order to copy what is popular at the time.

And all of the people who purposely did the split, despite understanding culture and science, in order to offend as little people as possible and make a game, died.

>>21470772
>if science doesn't work in a setting, it doesn't work in a setting
Then the setting works in such a way that cause and effect are so fundamentally removed from each other that it would be literally impossible for us to have our characters meaningfully interact with the setting. You are ignorant and failing to apply logic to your opinions before you speak about them, in part due to arrogance and in part due to a lack of understanding of how intimately even the most basic understanding of literally anything is related to the validity of the scientific method in a setting. If the scientific method isn't valid, magic isn't predictable in any way, shape, or form. If it's not predictable, spells can't be cast, wizardry can't be studied - things would just happen for literally no reason, with no control. In any setting where magic is even the slightest bit predictable, science is valid.

>>21470772
Science not working in a setting, makes the setting so utterly incomprehensible it cannot be played.

Science even works in a Bugs Bunny cartoon for crying out loud. Just because natural laws are different, it doesn't mean they are not there.

>>21470772
>the author's word is law. so if science doesn't work in a setting, it doesn't work in a setting,

I can't think of any setting where thats actually said. Its always just that science is forgotten about.

The general ease with which wizards or other magic users can come up with such a huge variety of spells implies that it is certainly possible to be studied scientifically. If wizards can cast the same spell twice with the same method this means magic has consistent rules (or laws if you will) if those laws exist then they can be understood. The only question is how difficult it is, but its never impossible.

File: 1352299254842.png-(11 KB, 390x470, 1352245651223.png)

>>21470772

>>21470366
This is true, but only if it is consistent and repeatable. Which may not be possible for various reasons. Let's examine a few.

1: Spells work based on emotion, the emotions of the caster influences the results. The results are therefore inconsistent and vary between observers and even the same spellcaster, depending on the day.

2: Spells draw power from a creature not of this world, who grants power only when it is needed and the proper rituals done. Rigorous scientific testing would annoy the creature, who would not grant power to constant repeats of spells. Or else the creature does not have power enough to constantly grant the spell.

3: Spells work based on secrets. The more people that know a spell, the less powerful it is. The scientific method requires open research and peer review. Therefore, science destroys this kind of magic by its very nature.

4: There are multiple types of magic which can accomplish the same result, but each has problems like all the above and more, leading to great confusion when it comes to creating a scientific understanding of magic.

And there you go. Some good reasons why science might fail at magic.

>>21470822
>1: Spells work based on emotion, the emotions of the caster influences the results. The results are therefore inconsistent and vary between observers and even the same spellcaster, depending on the day.
In which case it's still scientifically explicable as long as you go into it with psychology.
>2: Spells draw power from a creature not of this world, who grants power only when it is needed and the proper rituals done. Rigorous scientific testing would annoy the creature, who would not grant power to constant repeats of spells. Or else the creature does not have power enough to constantly grant the spell.
In which case it's still scientifically rigorous, circumstances just make the testing difficult/dangerous.
>3: Spells work based on secrets. The more people that know a spell, the less powerful it is. The scientific method requires open research and peer review. Therefore, science destroys this kind of magic by its very nature.
I like this one. It's a sort of true, proper inverse to science.
4: There are multiple types of magic which can accomplish the same result, but each has problems like all the above and more, leading to great confusion when it comes to creating a scientific understanding of magic.
In which case the science is still valid, just tricky.

>>21470805
I once read a sci-fi story where an astronaut crash landed on a world of godlike psychics. They thought he was lying about science because all of them could alter reality by simply thinking about it. This meant that the result of his scientific experiments was never consistent, and changed by all the observers.

Imagine that on a smaller scale - everyone is JUST MAGIC ENOUGH to make proper scientific experimentation impossible. Their belief and thoughts influence the results of the test.

>>21470837
>Their belief and thoughts influence the results of the test.
Which makes psychology higher on the ladder of scientific rigor than physics. It doesn't actually change science's validity.

>>21470822
>Spells work based on emotion, the emotions of the caster influences the results.

that means there is consistency, emotion is just one of the variables that has to be accounted for.

>2
again just another variable in the "equations"

>3
yet again based on a consistent and determinable rule. Science can study things even if doing so destroys them, many investigative methods are destructive.

