The Honest Magician

If you practice any kind of magic the most common question you get is: does it work?

Magicians have stock responses for this. They’re actually pretty disappointing. The ones I hear most often are:

1:/ Well, I believe it works.

2:/ I’ve never had any complaints/never a disappointed customer.

3:/ Let me tell you my theory on why it must work.

You can probably see the problem with these answers. They dodge the question.

Other magicians insist their art works. This is a better answer, because at least it is an answer. And usually these magicians are sincere: they really believe in this power. But if you ask them about any kind of proof they get upset. They say things like, “magic isn’t something you can prove,” or “science can’t test everything.”

Seriously?

//

My Answer

I’ve said before that I’m very interested in the scientific study of magic. Recently I talked about one example of a traditional technique that has been proven to work. In the next few posts I’ll look at the skeptic tests of magicians, and a more in-depth look at traditional techniques.

But the most important thing I can say about magic is this:

I have no idea if magic works.

A lot of believers – and even potential customers – will be angry that I said this. But let’s be honest. Do you have even one piece of proof that your magic spells work?

I do believe magic can be tested. And the kind of magic I do has not been tested. In the absence of scientific proof, I have nothing to offer you. I could talk at length about my personal experiences, but if I told you a fantastic story about feeling energies would it really mean anything?

I believe in integrity. So I speak honestly. I practice an art that provokes powerful feelings in people, and is traditionally believed to have a real effect on the world. I do a damn good job at it. It’s a beautiful art, and I hope you’ll like the scrolls I make.

But I’m not going to lie to you and say a mysterious power exists when I have no idea. And honestly, neither does anyone else.

Please tweet and share this post.

Comments

  1. Ty Barbary says:

    You’ve piqued my curiosity, so now I have to ask for clarification. :)

    When you ask us if we have any proof that magic works, and declare that you don’t and no one else does, I must assume you’re stating an impossible situation. For example, Thing X which we are trying to use magic to achieve (or prevent) is otherwise completely unassailable by any other means, including random chance, so if Thing X comes to pass (or doesn’t), it must be solely the province of magic. Right?

    But, really, how many situations like that does one use magic for? I suspect most folks apply magic to situations that are already not 100% hopeless and inexorable. If I want to find a lost cat and use magic to do so, well, that’s my magic, plus the potential goodwill (and good eye) of neighbors, plus the cat’s potential inclination and ability to return home, plus the potential shelter worker who might pick her up, plus… You get the point. And if I use magic to find the cat, and the cat is found, is that not a form of soft proof that magic works? (Yes, I know it’s got too many uncontrolled variables to be valid scientific method.)

    So, to sum up that ramble: Are you asking for proof that magic works in a situation where nothing else possibly could, or are you asking for proof that magic works when other factors could easily play into magical success? If it’s the former, yeah, you’re not going to find a lot of people toting proof; but the latter, I think a lot of magicians would be able to tell you stories of success in their magic.

    • altmagic says:

      Fair question. Answer: no, it’s the latter.

      Magic is very easy to test and either prove or disprove. Take a group of 1000 single people and make a charm for each one of them to attract love. Have a control group of 1000 single people who receive no charm. Check in with each group after 3 months.

      Did the people with charms start relationships more than the people without?

      This would be an easy test for a university or research group to run but nothing like it has ever been launched.

      • Ty Barbary says:

        While I don’t think a love charm would be the best one to test (since that involves other people at their most fickle), I’d be interested to see such a study. Money-charms or job-finding-charms would be pretty easy to test, since with a love charm, you might have folks have a great first date and answer “it worked!” but never get a call-back for a second date. But if someone gets hired or gets a raise (or cash infusion via another method), that’s much less likely to vanish within a week or two.

        Now all we need is a university willing to participate… :)

        • altmagic says:

          A money spell would definitely make a great test case as well. I participated in a very small-scale testing of a money spell, conducted informally in a scientific skepticism class in college, which was great fun.

