[373]The heart of Gillitie.

[bluerose]

starkruzr said:

Also, apropos of nothing, screw Gillitie's anti-rational BS.

I don't know if I would consider either science or magic to be rational versus irrational. They're just two different methods of approach.

Then again, I also ascribe to Crowley's def of magic as the "science and art", et cetera, so YMMV.

[gdwarf]

Er, how is "magic" an approach, though?

In most common uses magic is a tool, not a method for ascertaining how/why the world works. (Though it can be used to help find out the latter, but again, just as a tool.)

[cenit]

arghh, I'm outta town, and lot's of work to do; just stopped by to say that this update was awesome!!!

[Count Casimir]

Mm. Swords and gorgeous artwork certainly make for a downright wonderful page. I really like the images here; specially all of 'em around the fire.

Also, goatmon, rockin' new avvie.

[Tenjen]

Er, how is "magic" an approach, though?

In most common uses magic is a tool, not a method for ascertaining how/why the world works. (Though it can be used to help find out the latter, but again, just as a tool.)

The same can be said of science. just how many people who use it, really want to understnad how it works? its just a tool for them.

magic, just like science, is both tool and approach.

[gdwarf]

Not really, though.

Science would be a different kind of tool than magic.

Science is...I suppose, a mental tool.

Magic is normally a physical one.

So, you could use magic to discovery gravity, for example, by having it throw apples around. But you'd still need to use science to actually figure out what's going on.

Whereas with science you wouldn't have to use magic at all, unless you wanted to set up an experiment that is much easier using it.

[Tenjen]

Well science is physical too. And magic needs mental effort to use and has to be understood to use.

Though its quite hard considering magic is mostly a fictional creation [from what we know for now] and thus its nature cant be truly discussed.

These two things are the same but different. Fruits. Oranges and apples.

[nikita]

Magic is cheating, science is to find out why that cheat works.

[Tenjen]

You coul easily turn that around. As we're harnessing nature and using artificial means, that could be considered cheating. Magic takes practise, experimentation and understanding too. Thats why you hear about all these magicians teaching and learning.

All these magicians you hear about in real life from the past, were actually scientists.

Highly advanced science can be mistaken for magic.

so can highly advanced magic.

[King Mir]

tenjen said:

Er, how is "magic" an approach, though?

In most common uses magic is a tool, not a method for ascertaining how/why the world works. (Though it can be used to help find out the latter, but again, just as a tool.)

The same can be said of science. just how many people who use it, really want to understnad how it works? its just a tool for them.

magic, just like science, is both tool and approach.

Science is not a tool. Formula are tools. Technology is a bunch of tools. But the Scientific method itself is an approach.

Magic is a tool. One could apply the scientific method to study magic. Or one could be haphazard about it.

There are two things in opposition here: technology and magic; and science and "Etherial Tenet". They are separate. Knowledge of science does not imply heavy industry. Use of magic does not imply faith based convictions.

But strictly speaking "processes unexplained by the science of man" does not imply that etheric design is in opposition to science. It merely means that all attempts to explain it have been severely lacking in explaining and predicting the aether. Much like economics has been largely unsuccessful in making predictions when lots of variables change simultaneously.

Also remember Kat's parents are both science teachers who practice magic.

[zingbat]

Aww... King Mir made the points I wanted to make...

But yeah, I was thinking recently that the divide between the Forest and the Court is probably less one of nature vs science or magic vs science, and more a difference in philosophy---whether to just note the fact that leaves are green and leave it at that, or whether to try to figure out why that should be so.
Or maybe it's not even that. Jones characterized it as "Nature on one side, technology on the other", but as was pointed out, technology is not the same thing as science. So maybe the disagreement (or whatever actually happened between the humans and the forest dwellers) might have been more about what to do with the knowledge gained through investigation---"nothing" vs "use it to change our world"---and not just about seeking the knowledge itself.

On a slightly different note, I think it would be awesome to see Kat (or maybe her parents, but I'd prefer Kat) apply her mad science to figuring out magic and stuff "unexplained by the science of man". Maybe man's just been asking the wrong questions... and now it's time for a girl to step up and handle things.

[gdwarf]

It does indeed seem to be a philisophical dispute between the forest dwellers who don't care about why ("It just does, okay?") and the residents of the court, who need to know about everything.

Apparently I could never be a medium, since I'm firmly on the court's side on this one.