>4
again, just more variables. Just makes it harder, but never out of reach.

None of those make magic un-knowable to science.

>>21470742
>Get intangible decanter of endless water
>Encase it with Force Wall
>Activate the decanter
>Create another Force Wall with a hole pointed against what you don't like
>Wait until water undergo fusion reactions
>Dispell first Force Wall
for added hilarity: yell "IMMA FIRING MAH LAZOR" as you dispel
>Shoot a concentraded nuclear blast at the enemy (or better yet, at a Kender village)

And this is how you kill a Tarrasque with style

>>21470822
Number one doesn't work. Emotions are actually very consistent between subjects; if they weren't, empathy would be impossible. This would require that the study of magic be united with the study of psychology, which means we'd end up with lots of tricks for generating emotional highs during combat or deflating your opponent's feelings. Sort of a backhanded "insult fighting."

Number two doesn't work--even if rigorous scientific testing annoyed the creature, recording the results of your own spells on a regular basis and comparing them to those of your peers will result in comparative theories of the functions of spells.

Number three works. If magic is based entirely on how secret the knowledge is, scientific study would be difficult. However, that limits the number of spellcasters available, and makes studying other people's spells a dick move.

Four doesn't work. Physics is full of a great confusing number of factors, but we figured that one out.

>>21470850
Or you could just take the easy route and teleport a teaspoon of the sun's core at your target.

File: 1352299658555.jpg-(345 KB, 979x468, 1346192774286.jpg)

>>21470855
>insult fighting
Rap battles.

>>21470862
YES

>>21470849
Would 3 therefore make Magic similar to studying quantum physics? Which would leave it restricted to highly dedicated ultraphysicsts, thus preserving the secrecy?

>>21470871
>Would 3 therefore make Magic similar to studying quantum physics? Which would leave it restricted to highly dedicated ultraphysicsts, thus preserving the secrecy?
Yes. It would have its own uncertainty principle, of a sort, where measuring it destroys it.

>>21470850
>>21470858
personally I always like the get two portals on either end of a force tube aligned vertically, summon an arbitrary material to totally fill that volume. Let it accelerate (due to gravity) in a frictionless environment until it reaches an arbitrarily high speed before dispelling the portals to "trigger" your kinetic energy bomb.

These arguments about psychology tend to forget something.

Psychology is a NEW science in the real world, borrowing heavily from a legacy of other, fundamental sciences. With additional barriers to understanding natural forces and with magic relying on secrets to function, psychology is unlikely to ever be invented.

Would wizards have a good sense of empathy and their own pseudo-scientific understanding of psychology? Of course. It would be fundamental. But they would be more like alchemists than chemists in the end.

So they understand people, they make their pacts, and they keep secrets. They aren't natural scientists, and they monopolize the educated.

In other words, wizards plausibly replace scientists. Science and its principles still exist, but are never invented or are emphasized far less than magic is. The actual scientific method remains out of grasp.

The true path to power is studying ancient, secret tomes hidden by paranoid wizards who didn't want their secrets to escape. Making pacts with demons. Invading isolated wizard towers for secrets and spells, and convincing the dying wizards to pass their power on to you, however you have to.

>>21470772
I believe that problems arise when the WoG is that 'scientific method can't work on magic', when all evidence points to the contrary.

I'd say it's the difference between newtonian and relativistic mechanics - if all your observed evidence says that there's enough corelation between 'speaking funny words' and 'doing magic' to form some verifiable hypothesis about the system it works by, no amount of authorial bullshitting about how it's incomprehensible to mortal minds will convince you.

Who cares if the 'Grand Unifying Theory of Fundamental Magical Forces' will never be formed, when the *advanced* stuff you actually care about is about F=m*a level of abstraction?
Why should hidden variables prevent you from exhaustive quantification of input-output relationships?

In short, I'm reasonably certain that 'magic which is not subject to scientific method' does have to be completely illogical, as in it breaks the logic following any given set of axioms, to work so.

Now, how many 'antiscientific' magical systems there actually are, which follow these criteria?

>>21470822
Magic has to be learned somehow. Even if it is some kind of innate function of life like walking. Because magic has to be learned, science applies.

