Why say Magic instead of Placebo?

[Erebus]

There have been a few threads cropping up discussing contemporary Paganisms and modern spellcraft. In these threads, practitioners will often explain magic, gods, etc in terms of more readily understood and decidedly more mundane phenomena. Divination is a form of introspection, gods are archetypes and/or parts of nature, magic is the clever use of psychology and so on.

One question/criticism that's come up a couple of times in response is, "why call it call it magic when we understand it to be placebo?" or something to that effect. I've seen this come up a lot in the past. I figured I'd take the time to cover some of the reasoning behind this. Other practitioners are welcome to chime in and add to/refute these points.

Magic is real and we're starting to learn how it works.
This is a big one and it should excite people. While science is a wonderful thing, there's an unfortunate tendency among scientists and lovers of science to use the discovery of something amazing to disprove the very thing that was discovered.
Let me pose a question, let's say a witch doctor performs a ritual to help somebody get better. They don't use medicinal herbs, only ritual. The person they were performing the ritual for notices an improvement in their health. Why?
Some of you may have said something to the effect of, "because of the placebo effect." I would agree with that statement. I would also say that this shows us how magic works. We've discovered one of several methods by which casting a spell can have a real-world impact. Why then turn around and say, "You see? It was never real." This baffles me.

You could call Dancing "moving around."
That would be an accurate enough description of what dancing is, but it lacks impact. It lacks that something extra. Gods are similar in my opinion. When I look at the night sky, I see beauty, majesty and a touch of melancholy. I see the goddess Nyx. I could just call it "night" and if you personally want to, that's fine. Associating it with Nyx is my way of expressing that mix of emotion and awe.

We don't use these terms for the benefit of outsiders.
That sounds horribly elitist, but hear me out. Some people argue that using the terminology we do is confusing. they argue that we should be using more commonly accepted terms. That's fair enough ... except that we understand what these terms mean. We understand the implications. Pagans, occultists and various witches tend not to proselytize. Few of us feel a need to compel others to join our religion. As such, there's not much call for making these things more understandable to people who don't follow our path.
Let's use an analogy here. Imagine telling a geologist that they shouldn't be using all those complicated terms and specialist vocabulary when they could just say "rocks." It's inevitable that like-minded groups will develop quirks of language to more readily communicate with one another.

What harm does it do?
A minor point perhaps, but one that I feel is worth stating. A difference in vocabulary is a very minor thing. Occasionally, somebody will get surprisingly angry about it. Why? Surely there are bigger and better things to get angry about.
I should note that this last point isn't aimed at those who are just asking an honest question.

Well, hopefully that clears things up a bit and gives people something to ponder.

 

[ThirtyThree]

There have been a few threads cropping up discussing contemporary Paganisms and modern spellcraft. In these threads, practitioners will often explain magic, gods, etc in terms of more readily understood and decidedly more mundane phenomena. Divination is a form of introspection, gods are archetypes and/or parts of nature, magic is the clever use of psychology and so on.

One question/criticism that's come up a couple of times in response is, "why call it call it magic when we understand it to be placebo?" or something to that effect. I've seen this come up a lot in the past. I figured I'd take the time to cover some of the reasoning behind this. Other practitioners are welcome to chime in and add to/refute these points.

Magic is real and we're starting to learn how it works.
This is a big one and it should excite people. While science is a wonderful thing, there's an unfortunate tendency among scientists and lovers of science to use the discovery of something amazing to disprove the very thing that was discovered.
Let me pose a question, let's say a witch doctor performs a ritual to help somebody get better. They don't use medicinal herbs, only ritual. The person they were performing the ritual for notices an improvement in their health. Why?
Some of you may have said something to the effect of, "because of the placebo effect." I would agree with that statement. I would also say that this shows us how magic works. We've discovered one of several methods by which casting a spell can have a real-world impact. Why then turn around and say, "You see? It was never real." This baffles me.

You could call Dancing "moving around."
That would be an accurate enough description of what dancing is, but it lacks impact. It lacks that something extra. Gods are similar in my opinion. When I look at the night sky, I see beauty, majesty and a touch of melancholy. I see the goddess Nyx. I could just call it "night" and if you personally want to, that's fine. Associating it with Nyx is my way of expressing that mix of emotion and awe.

