I have been noticing throughout the comments section of the group, a rather one sided demographic. Any comment that has been supporting the side of magic has been down-voted. Now, I understand down-voting a comment for being ridiculous, or insulting, but none of them fell into that category. It seems that people down-voted these comments simply because they promoted magic.
If something is unclear to you, or against your own belief, you should not be so quick as to call it wrong. Instead, engage this person. Form a legitimate debate, instead of mindless contempt towards the opposing side. This is a problem that has existed for a while, in politics, and even more present, the internet. You have a freedom to speech, but please, make it something worth hearing.
I am not trying to enforce any rule with an iron fist, rather, to get this group to the place I always wanted it to be. A place of peaceful debate between two parties. I myself, am on the side of technology, and am proud of it! However, I do not dispel another's opinion simply because it does not mirror my own, I take it into consideration, and formulate an intelligent response.
The key to any successful debate, is to respect your opponent's opinion, even if it is ridiculous, which in this case it isn't even that. Because if you loose respect, and choose to dismiss the other side's argument so swiftly, you loose any right to your own argument. It is not a debate if you only intend to speak and not listen, we are not preachers, we are the men and women who dare to ask the important questions, and are prepared to receive the answers when they present themselves. I hope you take something from this, and I wish you good luck.

- Robert out.

first I read of this

That or people just thought the arguments were bullshit. That's a possibility too.

2371671 Agree, despite my slight contemplation on magic, itself. I do not want some endless bricking about which side has the cons and pros of each.

2371671 Sehr gut

2371696 Are you saying this is the first you heard of this? Well, scroll through the comments section, and see what I mean.

I was wondering when someone would bring this up.

The reason why its probably so disliked (magic, that is) is most people cant explain it, due to its inherent unexplainable nature. Some see this as a cop-out on the part of the author, as it can be classified as a deus ex machina. Others are just more comfortable with the excuse that science is fully explainable. Of course, this is assuming that people don't join this group for the sole purpose of cheering on technology's 'imminent and impending victory' over magic.

However, I would like to point out one simple fact:

"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clarke

How do we know that the reverse isn't true?

Does this place me on the side of magic? That would be unreasonable, and silly. I prefer to think of myself more as a hybrid. After all, why settle for just one, when both are available for use?

...Probably going to get flamed for my ideology and philosophy.

2371743 ?

2372325 Sprechen Sie Deutsch?

2372347
I was using hybrid with the scientific definition, not the one presented in south park. If it's an issue, however, I can always edit the post.

(Admittedly, I also don't watch south park, so I cant offer my opinion on said definition therein.)

As for shipping them together, where do you think the term 'Magitek' came from?

2371783 that's actually a pretty good question. What if the reverse is the same. That's why I like the apprentice adept series by piers anthony. It's about a man who can travel between two parallel realms, with the only distinguishing feature between the two is that on realm utilises science, and the other, magic.

Let the flaming begin.

2372332 No, sorry

2372537

Another factor we could take into count is our own mythology.

We had stories about magic and sorcery before we had a working printing press. How do we not know that our modern technology is not just an advancement on the tricks that people considered magic?

For example: Telekinesis, while a spell, is also the name for a psionic ability defined in meta-science (though, it seems to have been recently renamed psychokinesis by modern scholars). How do we know that the ponies we know and love are not Spellcasters, and not Psyker?

I guess what I'm trying to get across is this: What if their magic is actually just a branch of science, if not vice-versa?

I don't think I've read the apprentice's adept. I am, however, familiar with his humorous Xanth series. (Someone should make a crossover of both, just for the heck of it.)

The problem with magic arises when certain proponents of it engage in a double standard—they claim that magic has no real rules to limit it, so they feel justified in extrapolating beyond all reasonable limitations in order to let them overcome any obstacle.

But any system must have rules—for it is those rules that allow it to take form in the first place. Without rules and limitations, without that organization, it would be functionally unusable, as there would be no logical structure from which to start from. I don't mean that it would be merely "inexplicable", I mean that it would be completely irrational in every sense of the meaning. It would instead resemble something like omnipotence, where no work, energy, or time was needed to accomplish anything, and there would be no observable phenomena to act as the causes of the effects. Objects and events would simply come into being without rhyme or reason, lacking any conceivable (much less rational) explanations as to who, what, when, where, how or why.

When properly realized, magic systems would have plenty of rules. Just look at Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, TYPE-MOON, Dresden Files, or any half-decent fantasy franchise for that matter. Magic isn't boundless; it clearly has boundaries, rules which govern its abilities—just like science.

2371783 2372537

"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

-Arthur C. Clarke

How do we know that the reverse isn't true?

You two would be thinking of what is commonly known as Niven's Law (even though it isn't truly credited to Niven), an inverse corollary to Clarke's Third Law.
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

2372332 Want to, so bad.

I'm myself pretty much pragmatic.
Technology or Magic as long as it leads mankind to Victory, i don't really care.

2374469 On the same boat as you pal.

2371671 good man. Have a thumb up.

2374402 ;_;

2372615 good point. lets make a deal, you read all the apprentice adept, up to phaze doubt, and i will read xanth up to the foop book(forgot the exact title)