Practical Magic & The Great Philosophical Debates of Science
Practical
Magic: Magic that accomplishes
useful objectives.
“Any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (the third of his Three Laws.)
Of the great
debates of science, seven in particular are as long-lived as they are indeterminable:
(Honorable
mentions go to Truth vs. Justice and Wisdom vs. Knowledge. These are not strictly ‘scientific’,
and are debatable only when one half of each argument is expected to be in complete
alignment with the other yet it is not, OR when each of the two is erroneously thought
to be closely enough aligned in ideologies to make them almost
indistinguishable from each other to the uninformed.)
Because this
short essay is concerned only with just one of these, I will dispense with the
others in summary fashion:
ü Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: It could be
that the vehicle for achieving ‘intelligent design’ is evolution itself, implemented by an Unseen Creator’s hand
(divine or not) on a scale of time (and level of technology) outside of the scope
of mere human comprehension.
ü God (or Religion) vs. Science: In the same
vein, science, as we understand it, may be the remaining evidence of the work
of some power or level of intelligence far beyond anything we know, i.e. ‘God’. What we know as science is merely
how we slowly learn to discover and explain the myriad intricacies of the forces
behind Divine Creation in microcosm.
ü Nature vs. Nurture: It could be argued
that these are one and the same, and that Nature
itself is the very first ‘nurturer’, while parental nurturing is actually
defined by the nature of the
parent(s), whom, in a never-ending cycle were the products of their own
nurturing by Nature, or natural (biological) forces.
ü Philosophy vs. Sophistry: Granted,
this one was never a serious debate in ancient times, nor is it now. However,
if anyone still knows the meaning of the word ‘sophistry’ (please feel free to Google
it), then they would soon discover that this very essay may be an example of
that long-lost art, or on other hand, it may not.
That leaves only
two, Applied
vs. Basic (Research) and Practical
vs. Theoretical. Because these are essentially the same thing, I
will immediately dismiss the former for the latter. Further, I will attempt to
explain why I consider myself a pragmatist (and of the Practical School) and not
a theoretician, although I have dabbled in it sometimes.
The reasons
are simple, but first I would like to point out that I actually do like chess, a great deal. I am not the best
player that I could be (or the worst), but I do get by, with the occasional
flash of dare I say, extremely good play. After the advent of computer chess, I
have preferred to play against my PC, or my Android phone, because an opponent
is always ready when I am so I don’t have to dig one up or find one online, and
I can stop and resume the game whenever I want. (Also, my electronic opponents
do not offer up ‘trash talk’ when they are winning or losing!)
Chess,
played well, takes a considerable amount of time, energy, creativity,
innovation, and thought, and, when you are done (whether you have won or lost)
you have gained (or earned or created or discovered) not much in the way of practical value. To my
mind, it ultimately is a waste of ‘my mind’, my time, and all the other
adjectives from the previous sentence. Chess is theoretical and not practical.
(In addition, it could explain why top chess champions are often suicidal
or depressed and morose; they have put ‘it all’ on the line for absolutely
nothing outside a few accolades from their peers, whether they win or lose.)
I feel the
same way about Mensa-style puzzles and brain-twisters. They are amusing,
baffling, infuriating, and challenging, but solving them yields nothing of any use to anybody. (In the past, I have prescribed them to people
who want to improve their problem-solving skills on websites like Quora.) However, ultimately,
after all that head scratching, nothing useful or concrete will have come of the
entire exercise.
It is for
these reasons that I do not play chess as often as I used to, nor spend as much
time as I used to doing puzzles. (I still have long bouts of doing each,
usually in the summer, as a mental workout. These ‘spurts’ of mental aerobics
can last weeks, if not the entire summer, but eventually I lose interest in each.)
No, as I said
in my ’Thirty Postulates for Problem-Solving’,
my vote is solidly cast for practical, pragmatic, real-world problem solving
for use in real applications. (Note: I am all for theoretical work if it is precursor of some practical,
real-world break-thru or discovery. Theoretical for its own sake is only slightly
interesting on an intellectual level, and not much else.)
If I had to
pick a current trend more in line with my strong desire to tinker, fuss, fix,
and create, it would have to be the ‘maker
culture’. Making, tinkering, building: call it what you will, it is
practical, and often (but not always) leads to real world, practical things.
Even
possibly the greatest genius to ever live, William James Sidis, had no use
for mathematics, (theoretical or otherwise) as a child until his parents could
demonstrate it also had a practical, useful application. (For a good book on
his tragic, fascinating life and the astonishing level of his genius, check out
The Prodigy, by Amy Wallace.)
To put it
slightly more bluntly (and more colorfully) theory without practical
application is like an incantation without the rabbit at the end. I think for
the typical person, the practical application of science (or any field) is much
more impressive than pure theory. Moreover, sometimes, the awe it can create is
nothing short of amazing, seeming almost miraculous and very much like magic. The sensation of encountering
technology bordering on something truly magical is familiar to anyone who has
been alive for the past century. Anyone who recalls the first time they saw
color TV, watched a photograph develop before their
very eyes, saw the first animated web page suddenly
come to life, heard the
first cell phone call, or recalls the very first time (civilian) GPS
was used, knows that technology and magic can sometimes be one.
Einstein’s
work may seemed to have been mostly theoretical (especially the annus mirabilis papers, of which
portions are freely
downloadable from the Internet) but it was the practical proof and
application of his arcane work that made him the world’s first celebrity theoretical
physicist back when most people had no idea what a ‘physicist’ actually did.
The same could be said for his contemporary, Nicola Tesla, whose dazzling
experiments (and brilliantly bizarre personality) made him a modern-day Merlin
to many.
 |
| Mark Dean |
All these individuals, wizards in their own right; have made the world a better place and more interesting place with the creation of their particular brand of ‘practical’ magic.
It appears
that Mr. Clarke was correct.
