Talk:Magic (supernatural)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Magic (supernatural). Thank you.

Efficacy of Magic

The introduction to this article and many parts within give the impression that magic has some kind established role that is “outside of science.” I don’t think this article makes it clear enough to the average reader that magic is not scientifically believed to be efficacious. Manderson22 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Manderson22: Nowhere does the article say that magic works. You can't rebut something that is not claimed. The current article represents a past consensus on that, with the involvement of the Skepticism WikiProject. See the talk page archives linked in the header at the top of the page. But once you've read through the 7 pages of talk archives, by all means if you have an argument not already presented... Skyerise (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel like lines in this article such as "Some of the individuals who performed magical acts on a more than occasional basis came to be identified as magicians" imply that things such as "magical acts" have some basis in reality. Imo there should be new discussions concerning whether or not this article treats magic as the pseudoscience that it is, or if it falsely insinuates that it is possibly real. RoadSmasher420 (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I’ve taken a look at the talk archive and it seems to be argued on very technical and philosophical terms that the scientific method may be unsound and that there is “room” for the efficacy of magic given that scientific reasoning and logic in general are still just “belief systems.” I think this kind of thinking is a mistake, but I do accept that this has already been discussed, and I’ll leave it. Thanks for directing me. Manderson22 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Flawed definition

'Magic, sometimes spelled magick,[1] is the application of beliefs, rituals or actions employed in the belief that they can manipulate natural or supernatural beings and forces.'

The addition of 'natural' contradicts the title of the article ('Magic (supernatural)') and also means that everything is magic. If magic is 'the application of actions employed in the belief that they can manipulate natural forces', this encompasses every human interaction with nature. When people cook, they are manipulating the natural force of fire; when they build a dam, they are manipulating the river's force; when people domesticate sheep, they are manipulating their natural instincts.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"They" refers not to people (which do not even appear in the sentence) but to "beliefs, rituals or actions". But you are right that making a fire is the application of an action in the belief that the action can manipulate a natural force, and thus covered by the definition. Unfortunately, the definition comes from "Hutton, R., (2017), The Witch", and we cannot just change it. We could find another source with a better definition though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The late Leo Martello wrote that as a witch he made no claims to "supernatural powers," but he did believe in super powers that reside in the natural. (Witchcraft: The Old Religion, p. 12) – .Raven  ^.talk 20:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

This article has several issues that directly affect the classification. The B-class criteria #1 states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

• It has been marked as needing page numbers from 2010 and 2016,
• Needing more viewpoints since 2020,
• Section "may be unbalanced" since 2020
• A main article tag that the article "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" since 2021,
• Needing references cleanup since 2022,
• The unflagged "Etymology" section has one unsourced paragraph and a lot of unsourced content added after an inline citation.
• Number 4 of the criteria: The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
• Number 6 of the criteria: The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible.

The article fails three points of the criteria for B-class promotion. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe time to address this

There is a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! which may be of interest to editors and the topic of this page, although it may be considered by some as tangential. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft: Requested move

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Misrepesentation of Frazer

Frazer is listed as "intelectualist", which is defined as differentiating magic from science. This is disjunct in the article from "functionalism", which disjoins magic from religion.

On my reading of Frazer, this is a misrepresents him, he analyzes the conceptual relationship of magic both to science and to religion, and differentiates it conceptually from both. He is just slightly more verbally explicit about the disjunction from science (he calls magic "false science", while he does not call it any qualified form of religion, but it would not be wrong to say that he conceptualizes magic as "unmediated (or "godless") religion", he just never calls it that.

Does anyone want to make a defense of this passage, otherwise I think there is a major revision in order (either put Frazer and possibly other authors into a third section other than Intellectualism and Functionalism, or re-define Intellectualism, or disband those sections altogether). Southfar (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Southfar: What do the secondary sources have to say on the subject? We don't go by the opinions of editors, but rather by what the sources say. By all means, though, if some editor put words in Frazer's mouth that can't be verified, tag those so other editors can follow up on it. Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)