And the fundamental thing that everyone forgets: Magic IS science. Well proto-science anyway. You do painstakingly detailed rituals that exist to fulfill exact requirements in order to get predictable results. It just so happens one of those requirements is "the goddess of magic isn't on PMS that day"

It's basically the same fucking thing, they are there on the "how" part, but they have a different reason "why".

>>21470849
On Three: This is true primarily because there's a lot of particles to study in quantum physics. The world doesn't miss a particle.

But a spell, once used up, may be gone forever. In the process of studying it, you've prevented anyone from ever using it again.

You might research something that achieves the same effect, eventually, but it works under entirely different principles in an entirely different way. And studying it scientifically ends with the same result.

>>21470882
>borrowing heavily from a legacy of other, fundamental sciences
That's actually extremely incorrect. It borrows mostly from raw philosophy refiltered through the scientific method.

>>21470882
Out of our grasp, but far from impossible. And suddenly very necessary: it makes manipulative jerks out of wizards, yes, but any wizard that understands how another wizard operates will be at an intense advantage. And all wizards fight for advantage.

Psychology as we know it wouldn't pop up fast, or resemble our own current understanding, but given a few dozen generations of bookish wizards carefully recording their secrets and passing them on to their apprentices, it would probably resemble Science.

>>21470901
Don't forget the fact that he's also wrong about it being young. It's almost two hundred years old now, and started being formalized by people like Wundt around the same time that other less-scientific disciplines, like alchemy, started being formalized into their scientific forms too.

>>21470911
>it would probably resemble Science
Especially if the wizards started using a setting-appropriate philosophical equivalent to the Scientific Method. Then the only thing that would keep psychology from becoming a rigorous discipline, and informing magic in turn, would be a lack of test subjects, and a sufficiently powerful wizard doesn't lack test subjects.

Hmm. Look at it this way.

There is a vast quantity of energy in existence, malleable, shaped by intelligent thought and will - or by natural forces.

Nature creates a "natural ritual" by simply living, unintelligently. It cannot tell its secrets, and magic happens to it by accident - creating dryads, talking animals, living storms, and so on. They might have secrets they were born with. If they give them up, however, those secrets no longer work as well - and they die. The greatest of these are fey creatures, demons or gods, who were born with great secrets of power.

Humans start by taking these secrets from natural magic. They convince the speaking deer to tell it the word that gives it power. And it does. Then the human has power over nature. Power to survive - to thrive, where his companions struggle.

But he tells the secret to others. Soon, the secret's power wanes, and the power fades or disappears. So he creates a secret society, so the secret is contained, yet put to the good of the group. This is a druid.

Cotd.

>>21470971
Others want the power, but know no secrets. So they ask the greater natural forces for a deal. Those forces cast spells for them. In return, they complete a ritual which strengthens the creature by enhancing its magic. They don't learn the secrets, but they get the power in return for servitude. Thus, you have warlocks.

And then there are mages, who apply a "scientific" method to magic. They look at the secrets in nature, break them down with logic, and then make up their own, and test them until it works. They have to share secrets with other wizards to figure out how to invent means to channel the great energy, but true power comes from creating a great secret yourself and NOT sharing it. So wizards are constantly on edge around other wizards, torn between saying as little as possible so you can figure out the other mages secrets, while doing your best to get all of theirs without giving up your own.

And finally, there are priests. A kind of "natural" magic, they work on ritual - and are rewarded by the belief of the masses. Like natural magic, miracles happen on their own - it doesn't rely on a deep secret, but rather a shared belief of many, channeled through a ritual - which completes a brief, momentary, powerful secret of its own.

And ultimately, all these powers come from the same source, and suffer the same weaknesses and strengths. Knowledge is power. Guard it well.

Magic, in several settings, is either too complicated or too simple to be researched scientifically. Think for a moment how long humanity was dicking around on faulty knowledge. Think about how long it took to discover gravity, to discover bloodletting was actually bad. Look at how long we were working with Aristotelian physics.

Maybe no one is approaching magic in a scientific manner because it works and as long as it works no one cares. I'm too busy burning someone's face off. I'm on a giant.

>>21470971
>>21470975
That doesn't change the scientific method's validity in the situation, if anything in reinforces it, save for the peer review stage. Science is still valid even if it destroys its test subjects.

