No Jon I am just showing how it works in courts and how similar it is to magic.
They do not establish the truth in court it is not a science but more of an art like magic.

A fact is not necessarily the truth but what is perceived as the truth. It was a “fact” that the world was flat, the truth was the world was and is globe. The facts have changed but the truth remains the same.

Ah, once around the notion of belief than.

Much simpler to explore the conditions of conviction, belief, faith and expectation than to wallow in imprecise language.

I know this because I remember someone on television reading something that sounded like what I wanted to hear at the time cause I was scared.

Subtle proving or Direct Proving , Proof, Evidence, Facts, and so on relate to magic which can be understood by study of the law of evidence as it is used in courts. It all relates to the topic at hand. Study of math proof and scientific things and philosophy are irrelevant to this topic or least unproductive. If you study the law of evidence much of it relates to magic. The study of the law of evidence is of benefit I think. You see what the advocate and magician are both doing is trying to persuade people in a live situation and we can learn from them as we have something in common. I can't see that we have anything in common with philosophers and scientists so why study them.

Is there a graphic of a smiley face laughing so hard it pees itself?

Jonathan, I think I fell for those same words.

To get beyond vague language and tiresome dialog that skirts issues... we need the basics.

Tommy, you keep bringing up courts yet have not demonstrated an understanding of the principles used in a court or the history of those principles. You may as well be saying that chocolate eggs come from the Easter Bunny. The statement is true from the perspective of a young child, yet omits many other factors like cocoa plants, milk, sugar, tinfoil, cooking and so on. As a magician discussing a subject among magicians it's pretty much our job to separate the imaginary from the physical in such matters. Among muggles we can simply tell them the Easter Bunny made the egg. Among children we also need to make sure the parents say it's okay to give them the easter egg.

Posted: Jun 7, 2006 10:01am
Quote:

On 2006-06-07 09:51, Josh the Superfluous wrote:
Quote

On 2006-06-07 09:34, tommy wrote:
I can't see that we have anything in common with philosophers and scientists so why study them.

Is there a graphic of a smiley face laughing so hard it pees itself?

Jonathan, I think I fell for those same words.

It's cool Josh. Out of the mouths of babes (comes spittle).

One of the distinctions between a child and an adult is that a child confounds the ideas of belief and knowledge.

When someone can examine what they believe, and backtrack to what first brought the idea to their attention and why they chose then to believe it and why they choose to continue to believe it... they are thinking more like an adult. Taking responsibility for ones thinking is a significant step. The world goes from simply "I know that" to more complex patterns like "I saw enough instances to believe that...".

Nothing wrong with being a "Lost Boy" in magic. Nice place to hide out woolgathering and avoiding cogent thought in favor of fuzzy fantasy.

Posted: Jun 7, 2006 10:07am
Getting back to the topic at hand...

There is little point in offering a proof to those who are not inclined to care or believe what is offered.

Before an argument or proof can have any meaning it must be deemed necessary. Then comes a tough question... who will construct the proof? Do we trust the fox to prove to the hens that the number of eggs is the same and the walls to the hen house are all solid and secure?

If we accept the theatrical convention that anything can happen safely during the show, do we even care to prove things?

What specifically do we want to "prove" anyway?

Whit's example of managing the rope switch off handedly between tricks is a great example. The evidence is presented and to those who have any lingering doubts about the rope, it is shown again as an afterthought and outside of the flow of the act.

“Before an argument or proof can have any meaning it must be deemed necessary.”

One the principles of the law of evidence is that irrelevant evidence is deemed unnecessary and not allowed in.

“If we accept the theatrical convention that anything can happen safely during the show, do we even care to prove things?”

One the principles of the law of evidence is that you don’t need to prove things that are not an issue.

“What specifically do we want to "prove" anyway?”

One the principles of the law of evidence is that you put your case.

So what's new?

Okay we are looking at the same set of railroad tracks here.

Can we discuss the distinctions between demonstrating magic and pleading ones case before a judge?

Also note that in a performance ALL context may be relevant as it is pertinent. While in a court one does not ordinarily plead that magic was used to create the circumstance if not the actual crime itself.

The Meaning of Evidence: Evidence is something which tends prove of disprove any fact or conclusion. In a trial it means the information which is put before the court in order to prove in issue, i.e . in a criminal those facts which the prosecution must establish in order to its case and defendant establish to defence.

Evidence may take the following forms.

- Testimony, i,e. oral statements by witnesses on oath.
- Documents produced for the inspection of the court.
- Real evidence, ie exhibits and other material objects; and admissions of fact.

Evidence in the performance of magic may take other forms and that is a distinction but not the only one. A magic performance is not a court case obviously, I never suggested it was. The principles and logic upon which the law of evidence are based are the same as the logic and principles when we talk of proof in magic. If it was allowed I would write up a trick and explain how it is the same. One can understand something but not able to explain it clearly. I would suggest one study the law of evidence and see for yourself. When you understand it then compare it with how we prove things in magic and make up your own mind..

Take my advice and do as you please.

The ONLY time evidence and conviction come into play in "magic" is out side of our craft.

Remember, they don't care, they are willing to go along for the ride under theatrical presumptions.

If you make them care however... well watch out! Our society does not take kindly to charlatans (at least till recently)

Another thing to remember... a proof requires a cogent or compelling argument. If the audience is not in the mood to be cogent or follow an argument, the offered evidence or "proof" is just a distraction to the entertainment. On the visual side, most such look like fussing which seems out of place as well as awkward.

I give up.

You guys lost me a while back.

Casual Soul, That smile makes you look tense.

But does it prove he is tense?

evidence in favor... but perhaps the shades suggest a better explaination involving a lack of visine?

You guys are just hilarious I think you did a great job evaluating the evidence Jon :

Is OK CS, I only "suggested" another explanation. No attempt at proof here.

It's all in your head, anyway.