From: SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) Subject: Re: Religion and Magick Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 21:23:26 EST Well, I've been working with a terminology for some time now in which Science : Technology :: Religion : Magic Here Science and Technology are *marked* (technical term alert) for empirical testability (or falsifiability, if you like), Religion and Magic be- ing *unmarked*. Also, Science and Religion are *marked* for making claims in the form that logicians call "propositions," which are true or false in each case, Technology and Magic being *unmarked*. In chart form it looks like this: Science : Technology :: Religion : Magic Emp. Test. + + - - T/F Prop. _ - + - Magic is thus the residue class, in which one places whatever works and yet neither Science, Technology nor Religion. It is also the ancient matrix from which Science, Technology and Religion were separated. From: SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 21:34:15 EST My fault, Kethry, for not explaining the *marked* and *unmarked* terminology better. Science and Technology are *marked* for empirical testability, i.e. it *can't* be science or technology without some sort of empirical "reality check." Religion and Magic are *unmarked* for that same criterion, which doesn't mean that empirical testing is ruled out, or impossible, or forbidden -- just that it's not necessary. Thus, religious and magical claims may be partly testable, partly not; or wholly not, it doesn't matter. You're absolutely right, many claims made by many magicians are empirically testable; indeed, some religions still make some empirically testable claims, and did so more commonly (or more recklessly?) in the past. Thus, a certain Rev. Miller predicted the end of the world in 1842, and was specific enough that his claim was empirically testable. It tested out false. Other claims on other matters may test out true, perhaps ...