I remember an interesting quote, something along the lines of "When people say real magic, they mean supernatural powers, powers that don't exist. When they say fake magic, they mean illusions and stage magicians, things which do exist. So real magic is the kind that isn't real, and fake magic is the kind that is." I ended up paraphrasing it, so I guess I didn't really remember the quote at all. But I still think it's an interesting point.

And Rickert, the fact that you or one of us here can't say exactly how it's done (although a couple of people have in fact done that) doesn't mean that it must have been don by magic. No one here is saying that:

"oh it's not science it's not real" or "it's counter physic so it won't exist regardless what happened in front of my very eyes"
[/quote]

People are saying that because it's real and happened before our eyes (or at least appeared to), that there must exist an explanation for it consistent with reality. If magic isn't real, and I'll say that according to what most people mean when they say "magic", it seems not to be, then there must necessarily be a more mundane explanation. For that explanation, I'll refer you to posters above.

rofl this is bs. There's obviosuly something still wrong with the chicken's legs afterwards. He held the things throat and head in a way so that it would stop moving and vocalizing to make it seem as if it was dead. But he really did mess its legs up though.

I remember an interesting quote, something along the lines of "When people say real magic, they mean supernatural powers, powers that don't exist. When they say fake magic, they mean illusions and stage magicians, things which do exist. So real magic is the kind that isn't real, and fake magic is the kind that is." I ended up paraphrasing it, so I guess I didn't really remember the quote at all. But I still think it's an interesting point.

And Rickert, the fact that you or one of us here can't say exactly how it's done (although a couple of people have in fact done that) doesn't mean that it must have been don by magic. No one here is saying that:

"oh it's not science it's not real" or "it's counter physic so it won't exist regardless what happened in front of my very eyes"

People are saying that because it's real and happened before our eyes (or at least appeared to), that there must exist an explanation for it consistent with reality. If magic isn't real, and I'll say that according to what most people mean when they say "magic", it seems not to be, then there must necessarily be a more mundane explanation. For that explanation, I'll refer you to posters above.
[/quote]
The head is still able to be explained, because when the chicken head is cut off, it can still moving around until all blood leaks out. However, not for the legs. How can the legs be healed that instant? The chicken legs were damaged to the point unrecoverable. How can it still walk? He used no paste, no medicine, nothing. Even with medicine, it still can't be healed that quickly. For David Copperfield, with his flying magic, people can still try to relate to logical explanation to the current knowledge. But for this case, the chicken legs were impossible to recover. If someone in here could try an experiment like that, then we can accept it still not beyond our understanding.

Also, the reality you are talking about seems to limit only in the current scientific understanding of the world. What if something is out of scope of science but it still does exist? Yet people can't explain this, but they argue the existence of GOD.

The head is still able to be explained, because when the chicken head is cut off, it can still moving around until all blood leaks out. However, not for the legs. How can the legs be healed that instant? The chicken legs were damaged to the point unrecoverable. How can it still walk? He used no paste, no medicine, nothing. Even with medicine, it still can't be healed that quickly.

All of it can be explained. Posters above me have explained that what's in the video is certainly possible via showmanship (playing up the severity of the cuts), knowledge of chicken anatomy (knowing how to make cuts that look worse than they are), ability to balance the chicken itself, and the fact that the chicken is not in fact OK after the whole procedure. Even if this isn't the 100% accurate explanation of what's happened, your denial of it isn't any different (or more convincing) than saying that because you don't know how the magician cut that lady in half, he must have super magical powers.

For David Copperfield, with his flying magic, people can still try to relate to logical explanation to the current knowledge. But for this case, the chicken legs were impossible to recover. If someone in here could try an experiment like that, then we can accept it still not beyond our understanding. [/quote]

People are relating the chicken thing to current knowledge-- just perhaps not knowledge that you yourself possess. Do you have a solid understanding of chicken anatomy? Or anatomy and physiology in general? Or surgical procedures? If you do have all of these, and using that knowledge you conclude that your position of crippling and impossible recovery is the only possible one, I might be more willing to engage your inability to explain it. The fact that you yourself cannot explain it at this time doesn't mean that it necessarily must have a supernatural explanation, or that no one else can explain it, or that advancing understanding will one day be able to explain it.

Also, the reality you are talking about seems to limit only in the current scientific understanding of the world. What if something is out of scope of science but it still does exist? Yet people can't explain this, but they argue the existence of GOD.
[/quote]

There are a lot of things that exist but that science can't or doesn't explain right now. There was a time when humankind had no idea how gravity worked, and assumed that the earth must be flat to prevent everyone from falling off of it. Later, people understood that the earth was round, but still didn't understand gravity. Today, we understand that the earth is round and have at least some grasp of gravity. But the existence of gravity and the roundness of the earth were both accurate at every point, and perfectly scientifically explainable, even if humanity lacked the science. We aren't held to the earth by magic, nor were we in 5,000 BC.

Lots of people have tried to put magic to the test, and magic as a field has simply not stood up to the scrutiny. It's not consistent, nor accurate, nor effective. Any previously "magical" effects observed have been explained by rational principles and done so in a manner consistent with other empirically demonstrated knowledge. You can perhaps make the argument that things are considered magic until they're better understood; for example, supposed magicians in ages past practiced their profession by mixing plants with "magical" properties. Well, now we're good enough at chemistry to know that those plants were never magical in the sense of the word as most people use it. But that still contradicts the supernatural while reaffirming the regular natural.

