“Tautological denial of magic” seems like a total misunderstanding of the scientific method. If you know there’s something “magical” you still can study it’s effects on the real world.
Like someone here already commented, this is what we do in case of medical studies, “how good does this thing work compared to something that gives the illusion of working”, the same can be done for whatever you define as your “magic”.
Yes, exactly. And that’s what chaos magic is. Taking the scientific method to magic. The tautological denial says magic can’t be real, because if it’s real then it’s not magic. But no, magic is real and we can explain it and quantify it and use the scientific method on it.
“Tautological denial of magic” seems like a total misunderstanding of the scientific method. If you know there’s something “magical” you still can study it’s effects on the real world.
Like someone here already commented, this is what we do in case of medical studies, “how good does this thing work compared to something that gives the illusion of working”, the same can be done for whatever you define as your “magic”.
Yes, exactly. And that’s what chaos magic is. Taking the scientific method to magic. The tautological denial says magic can’t be real, because if it’s real then it’s not magic. But no, magic is real and we can explain it and quantify it and use the scientific method on it.