Dynamo Magician Impossible

[Azrael 5]

Just as using actors to play along is a lazy method to perform, it is a lazy guess at a method. A rule of thumb in magic is if you think it was done with actors, you have no idea.

Do stooges count as actors? Dynamo performs very lazy magic Is all I can say.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well I guess sometimes 'woo' IS in the eye of the beholder Marplots.

So we have 2 votes for Penn & Teller...they stand alone...?

No. In fact, most magicians do not promote "woo".

A certain magician who goes by The Amazing--I forget his name--has devoted his life to debunking paranormal claims, and he went on to form some kind of education foundation devoted to critical thinking. Houdini spent a lot of time debunking psychic mediums. There's also Banacheck and D.J. Grothe, both connected with JREF.

But there's a lot of space between actively debunking paranormal claims and promoting them (as with Uri Geller).

Most professional magicians explicitly claim to be performing illusions and not to have paranormal powers. So no, Penn and Teller do not stand alone in this regard.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Derren Brown also works against the woo machine. There is criticism concerning his alleged methods and red herrings of choice, but he's clear on psychics, astrology and the afterlife.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I have nothing against the use of stooges, as in planted assistants, when they are part of a larger ploy, but I believe an audience should consist of actual spectators who see the trick as presented. There should be no special cues and no phony reactions.

I know that the presence of a camera will skew many people's reactions, but I can't stand manufactured responses.

 

[Navigator]

No. In fact, most magicians do not promote "woo".

A certain magician who goes by The Amazing--I forget his name--has devoted his life to debunking paranormal claims, and he went on to form some kind of education foundation devoted to critical thinking. Houdini spent a lot of time debunking psychic mediums. There's also Banacheck and D.J. Grothe, both connected with JREF.

But there's a lot of space between actively debunking paranormal claims and promoting them (as with Uri Geller).

Most professional magicians explicitly claim to be performing illusions and not to have paranormal powers. So no, Penn and Teller do not stand alone in this regard.

AdMan said this recently:

This forum is for talking about conjuring, which is creating the illusion of supernatural effects with natural methods.

This is promoting wooism.

AdMan may be incorrect in regard to what conjuring is about.

Debunking paranormal claims is a good thing, because in reality there is no such thing as paranormal/supernatural and magicians would know this to be true, because they know that every one of their conjuring illusions is trickery.

It takes one to know one, and anyone who offers large sums of money to anyone who can prove that paranormal/supernatural effects are real, knows that the money is safe, OR they think that maybe there is such a thing and they would love to see it, which of course would signify that they are not convinced either way and remain unbiased in that regard.

The 'prize money' is smoke and mirrors - the money is safe on that account...there is no threat that the money will ever be claimed. What it acts as is a tool to entice and entrap and expose, so it does serve a purpose in that regard which is essentially a good thing, but ultimately it is an uphill battle.

The high ground belongs to the woo.

Magicians in developing illusions which serve to create supernatural effects are flaming the embers of supernatural beliefs and so are contributing to and in some way even relying upon the public propensity to believe in the supernatural in order to survive in their careers as magicians.

 

[jsfisher]

AdMan said this recently:

This forum is for talking about conjuring, which is creating the illusion of supernatural effects with natural methods.

This is promoting wooism.

Your reasoning fascinates me. Care to connect the dots, because I'm missing a step or two getting from A to B.

 

[Navigator]

Your reasoning fascinates me. Care to connect the dots, because I'm missing a step or two getting from A to B.

Can you elaborate jsfisher?

 

[AdMan]

Can you elaborate jsfisher?

Not answering for jsfisher, but there is a difference between performing magic/mentalism--sometimes with a disclaimer--for entertainment, and actually claiming to have psychic or supernatural powers.

 

[jsfisher]

Can you elaborate jsfisher?

Sure. You said this:

AdMan said this recently:
This forum is for talking about conjuring, which is creating the illusion of supernatural effects with natural methods.

Let's call that A. Then you said:

This is promoting wooism.

Let's call that B.

Please tell us how you got from premise A to conclusion B.

 

[jsfisher]

Not answering for jsfisher, but there is a difference between performing magic/mentalism--sometimes with a disclaimer--for entertainment, and actually claiming to have psychic or supernatural powers.

And it is not a subtle distinction at all. I don't understand why it is eluding Navigator.

 

[AdMan]

And it is not a subtle distinction at all. I don't understand why it is eluding Navigator.

It is true that for some performers, the distinction is less clear than for others.

