|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
22nd July 2013, 01:25 AM | #81 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Maybe not. Are you saying the con-artist creates the gullibility though?
I think of myself as an ethical magician in the way we've talked about it here. I don't do mentalism stuff though, so I might get a pass - unless you think cutting a rope and restoring it is fostering woo? I have to admit, I never really thought anyone believes I have supernatural powers when the coin disappears or the card changes colors. But I don't ask people either. |
22nd July 2013, 02:42 AM | #82 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,808
|
|
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator Atheism is not skepticism Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer |
|
22nd July 2013, 03:02 AM | #83 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Then we might have the distinguishing feature where conjuring for entertainment differs from woo-mongery. I do not depend on having a gullible audience or belief in what I do as other than skillful illusions. The conman requires such belief. I require no action, other than observation, from spectators. The conman does.
|
22nd July 2013, 08:34 AM | #84 |
Lost in translation
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
|
This is one of the oldest debates in the magic community. Should there be a disclaimer, should the spectator make up their own mind, etc.
Magic does not intrinsically promote woo, but the opportunity is there, due to the nature of the art. A lot of magicians in the olden days had a deliberate mystic or exotic image, like an "oriental" costume or a turban or what have you. They were generally so over the top as to preclude any serious belief in a paranormal source for the sleight of hand. Yes, several magicians have denied sleight of hand and promoted woo. But the most vocal defenders of rational thought have very often been magicians, from Reginald Scot to Randi. I believe a bit of healthy exposure of minor conjuring techniques, along with children's magic kits, give lay people enough knowledge to understand it's all performance art, while keeping the more important tactics and moves secret. A magic show is a perfect opportunity to have a talk with your children or friends about the total lack of evidence for the paranormal. I personally believe there is absolutely nothing unethical about the art itself. Do vampire stories promote woo? Or only certain authors? I think it's perfectly fine to play with the concepts. The issue lies with the author or performer, not the art. I would even say that it's perfectly fine to play the woo angle during a show. As long as the performer either has a disclaimer, or is clear about the nature of reality and conjuring when interviewed out of character. I have much less respect for those who keep the line blurry at all times. I look at a guy like Max Maven, with the demonologist look and the mystic image. He certainly does not promote woo, though he seems to walk a finer line at times. I think this is acceptable. The Geller "I'm not a magician" approach is another story altogether. Just my opinion. The debate usually revolves around specific performers and specific points. The art of conjuring itself is not on trial and it shouldn't be. |
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright |
|
27th July 2013, 04:39 AM | #85 |
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
|
Excellent post. Coherent thoughts. I've been thinking about magic and kids a bit as I'm raising another one (kid, not magician) now. I think a certain amount of woo is okay for magic up until, arbitrarily, their eighth or ninth birthday or when they begin to question what they're seeing (whichever comes first)... sort of like dealing with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Magic should be for kids. But as critical thinkers, we need to be ready to bring them out of it by teaching them to question what they're seeing or hearing (or reading or being taught). I don't buy into all the stories of kids who grew up to hate their parents because of being tricked into believing that Santa or the Tooth Fairy were real*. I think we all grew out of it in various ways, but mostly just getting too smart to believe in dumb crap like that. I think my son will do the same.
And if I get a chance to take him to a magic show with some phony mystic, I'll play along, but I will re-run Curious George II for him - a magician is the main character and they show how he does his magically appearing elephant trick. But Geller and Kreskin and others who cross the line and sell their craft as "powers"? They can go to Hell. *ETA: Oh, crap. Should that have been in spoiler tags? |
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable. |
|
27th December 2013, 11:26 PM | #86 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,655
|
David Blaine has done several where he claimed to be doing things live in the open. However, that was a lie. In each case; the setting was carefully controlled. Anytime you see Blaine levitating by a method other than Balducci then the set is controlled. Magicians can and do hire an entire group of people for fake audience participation and reaction for particular tricks such as the disappearing business jet.
|
28th December 2013, 07:31 AM | #87 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,655
|
|
5th January 2014, 10:08 AM | #88 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,106
|
Dynamo is treading the Criss Angel route of magic,using actors/stooges and camera edits.
|
__________________
"I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown
|
|
5th January 2014, 01:18 PM | #89 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 234
|
He's also had a charisma bypass which really doesn't help at all. I'm not a magician but love magic and he leaves me totally cold.
|
5th January 2014, 03:47 PM | #90 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sorth Dakonsin
Posts: 29,368
|
I only just caught a bit of his show over the weekend. Kind of fun at first but then I started being very suspicious that he wasn't performing "street" magic, but "TV" magic, I.E. magic for the TV audience rather than for a random Joe he found on the street. Which does not take a lot of skill.
|
__________________
Science is self-correcting. Woo is self-contradicting. |
|
5th January 2014, 05:08 PM | #91 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Pert of the problem is being on TV. Many magicians hone their acts over years of repeat performances. They are very careful and thoughtful about making any changes. TV magicians are under pressure to come up with the next "latest and greatest" and can't show the same material more than once. Hard to get really good at live performances that way.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|