[nuc1e0n]

That's not my interpretation. You seem to be claiming magic was only successful when it was underpinned by psychology, right? swayvil seems to think magic works because it is a form of technology. That's not to disparage psychology, it's to commend magic, which existed before psychology as a concept. Magic is not Psychology. Psychology is Magic (with a more respectable and hopefully evidence based rebrand).

My view is that if you don't know why or whether some strategy works then the scientific method should be used to test whether the phenomena in question is real or not and gain a better understanding of it if it is. To do otherwise is ignorant. But how to come up with scientific hypotheses in the first place?

That and applied psychology is a pretty handy tool to know. But dressing it up in superstition is superfluous, dishonest and counter-productive.

[stevenAthompson]

> You seem to be claiming magic was only successful when it was underpinned by psychology, right?

I was not. The article stated that psychology was sometimes used to great success, and I was pointing out to those who hadn't finished the article (as it seemed to me, many had not) that it was already mentioned as one possible explanation.