Timeline for Would relatively primitive people really confuse technology with magic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2019 at 20:13 | comment | added | Separatrix | @Jay the answer to that is that there's no known example of it, so probably not. But technology now is orders of magnitude above what most primitive tribes faced when contacted, so it's not unreasonable that it could happen against current technology which is indistinguishable from some fairy tale grade magic (mirror mirror on the wall) | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 17:50 | comment | added | Jay | @Separatrix That's exactly my point/question! If I see someone hold up a box and make it do something that I can't explain, I don't think "it must be ghosts or evil spirits". I think, "it must be some technology that I don't understand". So my original question was, when primitive people see modern technology, do they think "ghosts or evil spirits", or do they think "must be a tool, like the bows and arrows we make, but much more complex". Whether that's some isolated tribe in the Amazon in the 21st century meeting oil company engineers or the Aztecs meeting Cortez or whatever. | |
| Jul 25, 2019 at 12:54 | comment | added | Separatrix | @Jay, I remember when the History Channel specialised in history. But even when presented with incontrovertible proof of ghosts, you'd be looking for a scientific explanation. That's just where we stand in the modern age in our culture. It's very hard for us to contemplate a culture that first thinks magic, then accepts technology when it's proven not to be magic. | |
| Jul 25, 2019 at 12:50 | comment | added | Jay | @Separatrix (Someone upvoted the question which brought it back to my attention, hence the necromancy.) Sure. I think of myself as a scientifically minded and open minded person. So like, I really doubt that there are such things as ghosts, but I wouldn't categorically say it's impossible and refuse to look at any evidence. Though I'll say that I have yet to see a History Channel documentary on paranormal phenomenon that caused me to question my doubts in the least. :-) | |
| Jul 25, 2019 at 12:39 | comment | added | Separatrix | @Jay, Throwback Thursday! You don't put magic and science together because you don't really believe in magic, therefore you will never consider something unexplained as magic always preferring to look for scientific or technological solution. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 20:36 | comment | added | Jay | 'the simple definition is "something we don't understand"' When I posted the original question I was thinking of "magic" as "supernatural" or "paranormal", involving spirits or psychic phenomenon or something of that sort. I don't understand how aspirin works -- I don't have the vaguest idea what the chemistry and biology behind it are -- but I don't suppose that it's evil spirits. Even if I don't understand what my ophthalmologist is doing, I don't put him in the same category as a psychic who claims to be able to talk to the dead. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 10:36 | comment | added | Benubird | Except that if every mobile phone contained a trained demon, it wouldn't be magic - demons would simply be an accepted part of science. The big problem is that, nowadays, "not real" is part of the definition of magic. So any real phenomena is not magic, by definition; magic does not exist, therefore nothing can be magic, and anything that looks like magic must be some technology we are not aware of. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 15:37 | comment | added | WhatRoughBeast | True, but only at the most superficial level. With a bit of experience, the phenomenon of butt-dialing arises, and that's a bit hard to accept as magic. | |
| Dec 31, 2015 at 8:43 | comment | added | Separatrix | My other point is that to the average idiot on the street, I mean user, it wouldn't make a difference if it was magic. They're never going to look or understand what they see either way. Whether or not a particular culture sees magic or technology is down to that particular culture. I'm not aware of a culture that sees "effective magic", magic is usually hidden. Visibly effective magic is either technology or religion (including devilry). In that sense cargo cults would be religion, not magic. | |
| Dec 31, 2015 at 5:52 | comment | added | Jay | ... and so would be ready to accept that a non-understood device is magic? Maybe that's just a long-winded way of re-asking my original question. | |
| Dec 31, 2015 at 5:52 | comment | added | Jay | If there really is a demon in the box, and someone concludes that there is a demon in the box, than they are not confusing technology with magic, but correctly recognizing magic when they see it! You do bring up an interesting point: In a culture where the idea of magic is dismissed, any non-understood device would presumably be assumed to be technological and not magical, by definition. I don't think there's ever been a culture that believed in magic but said technology was a myth. Even the most primitive human cultures use SOME tools. Could we point to a culture that believes in magic ... | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 16:07 | comment | added | Draco18s no longer trusts SE | @AndreiROM also make sure to finish the noon coffee, afternoon tea, evening energy drink, and the shot of 5-hour after dinner, depending on the hour. I've made a few bung posts at "reasonable" hours just because my mind was burned out from one thing or another. One answer at least was "I'm too weary from my own jQuery struggles to write any code, but here's the step-by-step." | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 14:49 | comment | added | AndreiROM | @trichoplax - point taken. New policy: finish morning coffee before writing anything on Stack Exchange. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 14:36 | comment | added | justhalf | So, black box hence indistinguishable? Btw, as soon as I read the question I did a search on this page for that Clarke's law, and I'm happy that someone included that =D | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 12:37 | history | edited | Separatrix | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
needs more Girl Genius
|
| Dec 29, 2015 at 10:42 | history | edited | Separatrix | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
punctuation
|
| Dec 29, 2015 at 9:46 | history | answered | Separatrix | CC BY-SA 3.0 |