>>21470977
That doesn't mean they're contradictory. That just means that the setting doesn't have the scientific method yet. Once their philosophy progresses to the point that they do, magic and the scientific method will fit together just fine.

>>21470977
>Magic, in several settings, is either too complicated or too simple to be researched scientifically.
thats simply not true. Being more complicated would make it harder to research, but would never make it impossible.

>Think for a moment how long humanity was dicking around on faulty knowledge. Think about how long it took to discover gravity, to discover bloodletting was actually bad. Look at how long we were working with Aristotelian physics.
so?....
Taking a long time to figure something out is not at all the same as that something being un-knowable.


>Maybe no one is approaching magic in a scientific manner because it works and as long as it works no one cares.
The exact same can be said of the pre-scientific method world. It worked, but people still cared.

>>21470850
>>21470874

>One day wizard battles will be less about spell flinging but more on the line of "Energy cannon out of fucking nowhere" and assorted WMDs
>Unseen servants and homunculi sent to disable the enemy wizard's devices (possibily in a catastrophic way)
>It all boil down to a Spy vs Spy game to disable the enemy wizard's weapons and avoid MAD

What system should i use for this?

>>21469908
Well, there's Glorantha's Sophists, who obey 3 major rules.

1. the workings of the universe can be intelligently distilled to a set of impartial laws;

2. the strictly impartial forces that constitute the Cosmos (the Runes) can be tapped and exploited through manipulation of Knowledge and Power (also called “wizardry”); and

3. the universe can be shaped through wizardry without consent from gods who are elsewhere believed to rule everything. Many non-Western cultures find the Malkioni materialistic philosophy blasphemous and evil, and call it sorcery.


They believe that magic is all about understanding science and using it to manipulate the world. So they might be a good pick.

(A lot of them do still have a god, worshipping the spark which set the world in motion as the Prime Mover, or Invisible God. There are also pure athiests though)

>>21470982
My point isn't that science CANNOT exist.

I'm saying that it is highly unlikely that the scientific method as we understand it would exist if the entire basis of magic is keeping what you know to yourself, rather than sharing it.

There would be an order and logic to it, but it would be a pseudoscience at best. The scientific method simply wouldn't be invented by magicians, because *no mage wants to destroy their own source of power trying to figure out how it works*. Nor would they willingly give up those secrets to scientists, because that would destroy the magic just the same.

Nor would any creature whose very life depended upon keeping it's core secret (like a 'true name') an actual secret willingly submit to scientific testing.

Science could exist in such a world and may eventually overtake magic - but ultimately, magicians, druids, and magical creatures would fight tooth and nail to keep science from outright killing them and stripping them of their power. Moreover, they have the ability to throw fireballs at fledgling scientists to discourage them.

Pseudoscience would exist, no doubt. But if true science ever came to exist in such a world, it would be heavily delayed from our timeline.

>>21471018
Something with secret agents and evil masterminds. The game would be centered on politics, assassinations, sabotage, organized crime, and so on.

>>21471013

Depends on how complicated it is. It could be so complicated people have been trying to figure it out for hundreds of years, with only minor leaps because it's just that complex. Heck, some settings have magic that seems to be constantly changing. Try researching that if it's effectively a chaotic system. Maybe its chaos is what makes it magic rather than physical science.

>Taking a long time to figure something out is not at all the same as that something being un-knowable.

And that's my other point. A lot of settings may not have scientific magic because they're not up to that point yet. Look at medieval Europe. When the renaissance came around and Newtonian physics arose, people had also experienced a severe change in their perception of the world, when all the magicky-wagicky religious extremism started to cool down a widdle. I mean little. But it still took them quite some time to come up with the idea.

>>21471036
So magic relies upon the quantum uncertainty principle?

By observing it we change it?

Fascinating, this requires study.

>>21471060
In which case the idea of magic and science being contrary is still invalid, it's just that the setting is still sufficiently primitive to lack the scientific method.

Once you explain Magic, it becomes Science (Mass Effect)

>>21471095
Until it becomes sufficiently advanced.

>>21471076

And I think that's what this thread was about to begin with. Why not? Because they're not smart enough yet.