We don't use these terms for the benefit of outsiders.
That sounds horribly elitist, but hear me out. Some people argue that using the terminology we do is confusing. they argue that we should be using more commonly accepted terms. That's fair enough ... except that we understand what these terms mean. We understand the implications. Pagans, occultists and various witches tend not to proselytize. Few of us feel a need to compel others to join our religion. As such, there's not much call for making these things more understandable to people who don't follow our path.
Let's use an analogy here. Imagine telling a geologist that they shouldn't be using all those complicated terms and specialist vocabulary when they could just say "rocks." It's inevitable that like-minded groups will develop quirks of language to more readily communicate with one another.

What harm does it do?
A minor point perhaps, but one that I feel is worth stating. A difference in vocabulary is a very minor thing. Occasionally, somebody will get surprisingly angry about it. Why? Surely there are bigger and better things to get angry about.
I should note that this last point isn't aimed at those who are just asking an honest question.

Well, hopefully that clears things up a bit and gives people something to ponder.

You have my complete agreement. This is why I rarely define spirit as subconscious or flesh as visible, material or conscious mind.

 

[Nietzsche]

Magic is real and we're starting to learn how it works.
This is a big one and it should excite people. While science is a wonderful thing, there's an unfortunate tendency among scientists and lovers of science to use the discovery of something amazing to disprove the very thing that was discovered.
Let me pose a question, let's say a witch doctor performs a ritual to help somebody get better. They don't use medicinal herbs, only ritual. The person they were performing the ritual for notices an improvement in their health. Why?
Some of you may have said something to the effect of, "because of the placebo effect." I would agree with that statement. I would also say that this shows us how magic works. We've discovered one of several methods by which casting a spell can have a real-world impact. Why then turn around and say, "You see? It was never real." This baffles me.

Magic, theoretically, should be able to work over any distance and regardless of knowledge of the target. The placebo effect requires the 'target' to both know what is being done and to expect result X. Not to mention the placebo effect does nothing to things like cancer or what have you. You may feel better, but the cancer is going to be there.

 

[Erebus]

Magic, theoretically, should be able to work over any distance and regardless of knowledge of the target. The placebo effect requires the 'target' to both know what is being done and to expect result X. Not to mention the placebo effect does nothing to things like cancer or what have you. You may feel better, but the cancer is going to be there.

I can understand that criticism. However, I would say that as we have learned more about what magic can do, we've also learned more about what it can't do.

I should probably mention too that nobody is under any sort of obligation to use these terms if they don't feel they're appropriate. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I wouldn't call that magic."

 

[Nietzsche]

I can understand that criticism. However, I would say that as we have learned more about what magic can do, we've also learned more about what it can't do.

I should probably mention too that nobody is under any sort of obligation to use these terms if they don't feel they're appropriate. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I wouldn't call that magic."

For me that's the key distinction. Magic ought to work with only the caster being aware of it.

 

[Riverwolf]

There have been a few threads cropping up discussing contemporary Paganisms and modern spellcraft. In these threads, practitioners will often explain magic, gods, etc in terms of more readily understood and decidedly more mundane phenomena. Divination is a form of introspection, gods are archetypes and/or parts of nature, magic is the clever use of psychology and so on.

One question/criticism that's come up a couple of times in response is, "why call it call it magic when we understand it to be placebo?" or something to that effect. I've seen this come up a lot in the past. I figured I'd take the time to cover some of the reasoning behind this. Other practitioners are welcome to chime in and add to/refute these points.

Magic is real and we're starting to learn how it works.
This is a big one and it should excite people. While science is a wonderful thing, there's an unfortunate tendency among scientists and lovers of science to use the discovery of something amazing to disprove the very thing that was discovered.
Let me pose a question, let's say a witch doctor performs a ritual to help somebody get better. They don't use medicinal herbs, only ritual. The person they were performing the ritual for notices an improvement in their health. Why?
Some of you may have said something to the effect of, "because of the placebo effect." I would agree with that statement. I would also say that this shows us how magic works. We've discovered one of several methods by which casting a spell can have a real-world impact. Why then turn around and say, "You see? It was never real." This baffles me.

