[noasaservice]

I know that magic is poo-pooed and all, but, have you considered that answer as well? Or perhaps they weren't hallucinations, and instead divinations. Calling what the Oracle of Delphi had "hallucinations" puts a bad spin on it from the onset.

Or lets not get hung up with the word "magic". Lets call it a 5th type of energy. Mechanical detection don't work, but a number of humans can feel it. Hard to measure for sure. Some people are more connected to that energy than others. But again, being human-centric at this time makes verification hard/impossible.

What I would adore is a theorem to connect that energy to the 4 other types of energy (EM, strong, weak, gravity). And then, we can start scientifically describing all of those "weird" human issues of stuff we just shouldn't know (I'm thinking of: past life recollections, feeling someone staring at you, parental intuitions that something's wrong with a child, etc).

[josephcsible]

> makes verification hard/impossible

In other words, unfalsifiable. That means it's unscientific too.

[noasaservice]

There are whole classes of things that were "unscientific" before we advanced to the point where they were scientific.

Medicine was VERY unscientific until recent days. Bacteriological theory was unscientific until it wasn't. Psychiatry was, and I'd argue, still unscientific. And machine learning is equal parts of magic and statistical math. Most practitioners in ML/AI area just tweak knobs and hope that some hyperparameter does infinitesimally better.

The key takeaway is that not even knowing the appropriate metrology to engage in makes this a very hard scientific endeavour. But that is the first problem to solve - how do you measure whatever that is. And once you can measure, then you can manipulate.

There's too many of these stories Ive heard from family, friends, myself, and others to think that this area is some sort of a delusion and fake. But what is its nature? Unsure. That's why I explore.

[josephcsible]

Are you seriously saying that your idea that magic is a fifth force (which you called "energy") of physics is as scientific as modern medicine or machine learning?

[noasaservice]

> Are you seriously saying that your idea that magic is a fifth force (which you called "energy")

Possibly, yes. And I'm not the one calling it "energy". That's the nomenclature of MANY occult groups. What that type of energy that is, I do not know.

Just like anything in the sphere of how our universe works, I think that there is enough interesting phenomenon to warrant further study.

> physics is as scientific as modern medicine or machine learning?

Why not? Those subjects were too "shrouded in mystery" until they weren't. And even without a rigorous scientific theory, we can still do experiments and attempt to discern this "energy" and come up with ways to accurately detect it. From detection, we can then start making accurate models to be able to manipulate. This is no different than other types of physics.

(As a note, the term "energy" is used by many occult groups. If anything, it appears to be a form of mental concentration. I've seen numerous cases where someone was envisioning a 3d shape, and I or others could see it. There are no good explanations to accurately describe this in existing science. And we know science is ever-growing, since what we know is incomplete.)

[josephcsible]

You don't need a "rigorous scientific theory" right off the bat, but what you do need are some kind of testable predictions. That's what medicine and physics have but magic lacks.

[mistermann]

Out of curiosity: if something isn't scientific, does that mean that it doesn't exist?

[josephcsible]

No. It just means that you shouldn't do things to make other people believe that it is scientific.

[mistermann]

Psychology is generally considered a science of sorts is it not? And it is certainly non-deterministic, and thus can't be verified like the deterministic majority of scientific matters.

[josephcsible]

Things don't need to be deterministic to be falsifiable.

[mistermann]

If the behavior is not consistent, then what is it that you are falsifying?

Is all of psychology falsifiable?