E.g., you have people like Uri Geller, who earlier openly claimed real psychic powers and now prefers to call himself a "mystifier", without yet admitting he uses trickery. While he's an (admittedly) incompetent magician and lectures at magicians' conventions, I'm sure many people still believe he's got actual powers.

At a panel discussion last week at TAM there was quite a heated exchange between Jamy Ian Swiss and Mark Edward. Although Edward does not claim any actual psychic powers, Swiss strongly berated him on stage for not using a disclaimer during his shows making it clear he's using trickery, and for profiting in the past through his claims that he was genuine. As I understand it, Edward still lets his audience make up its own mind as to whether he's real or not. I agree with Jamy that that kind of act can in fact promote woo.

Where I clearly think Navigator is wrong is when he or she generalizes like this:

Magicians in developing illusions which serve to create supernatural effects are flaming the embers of supernatural beliefs and so are contributing to and in some way even relying upon the public propensity to believe in the supernatural in order to survive in their careers as magicians.

 

[Navigator]

Please tell us how you got from premise A to conclusion B.

A: Conjuring, is creating the illusion of supernatural effects...

B: This (conjuring) is promoting wooism

If the idea is to create an illusion that suggests supernatural goings on, then this promotes the belief in supernatural goings on.

However, as AdMan has said, I am generalizing, because some conjurers apparently make sure to tell the audience that their tricks have nothing to do with the so-called supernatural because there is no such thing as supernatural.

This would mean that they are not doing tricks with in mind to have the audience think in any way that the tricks are possible only because of some supernatural assistance.

In that case, those conjurers are not creating tricks in order to create the illusion of supernatural effects?

The conjurers who make the disclaimer cannot help the fact that some people believe in supernatural things and might attribute the illusions to be possible only because there is some aspect of the supernatural helping the conjurer make the tricks possible.

Some may even think that the conjurer is making such disclaimers in order to distract people from believing that they really are not getting any assistance from supernatural sources when they most definitely are, so a disclaimer can work as a double deception as far as some woo are concerned.

Since this thread is about one particular conjurer - Dynamo -in watching him I see he does not tell people that his tricks are the result of quick hands, human assistance, explainable process etc...he goes out of his way to act as if he really is doing something supernatural, like when he makes a show of apparently reading peoples minds, he gives the impression he is actually reading peoples minds.

There are even comments you can hear from people amazed and wondering how the trick was done - often the comments are woo-based.

He allows this to happen rather than telling people there is nothing supernatural about his tricks.

There is nothing supernatural about any conjurers tricks.

However, allowing people to think that there is, has to be supporting wooist thinking.

It might be argued that you cannot tell people how to think, and if they choose to believe a conjurers illusions are really only possibly through some form of supernatural intervention, then that is not your fault, but it is a more valid argument to say that if you do something which can influence how a person might think, then you are encouraging that kind of thinking, so are directly responsible for helping to promote that kind of thinking.

 

[jsfisher]

A: Conjuring, is creating the illusion of supernatural effects...

B: This (conjuring) is promoting wooism

If the idea is to create an illusion that suggests supernatural goings on, then this promotes the belief in supernatural goings on.

That is just a simple restatement of the conclusion. You are providing no depth to your reasoning whatsoever.

Conjuring is the art and craft of creating an illusion that something impossible has taken place. Those of use without any leanings towards the supernatural may ponder, "How'd he do that?", to a real good performance, or for some of us, "My! she did that extremely well!"

What's the typical woo-ster likely to say? "Gee, how'd that conjurer do that?"

It is only the shyster -- Uri Geller being the poster boy -- that might use simple tricks to promote an actual belief in the supernatural. I can do the same with simple physics demonstrations. Does that mean physics promotes wooism?

People like Uri Geller are the problem, not conjuring.


ETA: and Dynamo is still a crappy magician.

 

[Navigator]

That is just a simple restatement of the conclusion. You are providing no depth to your reasoning whatsoever.

Conjuring is the art and craft of creating an illusion that something impossible has taken place. Those of use without any leanings towards the supernatural may ponder, "How'd he do that?", to a real good performance, or for some of us, "My! she did that extremely well!"

What's the typical woo-ster likely to say? "Gee, how'd that conjurer do that?"

It is only the shyster -- Uri Geller being the poster boy -- that might use simple tricks to promote an actual belief in the supernatural. I can do the same with simple physics demonstrations. Does that mean physics promotes wooism?

People like Uri Geller are the problem, not conjuring.


ETA: and Dynamo is still a crappy magician.

Ah okay jsfisher - I wasn't trying to be personal.

For what it is worth, I think every thing is magical and I understand there is great thought and work in learning craft and I need to respect the effort involved.