If I may interject here, I actually have a pet hypothesis about the role those chants play in cultures that lacked written languages. I still haven't investigated its likelihood in a lot of depth, yet, so DEFINITELY take it with a grain of salt, but I still think it's intriguing enough to bring up.

I strongly suspect that those chants about healing, an example of which from Northern Europe is the Second Merseberg Charm, are mnemonic techniques, or at least might have once been. Healers didn't just stand around a sick or injured person chanting and hoping that would make it all better. Rather, the chanting probably served a purpose of reminding them which healing components to use, what techniques to do, etc. After all, no amount of placebo effect is going to heal a broken bone (which is what the aforementioned Charm is all about).

In some cases, that chanting could also serve a secondary purpose: it might have a psychological effect on the patient. I know that for myself, when I would expose myself to fairly long periods of time to Vedic chanting back when I was a Hindu, it had an effect on my mind. To the patient, and any onlookers, it would look like what we've traditionally thought of as magic: that is, supernatural. But then, even today, non-doctors tend to be VERY misinformed when it comes to the intricacies of medical technology and health.

Outside the realm of healing, consider the English folk song John Barleycorn. It metaphorically outlines the process of growing and harvesting wheat, through to turning it into beer. Granted, even the earliest version of that song we have existed well after the English were generally literate, but I still think it serves as an illustration of the sort of thing I'm talking about.

You could call Dancing "moving around."
That would be an accurate enough description of what dancing is, but it lacks impact. It lacks that something extra. Gods are similar in my opinion. When I look at the night sky, I see beauty, majesty and a touch of melancholy. I see the goddess Nyx. I could just call it "night" and if you personally want to, that's fine. Associating it with Nyx is my way of expressing that mix of emotion and awe.

I still like using the English names, but I have another solution for those of like mind. You might have seen me do it: remove the usage of articles ("the", "a", etc.) and capitalize. In other words, Night instead of the night. Instead of "the sun", Her name is Sun.

...and by the way, I was reading someone's UPG (unverified personal gnosis) on Tumblr some time ago, and apparently Night doesn't much like being confused with the Stars. ...at all.

We don't use these terms for the benefit of outsiders.

That sounds horribly elitist, but hear me out. Some people argue that using the terminology we do is confusing. they argue that we should be using more commonly accepted terms. That's fair enough ... except that we understand what these terms mean. We understand the implications. Pagans, occultists and various witches tend not to proselytize. Few of us feel a need to compel others to join our religion. As such, there's not much call for making these things more understandable to people who don't follow our path.
Let's use an analogy here. Imagine telling a geologist that they shouldn't be using all those complicated terms and specialist vocabulary when they could just say "rocks." It's inevitable that like-minded groups will develop quirks of language to more readily communicate with one another.

You know, I often make CHA my dump-stat, since RPing is one of my weak points and it gives me an excuse to generally stay quiet. On the other hand, that time I decided to speak up, I completely botched that Diplomacy Check with the King (though I might just need a new D20), and wouldn't you know it? Turns out he had a pet Beholder, and we were only Level 3! TPK! The other players just won't let me live that down, and I still haven't forgiven the DM.

(Not a true story, BTW, but just another example of an activity with its own vernacular that's meaningless to outsiders.)

What harm does it do?

A minor point perhaps, but one that I feel is worth stating. A difference in vocabulary is a very minor thing. Occasionally, somebody will get surprisingly angry about it. Why? Surely there are bigger and better things to get angry about.
I should note that this last point isn't aimed at those who are just asking an honest question.

Well, hopefully that clears things up a bit and gives people something to ponder.

Honestly, I'm one of those folks who gets frustrated with terms that don't accurately describe the things they're referring to. It was one of the biggest hurdles to overcome when I was learning programming. However, scientists are the LAST people who get to complain about this. Many accepted terms when translated from Greek/Latin are not descriptive at all, anymore. "Dinosaurs" are neither terrible nor are they lizards! Apparently we live in the Milky Way Milky Way, and will one day collide with the Andromeda Milky Way. And why is Ymir a moon of Saturn?! Wouldn't it make more poetic sense to name the nebula that birthed our solar system Ymir?!