>>21471101
Yup. We've come full circle, explored the idea, played devil's advocate, and explained it.

>>21471109

Hooray.

Now, back to the idea of magic being simply unknowable like something lovecraftian. Which is tons more fun.

>>21471114
Sure, in that situation cause and effect go out the window and madness reigns supreme. Our minds can't handle reality, and so we go mad when touched by truth, rejecting it instinctively and destroying our minds in the process.

>>21471114
No, that's the idea where it actually causes humans to go insane. While that's still fun, that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of Lovecraftian aliens out there who can Science it.

>>21471114
Of course, lovecraftian magic was simply unknown science.

>>21469908
What you are asking for is kind of ass backwards. If anything, magic is the duct tape, or the filler, or just the handwavium that lets you bridge the gap between what should happen and what you want to happen.

Sure, you could science it up and make all Mages molecular scientists who aren't just throwing fireballs, but creating a very specific chemical reaction that appears as a ball of fire, but the problem is still that magic just works because it works.

The scientific method could, in a way, be applied to spells. "Hypothesis: If I chant these specific magic words and make these gestures >> This magic effect will happen" sort of.. But still, the shit doesn't mesh, unless you are simply talking about using magic in a way that allows you to reveal science, like creating a spell that gives you microscope vision or allows you to separate and examine atomic particles.

>>21471169
Well, if you use magic to enable science, it works quite well.

Maxwellian Tanar'ri are a real help with fireball spells, for instance.

>>21471169
Just... just read the rest of the thread.

I think the reason science doesn't exist is not so much that it CAN'T, but that it doesn't NEED to exist. If wizards have a basic understanding of magic, similar to the understanding alchemists had of chemistry, what's the need for science? Why invent the steam engine when I can create something that runs on magic? Granted, scientific research could supplement magic and make it more effective - and in my campaign setting, the wizards are basically scientists in and of themselves, but I'd argue that it would progress more slowly because it's not as necessary as science has been in our world.

>>21471169
>If anything, magic is the duct tape, or the filler, or just the handwavium that lets you bridge the gap between what should happen and what you want to happen.

So... Magic is like the WAAAGH?

>>21471227
>like
You seem to not understand that 90% of everything in 40k is literally just magic.

>>21471205
Isn't "magic enhanced by science" still science, effectively?

Science isn't steam engineering or power tools. Science is a natural philosophy involving the study of the universe (with rigorous testing and peer review) in order to determine how it functions. Applied science is making use of what has been previously determined in order to make changes in the world that make use of those results.

Magic science is still science.

Besides, with significant enough study of electrical magic, the principles of magnetism should be fairly noticeable. From there, with time, even Magical Scientists can determine that a steam turbine could create electrical power without the use of magic, which would in turn allow for an enhanced steam turbine that takes relatively little magical effort to make, but can run more efficiently than without magic. But that's different technology, not science.

>>21471253
Magic Science is still Science, but Magic Science is also still Magic.

The scientific method enables research into new spells, the fact the physical laws of the universe are different doesn't stop you from knowing them, even if the table of elements and list of subatomic particles are different.

File: 1352303645811.jpg-(190 KB, 800x1096, 1333205707520.jpg)

>>21471196
What's there to read? All of this is very insubstantial and the only thing we can all agree on is that it depends on the setting that you are using or the setting that you have written.

To answer OP's question, though.. Magic is not innately unknowable, but most fiction tends to paint it as some sort of esoteric artform with mysterious rules used by secretic old beardymen who hoard these secrets for themselves because most men would abuse them and unbalance the world, or whatever, if they could freely use magic.

Moreso than a matter of mechanical balance or realism or some sort of bias, magic is left to be unscientific because the mystery works well as a literary device. Unknowable rules means the author is allowed to make up rules as they go, meaning magic can be as narratively convenient as it needs to be.

>>21471253

I'm not saying it's not science. I think applying science to magic would make perfect sense - although you must keep in mind that in most fantasy settings, the scientific method as a philosophical principle does not exist. So, although a general philosophical scientific mindset may exist - similar to the "search for truth" of the ancient alchemists in our world - it would not necessarily be the scientific method we have today, even if it was similar.