My bad.


I am utterly amazed at human accomplishment in creating a machine out of rock - Great Apes! That is just Real magic as far as i am concerned.


From watching Dynamo I think he is a nice Human Being and I appreciate his efforts and concerns.

If you think I might be under his spell, no I am not. I like the Bigger Magic of Reality and am kind of under its spell.

Also I now realize I have some bias against 'magicians' probably more than I did with Christianity, which I also had a bias against for a while.
It stems from childhood, and disappointment. children don't know any better and will believe anything...at least once...

I am dealing with that in the Now, and will look into those Magi names given as examples of how magic is done, with thanks...I bow out of this thread.

/***

 

[Garrette]

That is just a simple restatement of the conclusion. You are providing no depth to your reasoning whatsoever.

Conjuring is the art and craft of creating an illusion that something impossible has taken place. Those of use without any leanings towards the supernatural may ponder, "How'd he do that?", to a real good performance, or for some of us, "My! she did that extremely well!"

What's the typical woo-ster likely to say? "Gee, how'd that conjurer do that?"

It is only the shyster -- Uri Geller being the poster boy -- that might use simple tricks to promote an actual belief in the supernatural. I can do the same with simple physics demonstrations. Does that mean physics promotes wooism?

People like Uri Geller are the problem, not conjuring.


ETA: and Dynamo is still a crappy magician.

I think it is a misunderstanding regarding premise A. In post 72 Navigator makes it clear that he does not include those with disclaimers among those creating illusions with supernatural effect.

 

[marplots]

jsfisher, If you have no trouble distinguishing the two (conjuring and the supernatural), aren't you an example that argues against the case you with to make? How about granting the rest of humanity the wit you grant yourself?

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, If you have no trouble distinguishing the two (conjuring and the supernatural), aren't you an example that argues against the case you with to make? How about granting the rest of humanity the wit you grant yourself?

That is not my point.

Navigator alleged that a forum for conjuring promotes woo. Navigators conclusion is not based on what conjuring is or isn't, but how it is or could be used by less than noble people. It is not conjuring itself that promotes woo, nor does a forum for discussing conjuring.

As I said in passing in one of my posts, physics can also be used to promote woo. That doesn't mean physics promotes woo, nor does a forum for discussing physics.

People promote woo, and they can use whatever means they find effective. Navigator's conclusion is faulty. He blames the method, not the perpetrator.

If I was (or still am) unclear, I apologize.

 

[marplots]

That is not my point.

Navigator alleged that a forum for conjuring promotes woo. Navigators conclusion is not based on what conjuring is or isn't, but how it is or could be used by less than noble people. It is not conjuring itself that promotes woo, nor does a forum for discussing conjuring.

As I said in passing in one of my posts, physics can also be used to promote woo. That doesn't mean physics promotes woo, nor does a forum for discussing physics.

People promote woo, and they can use whatever means they find effective. Navigator's conclusion is faulty. He blames the method, not the perpetrator.

If I was (or still am) unclear, I apologize.

I apologize too. I probably should have made the point with navigator instead.

In my view, the genesis is with the person who has woo tendencies. If those are exploited, by whatever means, the exploiter has an ethical taint. If the process stops with the wooster, the conjurer can't be blamed any more than a sunset can be blamed for inspiring religious awe.

The difficult thing, and the thing that keeps woo around, is when the exploiter and the exploited share some wooish notion. In that case, it's recursive and there's no one in the mix who is being unethical (or doesn't have to be). The best that can be done is to stand outside the tent and try to point out the Emperor has no clothes.

 

[Navigator]

That is not my point.

Navigator alleged that a forum for conjuring promotes woo.

I know I said I bow out but since I am being spoken about, I just want to clarify I never meant to allege that that a forum for conjuring promotes woo.
I don;t think I ever said anything like that. I was talking specifically about conjuring tricks and Magicians who use wooish methods in their presentations are promoting wooism, and when I was corrected about generalizing I accepted this and changed my expression.

I checked out the 3 or 4 names given and feel there needs to be far more Magicians on that list in order to steer me further from any more generalizations. Is there a guild of decent magicians? A growing movement?

Thanks

 

[Navigator]

In my view, the genesis is with the person who has woo tendencies. If those are exploited, by whatever means, the exploiter has an ethical taint. If the process stops with the wooster, the conjurer can't be blamed any more than a sunset can be blamed for inspiring religious awe.

If there are no more gullible people the con-artist thus has no potential victims.

The sun cannot be said to be promoting anything consciously or unconsciously.
so is not an accurate analogy.