Hello, all.
This reminds me of a very interesting lecture one of my professors gave today. We were discussing logical fallacies, and the first one on our list was circular reasoning. The example given on the handout follows.
Person A: "God must exist."
Person B: "How do you know?"
Person A: "Because the Bible says so."
Person B: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Person A: "Because the Bible was written by God."
Of course, the last line would again beg the question "But how do you know God exists?" and there we are, back in the circle. Now, this was a handout my professor acquired, not something he wrote himself. He bears no grudge against religious folk, and has shown himself to be critical of those who assume that God does not exist, because their reasoning is often just as poor as the sort of fundamentalist Christian who would use the argument above. The whole point of that excerpt was to show not that Person A was wrong, but that his/her particular form of argument was greatly flawed. Then, things got really interesting.
He asked us to define the scientific theory. Everyone had been presented some form of it during high school, so after we presented our answers, he used one as a basic example and drew it on the board. It read:
1) Create a hypothesis.
2) Test it through experiment.
3) Compare results.
4) State conclusion.
Now, he pointed out that science can never actually prove anything. Any discovery made using the scientific method remains temporarily "true" until someone else comes along and provides a new theory with enough research and data to back and up and poof! Old idea gone, new idea becomes the "truth" until someone presents a better explanation. The whole scientific method runs in a circular manner just like the first example. Following this, a good scientist (in the opinion of my professor, anyway) should not scoff at an idea just because it seems crazy compared to an older theory, because many theories taught today as "the truth" were considered insanity when they were first presented.
In short, I totally agree that all these presumptions scientists make seem very unprofessional.
It was also a very intriguing discussion. I know what I just recalled might sound a bit sketchy in parts, because I don't have the best memory, but I did walk away with a lot to think about.
Now, regarding Chris Angel...
I am also a fan of his show "Mindfreak" on A&E, and I find him to be an extraordinary talented magician. However, I do not believe that he can "actually" levitate.
Alysia: I envy your strength of mind! I have been told by some upperclassmen that there is a hypnotist that comes on campus during various school festivals, and he has quite a prestigious reputation. Because of what little I have seen of such hypnotists on television, I'm rather anxious of ever going to see his act, because of all the bizarre things they make people do! I'd be afraid someone would "volunteer" me, and I'd end up doing something ridiculous with no recollection of it at all. o_O
Now, I do not think Mr. Angel is hypnotizing people en masse, either in person or through the television set, to make people think he is really levitating while he actually is not. Can hypnotism even work through a TV? I thought it had to be done in person.
*Note: One of the most entertaining things about magic is the mystery behind how the magician does what he or she does. I don't want to spoil things for those who enjoy that, so consider this a "spoiler" alert!
Wikipedia's article on Chris's show, Mindfreak, reports:
"In response to how he does his stunts, he has only declared not to have any paranormal powers, saying: 'I do not believe that anybody has the ability to do anything that's supernatural.'"
I am not trying to prove Chris's personal opinion, but there is significant proof that his levitation is an illusion, just as he says himself.
After a google search, I came across this link:
http://www.hemmy.net/2006/03/23/levitation-magic-exposed-video/If the man himself reveals how he did the trick and denies having any supernatural powers, I will have to say that he has mastered a very real-looking allusion. I know he has a very dramatic and mystical aura about him, but personally, I think it's all a part of his magician's act. When not performing, he may have quite a different persona.
As for the bed of nails: why would lying on one require levitation? Despite all the tiny points, lying on one would distribute your weight evenly, and it shouldn't hurt at all! And you can even make your own and try it yourself!
http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/Bed_of_Nails
Home
Pages: 1
scientists reval secret of levitation (Read 4206 times)