 

[Riverwolf]

For me that's the key distinction. Magic ought to work with only the caster being aware of it.

I can name a number of technologies that fit this criteria.

 

[Nietzsche]

I can name a number of technologies that fit this criteria.

Guns, the best magic!

 

[Riverwolf]

Guns, the best magic!

Bah! So uncivilized.

I was thinking more like computer viruses.

...I'm not even usually being facetious when I describe folks like Steve Wozniak or Christ Sawyer (who coded Roller Coaster Tycoon in freaking ASSEMBLY) as wizards.

 

[Erebus]

For me that's the key distinction. Magic ought to work with only the caster being aware of it.

That's fair enough. I can accept that approach even though I don't personally share it.

If I may interject here, I actually have a pet hypothesis about the role those chants play in cultures that lacked written languages. I still haven't investigated its likelihood in a lot of depth, yet, so DEFINITELY take it with a grain of salt, but I still think it's intriguing enough to bring up.

I strongly suspect that those chants about healing, an example of which from Northern Europe is the Second Merseberg Charm, are mnemonic techniques, or at least might have once been. Healers didn't just stand around a sick or injured person chanting and hoping that would make it all better. Rather, the chanting probably served a purpose of reminding them which healing components to use, what techniques to do, etc. After all, no amount of placebo effect is going to heal a broken bone (which is what the aforementioned Charm is all about).

In some cases, that chanting could also serve a secondary purpose: it might have a psychological effect on the patient. I know that for myself, when I would expose myself to fairly long periods of time to Vedic chanting back when I was a Hindu, it had an effect on my mind. To the patient, and any onlookers, it would look like what we've traditionally thought of as magic: that is, supernatural. But then, even today, non-doctors tend to be VERY misinformed when it comes to the intricacies of medical technology and health.

Outside the realm of healing, consider the English folk song John Barleycorn. It metaphorically outlines the process of growing and harvesting wheat, through to turning it into beer. Granted, even the earliest version of that song we have existed well after the English were generally literate, but I still think it serves as an illustration of the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I still like using the English names, but I have another solution for those of like mind. You might have seen me do it: remove the usage of articles ("the", "a", etc.) and capitalize. In other words, Night instead of the night. Instead of "the sun", Her name is Sun.

...and by the way, I was reading someone's UPG (unverified personal gnosis) on Tumblr some time ago, and apparently Night doesn't much like being confused with the Stars. ...at all.

You know, I often make CHA my dump-stat, since RPing is one of my weak points and it gives me an excuse to generally stay quiet. On the other hand, that time I decided to speak up, I completely botched that Diplomacy Check with the King (though I might just need a new D20), and wouldn't you know it? Turns out he had a pet Beholder, and we were only Level 3! TPK! The other players just won't let me live that down, and I still haven't forgiven the DM.

(Not a true story, BTW, but just another example of an activity with its own vernacular that's meaningless to outsiders.)

Honestly, I'm one of those folks who gets frustrated with terms that don't accurately describe the thing it's referring to. It was one of the biggest hurdles to overcome when I was learning programming. However, scientists are the LAST people who get to complain about this. Many accepted terms when translated from Greek/Latin are not descriptive at all, anymore. "Dinosaurs" are neither terrible nor are they lizards! Apparently we live in the Milky Way Milky Way, and will one day collide with the Andromeda Milky Way. And why is Ymir a moon of Saturn?! Wouldn't it make more poetic sense to name the nebula that birthed our solar system Ymir?!

These are all excellent points. In regards to healing spells, yes there's inevitably going to be some form of medicine involved, I just wanted to pose a hypothetical. I can't say if you're right about chants being mnemonic, though I can certainly see how that could be the case. I suspect you're probably onto something there.

 

[Riverwolf]

These are all excellent points. In regards to healing spells, yes there's inevitably going to be some form of medicine involved, I just wanted to pose a hypothetical. I can't say if you're right about chants being mnemonic, though I can certainly see how that could be the case. I suspect you're probably onto something there.

Same, though that's all it is at the moment.

I think I remember something about this being the case in the Vedic religion, but I don't know for sure; it's been too long. But it's still Indo-European, so it might be a good place to start.