However, I still think that in terms of what you get out of it, magical research seems to make more sense than scientific research. You can research a new branch of magic, and uncover new spells that alter the very structure of the universe. Scientific breakthroughs are slower and involve a lot of trial and error. Magic would, of course, make scientific discovery faster, but I still think that while science would advanced magic would advance /much/ faster. You'd probably end up with a mix of magic and science whereby new magical research tends to beget scientific discoveries, rather than science being the reason for the research. If that makes sense.

File: 1352310088356.jpg-(178 KB, 1000x812, 1347509717265.jpg)

I think the idea is when you have a coupla funny words on a piece of paper that cures absolutely anything when said by damn near anyone, you don't need to discover the cure for cancer. You ALREADY discovered the cure for cancer, as well as the cure for AIDS, SARS, Mad Cow Disease, the Bubonic Plague and any other possible bodily ravages.

The same idea applies to other inventions as well. No need to make functional airplanes when you can just magic a hunk of metal into the air or ride a goddamn cloud wherever you want and cell phones and satellites are replaced by shit like link shells or scrying pools.

I actually had an idea for a setting where technological progress is sluggish and schizophrenic simply due to the fact that no one really needs science with magic around, save one group of humans who were cut off utterly from the flow of magic. These motherfuckers immediately into science, and they into'd it fucking hard. So while the rest of the world has magical pizza cutter shaped zeppelins and maybe WWI era enchanted rifles or some shit, these niggas are rocking Cyberpunkian/20 minutes into the future tech like robolimbs, and fighter jets. They are also very angry at the rest of the world for cutting them off from magic.

>>21472072
Well yes, but science is still important? What happens when you run into Magic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and it spreads like wildfire through the hospices?

Magical research into finding new forms of healing spells is vital.

File: 1352314119430.jpg-(41 KB, 326x540, Science beats magic.jpg)

>>21472381
>Well yes, but science is still important?
Sure, it just chugs along at a reduced rate.
>What happens when you run into Magic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and it spreads like wildfire through the hospices?
Then you magic your way around it. There are multiple methods of magical healing, after all.
>Magical research into finding new forms of healing spells is vital.
Another reason technology lags behind magic. All those scientifically inclined will be lending their minds to the furthering of magical theory, not technological progress. Save the nonmagical folks, of course, but those niggas be about twelve types of crazy on account of maybe having a sliver of their soul ripped out and all.

>>21472559
Ah, so you're not dealing with science vs magic, but technology vs magic.
Big difference.

>>21469908
Because science and magic are generally considered incompatible. Science has "rules" and magic is capable of ignoring them.

>>21472706
Well its like someone said earlier in the thread, the scientific method can be applied to anything. Usually when people say Science vs Magic, they mean Tech vs Magic.

>>21469908

Well, the natural laws of Glorantha ARE magic. The world runs on magic, and runes are the building blocks of the cosmos. Cold is not the absence of heat, but rather an active emanation of the Cold Rune; physics function due to a different complex interrelation of various magical powers and mythic precedents; and so on.

Most cultures just have more or less purely mythic or philosophical outlooks on the universe, with a worldview reminiscent of various "primitive" cultures on our world. This is sufficient for explaining their immediate reality.

However, Western wizards, and particularly the God Learners of the Second Age, have proven that it is perfectly possible to construct a scientific model (i.e. empirically provable and based on more or less predictable laws and interrelationships) that would account for those magical laws.

So there's that.

Because most fantasy writers cannot into science. Hell, plenty of scifi writers cannot into science.

I have a setting where this isn't the case. Magic has allowed people to divine the existence and nature of cells (which makes medicine much more advanced than in your typical fantasyverse), DNA (along with spells to splice and recombine it, resulting in various gengineered creatures and crops), and atomic theory (subatomic particles have been hypothesized, but not yet proven).

>>21470568

Dude, what sciences teaches us about the world is that things are often wild and unknownable.

You can't know the result of a given roll of the dice before it happens, but you can know what you expect.

Of course, Physics Major here, who fucking loves crunching numbers for probabilty.

>>21472779

That is so magepunk it hurts.

That said, good stuff.

>>21472745
Generally, but not always true, such as in this thread, where people were talking about science and observation breaking down the laws of magic.


Also here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw9bny88OuY

>>21472814

Thanks. Its not really a "punk" setting in terms of themes or aesthetics, but I know what you meant.

