How would you prove magic doesn't exists?

File: Behind-The-Scenes---Harry-Potter-and-the-Order-of-the-Phoenix-(Ralph-Fiennes-Helena-Bonham-Carter-Daniel-Radcliffe-Michael-Gambon)-1.jpg (103KB, 1330x748px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1330x748px

The onus of proof is on you. How would you prove that magic exists?

>>9000044
science belongs to the realm of falsifiable experiments, magic doesn't
there is no way to scientifically prove that magic doesn't exist because magic isn't falsifiable

Let's say there's a wizard who can recite an incantation and levitate. Well, there is no way to reproduce that event in a lab or anywhere else for that matter so it's impossible to replicate and study under the scientific method.
Furthermore, nothing about physics says that the laws of physics cannot locally break around a wizard, assuming there is one. It is just that without evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that it doesn't happen.

If somebody believes that there are beings capable of breaking or changing the laws of physics and use magic, you cannot prove them wrong, because it's not falsifiable and therefore not something that science can deal with.

>>9000055
They will literally just show you a book and say, that settles it

>>9000044

ask "Why is black magic real"

> because the quran says so

> K nigger

File: 1495624044920.png (661KB, 2760x1648px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 2760x1648px

>>9000044
http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci

>3. No "religion vs. science" threads.

>>9000058
>realm of falsifiable experiments

Fuck off popsci fan.

>prove that magic doesn't exist because magic isn't falsifiable

Either you observe magic happening or you don't.

>>9000411
Observation isn't proof if it cannot be reproduced. Even at CERN, they need multiple reruns and reviews from different scientists around the world to claim something. Someone seeing magic wouldn't be a scientific proof of anything. Are you stupid? If magic existed and was something that could be reproduced at will then it wouldn't be magic, it would be a new branch of science. Point is, you cannot prove it or disprove it.

Did you ever take a single epistemology class?

File: 1489409454372.png (4MB, 3416x3405px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3416x3405px

>he thinks magic isn't real
prepare to be blackpilled
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbral_calculus

There is no reason to believe something without evidence.

There are varying standards of evidence and you have to use your discretion for practical reasons. I trust my teachers aren't bullshitting me in some elaborate ploy, even so they routinely use experiments to both prove what they are teaching and as a learning aid. There has to be some link to reality.

I am sure a religious person trusts their religious leaders and family, they may well be good people who weren't trying to mislead you, however how can you be sure their interpretation is correct? Humans are fallible, even your dear mama. In some places just questioning your faith is heresy or apostasy and they would hate an atheistic westerner like me (or indeed someone from an ex-commie country like China), there is not much I can do about that, I don't have any answers on how to deal with this. Suffice to say I reject the accusation I am trying to lead people astray or have some ulterior motive, I am guilty only of recognizing humans are fallible.

Some accuse skeptics and atheists of being amoral, but doubting the idea genies leapt around 3000 years ago zapping people with magic is not the same as rejecting philosophies like the value of all sapient beings or a higher purpose in life.

So it boils down to whether people can place reason over familial and cultural pressures to believe something obviously ludicrous.

>>9000449
>There is no reason to believe something without evidence.
It's called faith.

>>9000449
Your view is very close minded. When Democritus said matter was made up of atoms without being able to see them, most people must have thing is was preposterous to believe something like that. The fact that Aristotelian physics was the favored one really goes to show they preferred familiarity with tangible elements to something they couldn't see. Just because you can't feel god it doesn't mean anything. There is as more evidence that points toward a possible godly being than there was to the existence of atoms.

>>9000044
Report this thread for spamming and advertising. We're not giving you views you dumb backwards sandnigger.

>>9000044
If there were "magic" science would consume it, turn it into new science. I'm sure esoteric and not well understood knowledge of the past that we call science today was magic back then too, even aside from the whole alchemy thing.

>>9000044
You basically can't prove that magic doesn't exist (see Russell's teapot), unless it's defined in a very specific way which can be disproven. For example if someone defines magic as meaning that someone cannot come to harm while wearing a diamond necklace, then all you need to do is find evidence of someone coming to harm while wearing a diamond necklace. But otherwise, you can't disprove it, because there's really nothing to disprove, no claim that can be tested. The most you can really do is say that despite much attempt to find evidence, none have succeeded in doing so. That's basically our current attitude on life on the Moon, we've done pretty extensive investigation and haven't found evidence of it yet, but we still simply don't know for sure. Science doesn't really give us a way to distinguish between "hasn't been found yet" and "won't be ever be found because it doesn't exist". All we can do is say that belief in something is silly because there is no credible evidence of it.

>>9000059
So ask them why they believe the book. If they say they know it is true because it is the literal word of Allah, then ask them how they know that. Ask them to imagine meeting someone who shows them a book that says the exact opposite of what their book says, but that person too claims that their book is the literal word of Allah. Ask your friend how he would convince an indifferent third person that his book is true and the other person is lying.

>>9000460
Faith isn't "reason" in the scientific sense.

>>9000044

You can't prove a negative.

>>9000522
>Faith isn't "reason" in the scientific sense.
Fair enough, I didn't realize you mean reason in that sense.

File: 1496440310129.jpg (151KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 388x443px

>>9000558
Prove that.

>>9000411
What a retard

>>9000916

I can't because it's a negative.

>>9000439
Could you explain that to me? I'm very interested in this but google doesn't come up with any results that I can understand.