 

[Erebus]

Same, though that's all it is at the moment.

I think I remember something about this being the case in the Vedic religion, but I don't know for sure; it's been too long. But it's still Indo-European, so it might be a good place to start.

I'm wracking my brain to think of other examples. The problem is that there isn't an awful lot of surviving text to describe European magical practices. The ones you do get are largely along the lines of Malleus Maleficarum, i.e. not very useful.

 

[George-ananda]

There have been a few threads cropping up discussing contemporary Paganisms and modern spellcraft. In these threads, practitioners will often explain magic, gods, etc in terms of more readily understood and decidedly more mundane phenomena. Divination is a form of introspection, gods are archetypes and/or parts of nature, magic is the clever use of psychology and so on.

One question/criticism that's come up a couple of times in response is, "why call it call it magic when we understand it to be placebo?" or something to that effect. I've seen this come up a lot in the past. I figured I'd take the time to cover some of the reasoning behind this. Other practitioners are welcome to chime in and add to/refute these points.

Magic is real and we're starting to learn how it works.
This is a big one and it should excite people. While science is a wonderful thing, there's an unfortunate tendency among scientists and lovers of science to use the discovery of something amazing to disprove the very thing that was discovered.
Let me pose a question, let's say a witch doctor performs a ritual to help somebody get better. They don't use medicinal herbs, only ritual. The person they were performing the ritual for notices an improvement in their health. Why?
Some of you may have said something to the effect of, "because of the placebo effect." I would agree with that statement. I would also say that this shows us how magic works. We've discovered one of several methods by which casting a spell can have a real-world impact. Why then turn around and say, "You see? It was never real." This baffles me.

You could call Dancing "moving around."
That would be an accurate enough description of what dancing is, but it lacks impact. It lacks that something extra. Gods are similar in my opinion. When I look at the night sky, I see beauty, majesty and a touch of melancholy. I see the goddess Nyx. I could just call it "night" and if you personally want to, that's fine. Associating it with Nyx is my way of expressing that mix of emotion and awe.

We don't use these terms for the benefit of outsiders.
That sounds horribly elitist, but hear me out. Some people argue that using the terminology we do is confusing. they argue that we should be using more commonly accepted terms. That's fair enough ... except that we understand what these terms mean. We understand the implications. Pagans, occultists and various witches tend not to proselytize. Few of us feel a need to compel others to join our religion. As such, there's not much call for making these things more understandable to people who don't follow our path.
Let's use an analogy here. Imagine telling a geologist that they shouldn't be using all those complicated terms and specialist vocabulary when they could just say "rocks." It's inevitable that like-minded groups will develop quirks of language to more readily communicate with one another.

What harm does it do?
A minor point perhaps, but one that I feel is worth stating. A difference in vocabulary is a very minor thing. Occasionally, somebody will get surprisingly angry about it. Why? Surely there are bigger and better things to get angry about.
I should note that this last point isn't aimed at those who are just asking an honest question.

Well, hopefully that clears things up a bit and gives people something to ponder.

It sounds like you hold to a materialist view of the universe. Some, such as myself, believe these things are often real and involve real energies above the physical plane. This goes along with the belief that we are more than the physical body. So I believe there are some things we will never understand from a physical-only perspective.

 

[Jumi]

For me that's the key distinction. Magic ought to work with only the caster being aware of it.

I've heard the claim that magic works only when it's not conscious.

 

[Erebus]

It sounds like you hold to a materialist view of the universe. Some, such as myself, believe these things are often real and involve real energies above the physical plane. This goes along with the belief that we are more than the physical body. So I believe there are some things we will never understand from a physical-only perspective.

People have said I appear to be a materialist and/or atheist before. I disagree as I see the spiritual (a vague term that I understand to be something along the lines of je ne sais quoi) and the physical as intertwined or possibly one and the same.

To illustrate, my understanding is that Nyx is the night. She's also the concept of the night and that nameless quality that the night posesses. The physical, conceptual and spiritual combined.

 

[George-ananda]

People have said I appear to be a materialist and/or atheist before. I disagree as I see the spiritual (a vague term that I understand to be something along the lines of je ne sais quoi) and the physical as intertwined or possibly one and the same.