The flipside of the setting is that magic (at least, the kind that humans can use) can only handle small amounts of energy. You can use it to levitate small objects and the like, but no fireballs. The best attack spells are more along the lines of Darth Vader's forcechoke than anything else.

>>21472814
>punk
Don't use this word if you don't know what it even means, please.

>>21472857
But thats just the thing, science and observation would have to take into account the effects of magic on the world. The Law of Conversation of Mass would not exist in a setting where summoning is a thing. Or rather, it could, but the system is no longer closed so the law remains mostly theoretical or only applies to controlled environments rather than the universe at large. Same deal with entropy.

But either way, yeah, its Tech vs Magic.

>>21472881

Honestly, "-punk" settings deverged pretty quickly from cyberpunks orginal feel, so I use it as a way of saying "present styles through given power source/ way of doing things)

It doesn't help that cyberpunks whole freedom through high comm tech is not particularly natural. It's just that having no rules for usage is the easist way to design something.

>>21472857

When magic is defined by (YOU CAN'T LOOK AT TO CLOSELY!) and (SOMEHOW I CAN ACTIVILY DEFY STATISTICS WITH A EPEATABLE SITUATION) it seems pretty silly.

>>21472899

Oh, but your defination is likely obsolite.

>>21472925
Oh true enough, but yeah, that's what was being argued, so I wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

File: 1352317260822.jpg-(108 KB, 786x477, fake-dungeon-masters.jpg)

>>21470655

So what about the other way round? I'm working on a post apocalyptic setting where understanding of nanites, A.I., ZPE, and so on are no longer understood.Instead people treaty them as magic. So a book of c++ is now a "magic spellbook" and rogue A.I. Are "fae creatures."

>>21472731
>Because science and magic are generally considered incompatible.
only be people who don't understand science.

File: 1352327370162.jpg-(249 KB, 640x1126, Mage Books and shit.jpg)

>>21472731
>science has rules

So does magic, unless it's some sort of chaos magic where you never know what's going to happen when you cast.

If you can cast fireball 10 times a day, every day, with no change, then magic has rules, and is actively conforming to them in the exact same way a, say, bundle of tinder is when you manage to make it combust.

Magic is just the rules of bending the other rules. In any setting where spells are solidly defined enough that mages can name them after themselves and pass them down, they're akin to cheat codes for reality - a cheat codes are very strictly defined things.

>>21473074
I'd go with API's being spellbooks, or at least individual spells.
Programming languages themselves would be ridiculously valuable, as they'd allow for a deep understanding of 'magic', and the ability to actually create new 'spells'.

Sounds like an interesting setting though.

>>21470898
The trouble with this is we know that (in D&D type settings at least) that spells can be taught and studied and modified and bound into scrolls, wands etc. This would suggest that it takes more than just one in depth study to destroy a spell's usage, if indeed such a thing is the case

>>21473074
I had an interesting thought of a setting using a similar premise.

Magic was high tech, and mages were just people who did particular actions (shuffling papers and going to particular chambers and making noise of hours on end) to rise in a ranking system that no one was entirely clear on anymore.

>"Brother Finsabal, why are we sitting in this room watching a construct show us slides of different color metal cans?"
>"The most holy 'Focus Group.'"

File: 1352333575806.jpg-(213 KB, 414x900, jynkWSzXhyHGK.jpg)

>>21474836

As much as I enjoy that mage he needs to put something down.

>>21473074
AdMech says hello.

>>21474836
Yeah, magic without rules, which is just handed down from some outside power, that's clerical magic.

Which is awful.

File: 1352342383235.jpg-(195 KB, 500x500, Cleric CHESTBEAMS.jpg)

>>21477547

Technically, clerical magic still has rules. They function just the same, every time you cast them, so long as you heed the biggest rule for clerical magic: Don't piss off your deity.

I love the fact that pretty much everybody has been discussing the exact opposite of what the OP talks about...

>OP asks about using magic to understand science
>Thread is about using science to understand magic

Seriously, there's like two posts here that even mention OP's actual topic.

>>21478746
But that's obvious: whatever causes the caster to forget the memorized spell after casting, also causes him to forget anything he's learned about the nature of magic.