As for God, there are plenty of people who find the lack of consistent explanations sufficient to suggest that God does not in fact exist. There's another active thread in the lounge about this right now. But in any event, the fact that some people form arguments of a certain type does not make them good arguments, nor does it make them apply to other situations.

All of it can be explained. Posters above me have explained that what's in the video is certainly possible via showmanship (playing up the severity of the cuts), knowledge of chicken anatomy (knowing how to make cuts that look worse than they are), ability to balance the chicken itself, and the fact that the chicken is not in fact OK after the whole procedure. Even if this isn't the 100% accurate explanation of what's happened, your denial of it isn't any different (or more convincing) than saying that because you don't know how the magician cut that lady in half, he must have super magical powers.

For David Copperfield, with his flying magic, people can still try to relate to logical explanation to the current knowledge. But for this case, the chicken legs were impossible to recover. If someone in here could try an experiment like that, then we can accept it still not beyond our understanding.

People are relating the chicken thing to current knowledge-- just perhaps not knowledge that you yourself possess. Do you have a solid understanding of chicken anatomy? Or anatomy and physiology in general? Or surgical procedures? If you do have all of these, and using that knowledge you conclude that your position of crippling and impossible recovery is the only possible one, I might be more willing to engage your inability to explain it. The fact that you yourself cannot explain it at this time doesn't mean that it necessarily must have a supernatural explanation, or that no one else can explain it, or that advancing understanding will one day be able to explain it. [/quote]

The same series of questions you asked me I could apply for everyone who makes a counter argument. No one here understands exactly how the chicken works and explains it in details. In the video, the guy used brute force to break the chicken legs, just a little bit more and the legs will be removed from the body. How could it stand up after going such pain? Even for standing up, the legs won't be in the position and will be dislocated again. Unless while he was pulling the chicken, he put in his hand some kinds of "glue" to paste the legs back? Possible explanation?

Yes, it's possible to be a trick and not a trick until it is discovered. People think magics are tricks because, as you said, they relate to knowledge they posses themselves. Thus, when a magician performs, people always assume that's trick (and mostly it is that way). The statement they assumed is always true, but is it in reality? There are so many things science has not yet explained, such as ghost, spirit. People are still finding answer for it. Once the mystery is solved, it become science anyway. It means, supernatural or not, once it is understood, it's part of science.

This is how you twist a chick:

[media][/media]


=>=>=>=>=>=>

The same series of questions you asked me I could apply for everyone who makes a counter argument. No one here understands exactly how the chicken works and explains it in details. In the video, the guy used brute force to break the chicken legs, just a little bit more and the legs will be removed from the body. How could it stand up after going such pain? Even for standing up, the legs won't be in the position and will be dislocated again. Unless while he was pulling the chicken, he put in his hand some kinds of "glue" to paste the legs back? Possible explanation?

First, you simply don't have the perspective to make any definitive claims about how much force he did or didn't use from the video alone, particularly as sleight of hand deliberately makes manipulations appear different than they are. If he re-located the legs, it doesn't matter what position he sets down the chicken in. But the specific explanation is irrelevant to your argument for the reason below, with one (and only one) exception.

Magic is something for which there is an overwhleming amount of evidence to indicate that it does not exist, and little evidence in support. Regardless of any potential explanation I can provide, Occam's Razor will apply. You should prefer the explanation that forces you to make the fewest assumptions. Positing that magic exists is a massive assumption given that there isn't much evidence in favor of it. Positing that he's using slight is a far smaller assumption, as magic-peddelars have used it in place of magic for centuries.

So no matter what the ultimate explanation is, any possible explanation which does not involve magic should be preferred to one that does involve magic. The only time that the specific explanation matters is if the true, accurate explanation is magic. And there's no reason to assume that that's the case, with all of the insane, revolutionary implications that would have, just because you can't wrap your head around the display. And that's the crux of your entire argument, that you can observe yourself not being able to provide any non-magical explanation. That's not very convincing to me.

Yes, it's possible to be a trick and not a trick until it is discovered. People think magics are tricks because, as you said, they relate to knowledge they posses themselves. Thus, when a magician performs, people always assume that's trick (and mostly it is that way). The statement they assumed is always true, but is it in reality? There are so many things science has not yet explained, such as ghost, spirit. People are still finding answer for it. Once the mystery is solved, it become science anyway. It means, supernatural or not, once it is understood, it's part of science.
[/quote]

There's not much solid evidence for the existence of ghosts or spirits, but that's irrelevant. If you perceive something but can't explain it, that doesn't make it magic. True, once a thing that does indeed exist is understood it's considered science no matter what. But in that case, the concept of explaining something you don't understand as "magic" is completely valueless. With no apparent explanation from the guy in the video himself, there's no reason to ascribe a bunch of characteristics to whatever it is you think he did.

Well that video was depressing...

Anyway, the general discussion makes me curious about what people think of the, "[color=#454545]Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." quote.

Where is PETA when you need them?

Where is PETA when you need them?

Doesn't matter. Afterwards, they probably killed the chicken and fried it up. LOL

The guy obviously screwed up it's legs so it couldn't be used for his little "trick" anymore.