To illustrate, my understanding is that Nyx is the night. She's also the concept of the night and that nameless quality that the night posesses. The physical, conceptual and spiritual combined.

That is really all compatible with materialism. The creation of terms and concepts are compatible with 'materialism'. Who doubts the existence of terms and concepts??

From Wikipedia: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

To not be a 'materialist' you must believe in the objective reality of something above our known physical plane; God, gods, Brahman, astral planes, non-physical souls, prana energy, etc..

People seem to recoil from the term 'atheist-materialist' as it sounds too harsh of a view. But from what I have read from you so far, the paganism you ascribe to is still under the grand umbrella of 'materialism'.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

There have been a few threads cropping up discussing contemporary Paganisms and modern spellcraft. In these threads, practitioners will often explain magic, gods, etc in terms of more readily understood and decidedly more mundane phenomena. Divination is a form of introspection, gods are archetypes and/or parts of nature, magic is the clever use of psychology and so on.

One question/criticism that's come up a couple of times in response is, "why call it call it magic when we understand it to be placebo?" or something to that effect. I've seen this come up a lot in the past. I figured I'd take the time to cover some of the reasoning behind this. Other practitioners are welcome to chime in and add to/refute these points.

Magic is real and we're starting to learn how it works.
This is a big one and it should excite people. While science is a wonderful thing, there's an unfortunate tendency among scientists and lovers of science to use the discovery of something amazing to disprove the very thing that was discovered.
Let me pose a question, let's say a witch doctor performs a ritual to help somebody get better. They don't use medicinal herbs, only ritual. The person they were performing the ritual for notices an improvement in their health. Why?
Some of you may have said something to the effect of, "because of the placebo effect." I would agree with that statement. I would also say that this shows us how magic works. We've discovered one of several methods by which casting a spell can have a real-world impact. Why then turn around and say, "You see? It was never real." This baffles me.

You could call Dancing "moving around."
That would be an accurate enough description of what dancing is, but it lacks impact. It lacks that something extra. Gods are similar in my opinion. When I look at the night sky, I see beauty, majesty and a touch of melancholy. I see the goddess Nyx. I could just call it "night" and if you personally want to, that's fine. Associating it with Nyx is my way of expressing that mix of emotion and awe.

We don't use these terms for the benefit of outsiders.
That sounds horribly elitist, but hear me out. Some people argue that using the terminology we do is confusing. they argue that we should be using more commonly accepted terms. That's fair enough ... except that we understand what these terms mean. We understand the implications. Pagans, occultists and various witches tend not to proselytize. Few of us feel a need to compel others to join our religion. As such, there's not much call for making these things more understandable to people who don't follow our path.
Let's use an analogy here. Imagine telling a geologist that they shouldn't be using all those complicated terms and specialist vocabulary when they could just say "rocks." It's inevitable that like-minded groups will develop quirks of language to more readily communicate with one another.

What harm does it do?
A minor point perhaps, but one that I feel is worth stating. A difference in vocabulary is a very minor thing. Occasionally, somebody will get surprisingly angry about it. Why? Surely there are bigger and better things to get angry about.
I should note that this last point isn't aimed at those who are just asking an honest question.

Well, hopefully that clears things up a bit and gives people something to ponder.

Personally I think neo-pagans call it magic instead of what it is, because

(a): It makes them feel more special and unique.

(b): They think it was classical pagans called it.

 

[Erebus]

Personally I think neo-pagans call it magic instead of what it is, because

(a): It makes them feel more special and unique.

(b): They think it was classical pagans called it.

Nice. At least now I know enough to not bother conversing with you.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Nice. At least now I know enough to not bother conversing with you.

Why?

 

[Erebus]

That is really all compatible with materialism. The creation of terms and concepts are compatible with 'materialism'. Who doubts the existence of terms and concepts??

From Wikipedia: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

To not be a 'materialist' you must believe in the objective reality of things above our known physical plane; God, gods, Brahman, astral planes, non-physical souls, prana energy, etc..

Hmm, perhaps the term fits better than I thought? I tend to think of everything as "natural" in that nothing is above or beyond nature. I thought that was a distinction, but maybe not.