I didn't say there was no phenomena I said there was no credible phenomena. It's the difference between teleportation being an acknowledged thing that happens even if people aren't sure how or why and spontaneous human combustion being a thing that a friend of a roommate's niece swears happened to her cousin. Admittedly I didn't phrase it the best.
@Chronocidal did a much better job at that.
Why wouldn't they believe in magic? Is it a terminology thing? Would it help if I said "an Applied Thaumaturgist manipulated the Thaumatic Field to induce an Exothermic Reaction" instead of "a Wizard used Magic to cast Fireball"?
...okay. I think we need to go back through this.
So, first off: 'magic' is a word that means 'phenomena that are neither observed nor explained by science'. i.e. definitionally if you can see it happening but it's a mystery why, it's not magic; it's just reality working in a way we don't understand. Gravity wasn't magic before we came up with a working theory on how it operates. If you have a working theory for what happens and can't observe it - like some quantum physics, I believe - it is also not magic. And, like, we all use shit we don't understand on a day-to-day basis and that's not magic either.
I started this chain with: 'Magic existing has absolutely zero correlation to whether aliens exit; it literally makes no probabilistic difference, and will not make people more likely to assume the second if the first is true.'
You responded to that with something that comes across as scientists having a
known but unexplained phenomenon that they thought alien technology could
explain.
I responded articulating what I took from that post, and saying that a post about a
known but unexplained phenomenon being potentially
explained by alien technology and science that is more advanced than our own is the opposite of the claim 'knowing one thing that we, in reality, do not know to be true means the characters should be naturally more credulous about every other piece of bullshit,
regardless of source'. I stand by this position; if you are using the scientific method to
explain a thing that is
known but unexplained, you are just doing more science. You are not expressing a belief in magic.
You then replied to say that there was
no known but unexplained phenomenon in your example. Your example retroactively became even more stupid than the original peeve ( 'knowing one thing that we, in reality, do not know to be true means the characters should be naturally more credulous about every other piece of bullshit,
regardless of source') as you made explicit that there was no phenomenon to be
explained. Thus you were not describing scientists engaging in critical reassessment of their knowledge in light of new information; you were describing people with no connection to science or technology at all who happened to be lucky enough to be first contact with aliens.
@Chronocidal then interjected to
agree with my initial response to your post. They appear to believe they were agreeing with you, but if you read what they say they hold the same position I do -
observed but unexplained phenomena that might be
explained by new knowledge should be investigated to see if the new knowledge
explains them.
You then seem to have talked yourself around to
agreeing with my original point! Despite having opposed it to begin with! You just seem to not realise that you explicitly stated that there was
no known but unexplained phenomenon in your response to my response to your original post (sorry about this sentence, it's just very awkwardly worded).
And a scientist may
believe in magic, but they can neither
observe nor
explain it; it is not something that is replicable either in a lab or in the wild. If there was a phenomena where you could actually corelate animal sacrifice in a specific ritual with specific weather patterns, no matter how weakly, that would
not be magic. It would be an
observed but unexplained phenomenon. It would be worth looking at in the light of new knowledge.