[tonie]

In a funny coincidence a book I'm reading sets out with this quote from Walter Benjamin: "The concept of progress is to be grounded in the Idea of catastrophe. That things "just go on" is the catastrophe." What a great description of the Court position...

[Boksha]

gdwarf said:

It does indeed seem to be a philisophical dispute between the forest dwellers who don't care about why ("It just does, okay?") and the residents of the court, who need to know about everything.

If you put it like that, I suppose I could take the middle ground in this one; I feel some things do just happen just 'cause.
However, I don't think that's what's going on here. The forest doesn't feel some things just happen "because"; the forest dwellers think people shouldn't even consider looking for deeper causes and feel scientifically approaching things would be wrong to begin with. If that's the case, I would prefer to be on the Court's side of things.

[Tenjen]

Maybe the forest dwellers are cautious that the humans may learn about something that they dont want them to find out. Something core to the forest.

PLus like i said before. Theres always a cloud, a mist, over the eyes of the peons while the leaders carry out their power stuggles. All these beliefs are there to provide a drive to each side for the leaders to manipulate them. What better purpose than protecting ones culture [forest] and protecting the persuit of knowledge [humans]

Though mind you, she is saying that gunnerkrigg is based on both the tenet and the persuit of knowledge. They develop the mediums to keep terms well between the two forces. But their human and part of the gunnerkrigg end, so theyy'll have a tedious time to not look just like the rest of the humans is the forests eyes.

Theres an underlying purpose beneath all of this. The nature vs science thing is just a ruse.

[gdwarf]

boksha said:

However, I don't think that's what's going on here. The forest doesn't feel some things just happen "because"; the forest dwellers think people shouldn't even consider looking for deeper causes and feel scientifically approaching things would be wrong to begin with.

That is, in fact, what I was trying to say.

The forest is against all inquiry, wheras the court is entirely for it.

[King Mir]

mudmaniac said:

So it's true then, the court expanding outwards from a point in the wood. the question now, did the court stop expanding when it reached the annan waters, or were the waters created to stop the court.

According to this page, the Annan Waters are a result of the disagreements:
www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=226

That doesn't contradict the possibility that there was a river of some sort there originally, but it probably wasn't as wide or with such tall cliffs.

[bluerose]

gdwarf said:

Er, how is "magic" an approach, though?

In most common uses magic is a tool, not a method for ascertaining how/why the world works. (Though it can be used to help find out the latter, but again, just as a tool.)

Yes, but so is science a tool--in particular technology.

I think that this is more accurately labeled a "technology versus magic" as opposed to "science versus magic".

[bluerose]

gdwarf said:

Not really, though.

Science would be a different kind of tool than magic.

Science is...I suppose, a mental tool.

Magic is normally a physical one.

I would definitely and wholeheartedly dispute this. Magic is mental, period.

[Tenjen]

Both science and magic are phsyically present but molded by mental intelligence and thought.

But again, magic is as far as we know, fictional, so we cannot discuss its nature as every piece of fiction with magic has its nature vary. and we know not the nature of Gunnerkriggs magic.

[gdwarf]

bluerose said:

I would definitely and wholeheartedly dispute this. Magic is mental, period.

But it's effects are physical.


blargh. I just seems that people are confusing science with engineering, there's a difference.


Science is, essentially, an entirely mental tool that one uses to test ideas and evaluate evidence.

Engineering applies things discovered through science to the real-world, often improving or refining them in the process.

Magic, in most uses, might be a counterpart to engineering, where you figure out how to best use it and apply it to solve problems, but it certainly isn't a counterpart to science.

[zingbat]

I think you could describe science as a tool, or approach, or even a collection of knowledge, and be correct, to varying extent. Maybe it would be more accurate, though, to say that it encompasses all these things. You could say that it's a tool in that we use scientific study to discover things about the universe; you could say it's an approach that dictates the use of rigorous, systematic testing to evaluate hypotheses about how stuff works. It also provides models that describe various phenomena and which can be used as tools (by engineers, for example, as gdwarf points out).

I think where magic differs (at least, magic as I understand it---maybe the problem is that magic, since it doesn't actually exist, just doesn't have a universal definition?) is that it is more about *doing* things and making stuff happen, and that the term "magic" doesn't mean a system of investigation. It's like the difference between what you do in physics classes in high school and doing actual physics research. Of course, there's nothing that says that you can't conduct careful experiments to try to discover some of the fundamental principles of magic--that is, apply science to the study of magic. Sometimes I wonder if some Hogwarts students go on to magical universities and major in Magical Science and learn about Merlin's law of Universal Spellification (which actually breaks down near the speed of light) and the discovery of the first elementary magicle, and then maybe go on to do their own research and so on...

