Re: RE: virus: Magic/Science

Lior Golgher (efraim_g@netvision.net.il)
Tue, 03 Dec 1996 23:06:03 -0800


Schneider John said:
- - Science shows us "how to do it", then talks about theories of
"why it worked", none of which are to be taken very seriously,
since all that really matters is: "we know how to do it".
- - Magic explains to us "why it will work", then talks about
theories of "how to do it", none of which are to be taken
very seriously, since all that really matters is: "we know
why it will work."

Arthur C. Clarke said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

John's good distinction can also be used as an explanation for Clarke's
Third Law. The common observer is fascinated by the wonder he sees, no
matter whether it's a living woman sliced to two or a flying machine.
If he looks for anything, he looks for the trick - the 'how to do it',
not for a proven model of the process - the 'why it worked'. That's why
on movies you see a freaky genius running around bubbling tubes - just
like the character of medieval alchemist\magician cooking the mysterious
potion. On daily life researchers don't cook potions that way <I hope
;)>. The common observer (usually us) looks for a magic show, not for an
experiment.

A magic which doesn't bring the expected result is an absolute failure.
An experiment which doesn't bring the expected result is a success as
long as its course\sequence is known.
A magic which brings the expected result without knowing what happened
is a success.
An experiment which brings the expected result without knowing what
happened is an absolute failure

M0-1 = -(E0-1) = E1-0 = Failure
M1-0 = -(E1-0) = E0-1 = Success

BTW: There's some note about this on "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance".

Towards finding time to translate my functional society to English...
Lior.