3

Despite all the bad reputation and hatred to people that have any kind of magical thinking (i.e. believes in magic, any kind), this ideology still very present in society these days, day that seems all about reason and science. What happened to the enlightenment?

  • 1
    Hi, welcome to Philosophy SE. Please visit our Help Center to see what questions we answer and how to ask. One reason is that it serves a number of psychological functions. Please read Wikipedia's Magical Thinking and see if it already answers your question, if not please indicate why more specifically. – Conifold Feb 13 '18 at 20:32
  • I think Habermas would agree with you, though I have not kept up with his later work. I thought this was a good book: Title: The philosophical discourse of modernity : twelve lectures, Author: Habermas, Jürgen. Publisher:MIT Press,Pub date: 1987. – Gordon Feb 14 '18 at 0:33
  • Habermas has also written an essay "Modernity versus Postmodernity" which Is good. Perhaps you have already read it. warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/robertfine/home/… – Gordon Feb 14 '18 at 0:43
  • 1
    Just because some method thinking (eg, the Earth revolves around the Sun) has a bad reputation and hatred to people doesn't mean it's wrong. Also, science doesn't always give us the right answer, and magical thinking doesn't contradict reason directly. – barrycarter Feb 14 '18 at 17:11
  • 1
    Thank you for the suggestions about Habermas, didn't know about him or his work. I have read a book called "My years of magical thinking" by Lionel Snell. He offers what it's in my opinion, an interesting POV. Also, I agree with @barrycarter; a method of thinking with a bad reputation is not equal to "Wrong thinking method". Still, I am curious about the taboo that still exists in society and why with this thinking method in specific. – Michel Ortega Feb 14 '18 at 18:41
3

All thinking, including the basic phenomenology of science is at root magical thinking. We tie results to causes, and without further study, they remain tied. One of the things we tie to causes most directly is our own wish, since we do things like move our bodies and manipulate conversations so unconsciously that we cannot analyze the process without involving others.

The idea that applying any set of principles make this any less magical is dismissed by Hume's problem of induction. The idea of induction or observation is itself 'magic' and remains so despite our biases. Science itself is an enormous elaboration of metaphors, all derived from more natural magical thinking.

Particles 'vibrate' because mystical substances in ancient India 'vibrated'. The metaphor is entirely dishonest, and springs straight out of religion. But it is a part of basic physics because it helps, somehow.

Science has a point in insisting we should always get around to explaining our beliefs, when we can. But scientific thinking must always be built upon a more basic foundation, and it must always leave space for the facts that are so close to us that we cannot focus on them (what exactly is morality, what is a purpose, etc.)

  • 2
    I agree. The mind, as the mysterious realm that it's right now, mostly unknown and unpredictable, is rooted in the magical thinking as far as we can't explain concepts like consciousness, what it is and how it works. – Michel Ortega Feb 15 '18 at 19:25
  • Not just at the boundaries, but in a very central way, our thinking is naturally magical. Deduction can only remove or refine things. Induction proper is the only way to make new ideas. And it is ultimately magical thinking. Even the assumption "There must be something physical and logical underlying any observed connection" is itself a magical connection we just hold because it makes us feel better, and we cannot prove it. It pays off, so it wins over time. But the ways it pays off rely on the miraculous ability it gives us to predict the future. – jobermark Feb 19 '18 at 20:07
-1

Magical thinking has entered mathematics with Cantor's set theory.

Aristotle is the first to distinguish potential infinity and actual infinity. He bans actual infinity from philosophy and mathematics. The idea of the infinity of God, created in Hellenism, amalgamates – not later than in the works of Thomas – with the Aristotelian postulate of the pure actuality of God. This yields the Christian perception of God's pure actuality. During the renaissance, in particular with Bruno, the actual infinity is carried over from God to the world. The finite world models of present science show clearly, how the superiority of the idea of actual infinity has ceased with the classical (modern) physics. In contrast the inclusion of the actual infinite appears disconcerting which explicitly began during the end of the last century with G. Cantor. In the intellectual framework of our century – in particular when considering existential philosophy – the actual infinite appears really as an anachronism. [Paul Lorenzen: "Das Aktual-Unendliche in der Mathematik", Philosophia naturalis 4 (1957) p. 3]

Meanwhile Cantor's followers believe in "real" numbers that cannot be defined or used in any way (Cantor himself did not as we must say in his favour). Even uncountable alphabets (i.e., unlistable lists) are accepted. The whole matter has completely pushed out the former precision and definiteness of the "Queen of Sciences".

  • 2
    This is not at all what is meant by 'magical thinking' as the OP is using it. – jobermark Feb 19 '18 at 11:28
  • 1
    It is even worse. It tries to impress laymen as scientific but is nothing than superstition. – Wilhelm Feb 19 '18 at 12:22
  • 1
    There is nothing here with philosophical content. The ideas present are entirely bias. It does not address the question as asked. And it is purposefully rude. This post has no value. – jobermark Feb 19 '18 at 19:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.