[gdwarf]

Exactly.


Magic is not a system of investigation or a tool to be used for evaluating the merits of evidence.
That is, at it's core, what science is.


The two are not opposites. Opposite implies that they're on the same field, just at other ends. But science and magic would be, in fact, on completely different levels.

[bluerose]

gdwarf said:

bluerose said:

I would definitely and wholeheartedly dispute this. Magic is mental, period.

But it's effects are physical.


blargh. I just seems that people are confusing science with engineering, there's a difference.

And science doesn't?

Science relies upon observation in order to test. If its effects aren't physical, just what are they exactly?

[King Mir]

But the effect of science is not observation, but rather knowledge and insight into the natural world. Specifically, it grants the power to predict.

We can then apply that ability to engineer physical tools and technologies.

I'm not sure I agree that magic is analogous to engineering either. Magic is analogous to the physical tools themselves: to technology. As Jones says "the court was founded on a union between technological and etheric design."

But they are not strict opposites, unless we define magic (etheric design) as being anything that cannot be explained by science. Depending on how you interpret Jones's last statement here, this may or may not be the case in the comic. Either Jones is defining etheric design, in which case it is clearly the opposite of technological design; or she is simply describing to Annie the most recognizable etheric attribute, in which case we can use the dictionary definition that etheric design is design that is influenced by (the) aether.

[gdwarf]

bluerose said:

And science doesn't?

Science relies upon observation in order to test. If its effects aren't physical, just what are they exactly?

In common depiction the effects of magic are solely physical.

You use magic to alter the world around you.


Some portrayals allow you to alter how people think using magic, but that's still essentially a physical thing.


Science is mental. It does not alter the world. It may allow you to do so with greater ease, but the act of researching something will not move mountains.


Magic, on the other hand, does not reveal new things or tell you how to evaluate evidence, it moves mountains, but it doesn't give you new ways to do so or tell you how mountains work.

king0mir said:

I'm not sure I agree that magic is analogous to engineering either. Magic is analogous to the physical tools themselves: to technology.

I suppose I agree with that. I was trying to find a way to seperate practical uses for things from theoretical inquiry into what things are and how they work.

But they are not strict opposites, unless we define magic (etheric design) as being anything that cannot be explained by science.

The problem there is that it would have to be random for that to be the case.

Instead I see etheric design as simply something that is not currently understood, or that maybe stops working if you try to understand it.

Alternatively it's just a different philosophy. It isn't an analogue to technology at all, it's just the idea that things work, why bother figuring out how?

[bluerose]

gdwarf said:

bluerose said:

And science doesn't?

Science relies upon observation in order to test. If its effects aren't physical, just what are they exactly?

In common depiction the effects of magic are solely physical.

You use magic to alter the world around you.


Some portrayals allow you to alter how people think using magic, but that's still essentially a physical thing.


Science is mental. It does not alter the world. It may allow you to do so with greater ease, but the act of researching something will not move mountains.


Magic, on the other hand, does not reveal new things or tell you how to evaluate evidence, it moves mountains, but it doesn't give you new ways to do so or tell you how mountains work.

I've seen and heard of other forms of magic that essentially does what science does--rather like extrasensory perception or astral projection.

[gdwarf]

bluerose said:

I've seen and heard of other forms of magic that essentially does what science does--rather like extrasensory perception or astral projection.

Even that's not the same thing.

Astral Projection et al. may let you see things you otherwise couldn't but they still aren't a method for testing and evaluating evidence.

That's what science is, a method to evaluate evidence and use it to come to a conclusion.

I've never seen magic portrayed as doing that. It might grant visions or something, but even that's not the same or overly similar.

[bluerose]

gdwarf said:

Astral Projection et al. may let you see things you otherwise couldn't but they still aren't a method for testing and evaluating evidence.

That's what science is, a method to evaluate evidence and use it to come to a conclusion.

I've never seen magic portrayed as doing that. It might grant visions or something, but even that's not the same or overly similar.

Actually, in some circles that's precisely what people do--delibrately repeat what they do in order to get similar results in magic.

Of course, we're straying away from fictional representation into real life, and I think ultimately diverging from the course of the thread....

[gdwarf]

Then those people are using the scientific method to attempt to analyze magic, a worthwhile goal, but not something inherent to most ideas of magic.


But yes, we really did derail this.