The English language seems to be missing some word that other languages have.
In Dutch, "goochelen", performed by a "goochelaar" is doing tricks in a show, where you know it's all illusions but it's still very impressive. On the other hand, "toveren", done by a "tovenaar" would be doing something supernatural. Typically a "goochelaar" is somebody on a stage with a black top hat, while a "tovenaar" is more like an old man with a long white beard and a purple pointy hat in fiction.
In English, both seem to be called "magic". It's very confusing...
"...Illusion, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money... (looks at the kids) or cocaine!"
We call them magic shows in general, but some magician's call themselves illusionists. If we're talking about supernatural magic, sometimes we use the variant magick.
The fact that they quote Arthur C. Clarke saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" plays into this ambiguity. Most of what they're talking about here is "illusion", but I think that quote from Arthur C. Clarke is really referencing the supernatural meaning of the word "magic".
In American English, a 'magician' is somebody who pulls rabbits out of hats, and a 'wizard' is somebody who does supernatural things. We don't have as good of a separation for goochelen/toveren, but most Americans would use 'magic tricks' for goochelen and just 'magic' for toveren.
Historically, 'magicians' have intentionally cloaked their illusions in the supernatural, so it makes sense they claim to be masters of the supernatural. So the confusion is intentional.
'Conjuring tricks' performed by a 'conjuror', are unambiguously impressive deceit, not actual magic. 'Prestidigitation' is another term, if you like your language flowery. But yes, 'magic' and (to a lesser extent) 'wizardry' are ambiguous.
Yes, but they're not so well funded, and their positions are fundamentally harder to communicate than simple, manipulative, well funded campaigns. It's like comparing a pre-school and a military school because they both share the words "School". You won't be totally wrong of course, but you will have missed the point.
I don't disagree, but a lot of people don't understand that the term "lobbying" in fact does not just refer to evil corporations bribing politicians, and thus should not be categorically made illegal.
I think it's worth remembering that when people talk about "Lobbying", they are often talking about a particular subset of lobbying attached to extremely vast sources of money and power. More, the unrestricted nature of that lobbying, in practice, breaks the system down.
It would be the case if this were happening with well-intentioned environmentalists too, although I'm sure it would look very different in the particulars. The fact is though, that in history doesn't teach us to be concerned about vastly wealthy and powerful environmental interests. Maybe that will change someday, but it's not the history of our planet at least.
How much money was used in lobbying for this? I'd be shocked if the number was all that high.
It's a pet complaint within Magic circles that Magic should be treated like an art form, but I wouldn't expect anyone to actually throw a large sum behind it.
Reads like an advertisement for Copperfield. But in terms of advancing the art form and of classic prestidigitation, I can think of no better current practitioner than Ricky Jay.
Generally I don't think it does. Magic is an art form, and a love by many. The same fanatical support that artists, or musicians have for their craft, magicians have for theirs.
So quite often magicians do things for the benefit of the whole craft, versus any individual gain.
If you imagine it like other arts, it starts to make sense in my view.
And for their first trick, getting this through both houses and signed into law by the president. That would be the illusion of functioning government...
The ordinary experience for someone viewing a magic act is that something impossible has happened. The fact that we know, logically, that it cannot be the case doesn't change the fact that what we experience is impossible. It's unexplainable by the majority of viewers.
If the argument is "magic doesn't exist, therefore what you experienced is entirely normal and unremarkable" then frankly the interlocutor just don't get the point of why people watch magic.
I agree that it sounds like lobbying. That being said, I think illusionists are definitely practitioners of an art form in its own right, so, good on them.
>Whereas magic enables people to experience the impossible
Now you're just playing with the fact that "magic" has two meanings, even if the context is well understood. The sentence is clearly worded, and the only logical interpretation is akin to "video games enable people to experience the impossible", which I find totally valid.
It's really awesome to finally see conservative Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives quote gays and atheists in the text of their proposed legislation.
In Dutch, "goochelen", performed by a "goochelaar" is doing tricks in a show, where you know it's all illusions but it's still very impressive. On the other hand, "toveren", done by a "tovenaar" would be doing something supernatural. Typically a "goochelaar" is somebody on a stage with a black top hat, while a "tovenaar" is more like an old man with a long white beard and a purple pointy hat in fiction.
In English, both seem to be called "magic". It's very confusing...