          But I think a love spell would be an even better test case because you can evaluate for qualitative results if desired. Rather than just asking how many people had entered a relationship within 3 months, you can also survey those who entered relationships, asking questions about their confidence level, trust level, and compatibility with their new partner. It would be interesting to see if the relationships in the love charm group are qualitatively different than those in the no charm group.

      • Science Inspector says:

        This isn’t the right way to conduct such a trial: it should be double-blind.

        You take *three* groups. One receives nothing, one receives the charms, and the third receives convincing ‘fakes’ (charms that look the same but have been made with no hocus pocus, by the study).

        The ‘real’ and ‘fake’ remedies are tagged with computer codes (unintelligible to the experimenters just by reading them) and scrambled up before being administered. The experimenters give out the charms without knowing which group they belong to, and tell all the subjects that they are the genuine article.

        When the data comes back in, the tags are decoded by the computer, so it is now known who had the fake and who had the genuine remedy. To be proven to work, the charm must show a statistically significant improvement over not only the control group that received nothing, but also the control group that received *a similarly administered placebo*.

        Under the experimental protocol you described here, homeopathy would be found to ‘work’.

        • altmagic says:

          I agree it would be a nice standard of comparison to have a third group and do a double-blind. However, a double blind protocol is normally used to confirm that a medical product works better than placebo effect, i.e., that it is stronger than the results offered by the power of belief.

          If you’ve been following this series of posts, you see that I’m suggesting magic rituals may work by nothing more than psychological effect alone.

          To prove that, all that’s necessary is to show that they do indeed return results. A double blind would provide extra data on whether it performs other sources of psychological effect, but would be unnecessary to prove the hypothesis.

          • Science Inspector says:

            You say “may” work that way. A double-blind trial would enable you to *know*, and to no longer muddy the waters by calling it “magic”.

            • Science Inspector says:

              I should add – this is Pip. Brenton sent me the link to this page and I wrote ‘Science Inspector’ because it seemed funny at the time.

              Now my browser seems to think it’s a username. I don’t know how it’s remembered it.

              Anyway, I’m not looking to get into an argument here. I got sucked in by the question of test protocol, but I don’t think I’m exactly the target demographic for this blog.

              • altmagic says:

                Hi Pip. Yes, I could tell it was you from the email address (it’s visible to the site owner, not to the public). Welcome aboard, I’m happy to see you here. If you want, I can edit your user name to something else – just let me know.

                You raise a good point that a double blind would allow us to see if it works better than a non-ritually-crafted psychological effect. Thanks for pointing that out.

                You seem to imply that calling something magic if it works by natural processes is inaccurate. However, many magic traditions claim their magic works by natural, not supernatural processes. I believe defining magic as supernatural has done a lot more to muddy the waters. It reflects only a narrow section of magical traditions and has more in common with popular fiction than with actual claims of magicians.

                Here at altmagic, we define magic as the use of ritual or ceremony to cause something to happen.

  2. echogenius says:

    I am very interested in this category, i also tried but it does not work for me, can you tell me how to hone the skills to cast a spell

  3. Hi there –

    I really like the way you talk about magic. It strikes me as honest searching, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.There is so much gobbledygook mixed into most discussions of magic that it is easy to discount the entire thing, but that also misses the mark. At least for me. As I currently understand magic, it works by focusing our own minds, the part that dwells in dream and symbol rather than the part that thinks and grasps. And it doesn’t always work. But using symbol to focus our consciousness can be helpful in direct ourselves more clearly to a goal, and also in shaping behaviors that will help us accomplish that goal. I can’t prove this outside my own experience and that of friends, but I would be interested to know of scientific studies that explore these types of themes. I suspect you are right that these things can be tested, they just haven’t been prioritized.

  4. Friendly, Experienced Skeptic. says:

    I really appreciate your intellectual honesty & critical evaluation of the subject of Magick. I am an Atheist/ philosophical Luciferian & I have explored just about every paradigm imagined, only to find dissappointment. It takes sack to say that you don’t know that what you are practicing works in a world that craves absolute answers.

  5. I like your attitude Drew. Thanks

  1. [...] The Honest Magician – Here’s where he calls out other magicians for dodging the question of whether magic works, and puts forward his vision for a different approach [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>