|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts 
|
I like Michael Baker's idea of directing proof on a sliding scale.
POOF!
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27434 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-06-05 12:19, kregg wrote: I don't see much grey between "you tell them" and "they tell themselves". Lost on this one... help?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts
|
There are several degrees of "proof." You can "rub their noses in it" (not so subtle), or steer them toward their own conclusions like in some of Michael's examples, or do nothing at all and just set the scenerio where they can discover it for themselves.
So, I see three distinct degrees of proving, and a whole range of possibilities between each one. 1) Blatant, direct proof 2) Subtle hints, usually verbal or physical, leading their thought processes in the direction we wish them to go and 3) No hints, leaving them to speculate on their own, assisted by whatever we were able to "plant" in their mind along the way Much of the time the indirect proofs are simply "kickers" used to reinforce what we've already done.
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
I like the use of the con man terms "hook" and "come on," even though they are not directly related to the subject of "proofs," they operate in a similar way.
The hook is discovered by the sucker, or pointed out to him by a fellow audience member (shill). It may be that the card's corner is bent, or the pea is slightly exposed under one of the shells. Because the spectator discovers this "unfair advantage" for himself, it is much more powerful than the "come-on." In the "come-on" the operator offers to help the spectator, make it easier for him, or give him some help: "I'll do it one-handed." "Look, I will put a paper clip on the Ace." The come-on is used to keep the spectator interested and in the game. It is extremely useful in magic, as a way of getting the spectator to stay interested in seeing a repetitive effect like the ambitious card "just one more" time: "I'll do it face-up." "I'll let you do it." In the same way, proofs can be very powerful when hidden like Easter eggs to be discovered by the spectator. Partly, this is because the performer has put himself, the trickster, out of the calculations of the spectator. The spectator thinks the performer is "unaware" of the information he has "discovered" for himself, and therefore he does not figure in the possibility of deceit on the part of the operator. It is like salting a mine with gold. It isn't as good if you have to "show" the gold to the sucker. It is better if he finds it himself. It is even better if he doesn't think you know about it at all. The more the spectator thinks he has the advantage, the more secure he will be in his illusion. |
|||||||||
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6110 Posts
|
"...various forms of evidence are typically used, and layered so as to build an illusion as close to perfect as we can push it." - Michael Baker
Wonderful post Michael. |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 15717 Posts
|
I think we need to understand the difference between proof and evidence.
Evidence is any fact which tends to persuade. Proof is that which is accepted as fact. Example: (a) You arrive at the train station platform to find no one waiting and no train in sight. This “evidence” “tends to persuade” you that you have missed the train. (b) You arrive at the train station platform to see your train pulling away and you “accept” this as “proof” that you missed you missed the train. That’s how I see it. I see the subtle things in magic as evidence and proof as things they accept as fact. Example: (y) I take out a pack of cards and spread them face up and they look mixed and the jokers appear to have been left in the deck, so I remove them. The removing of the jokers is evidence that “tends to persuade” them that there is no set up. It proves nothing really it is just a subtle bit of evidence that nudges them to think what I want them to think. (z) I take out a deck and shuffle and cut. In this case I am asking them to “accept” as a fact, as proof, that the cards are not set up. One is not better than the other and we can use both but subtle evidence is kind of cute little touches and I like them. But that does not mean I don’t like to use proof. That’s how I think I see it anyway.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Michael Baker Eternal Order Near a river in the Midwest 11172 Posts
|
Tommy,
I don't think you could be more right concerning evidence and proof. It also opens up an entire world of new thoughts. Evidence "discovered" and processed in the context of the trick, may ultimately become proof if, in the spectator's mind, it factors into the equation, as we intend it to; that is, it goes to and aids the illusion. Evidence directly given during the course of the trick may do the same, provided doubt and suspicion either do not manifest, or are satisfied. In either case, our goal is conviction in the spectators' minds that things are as we want them to think they are. I am also thinking that the distinction of any "proofs" are likely to be an exercise in hair-spliting, that is, some factors going to the direct, while others in the same proof being subtle. From this, it may be deduced that some proof consists of a combination of evidence, both subtle and direct. How much of each to include is the balance that we as magicians choreograph into our tricks, and it is that balance that is actually the sliding scale. In this sense, Jonathan's assertion may be correct, but the hard line is drawn in regard to evidence, and not necessarily proof. If we pick up a silver dollar and drop it into a bucket with a loud clunk, most people would assume that there is now a silver dollar lying in the bottom of the bucket, and most would then dismiss it from their thoughts, at least in so far as to not suspect anything is other than all evidence indicates. To them, the evidence, most of which is presented directly, leads to proof. You have displayed both a bucket and a coin, and you have performed the action of dropping the coin into the bucket. However, the sound of the coin hitting the bottom of the bucket may be a form of subtle evidence, also leading to proof. Would it make a difference in this series of evidence, would there be a change between subtle and direct, and more specifically in regard to the sound of the coin hitting the bucket if just prior to dropping the coin in, we ask the audience to listen? ~michael
~michael baker
The Magic Company |
|||||||||
|
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts
|
Tommy- in your case A, no. Actually, I take public transportation often, and evidence suggests to me that the train is late or cancelled; I just missed the announcement of the fact.
The trick is knowing what the spectator will accept as evidence, and what's going too far. I chuck a ball out into the audience, then have whoever catches it come up and help me levitate it- common evidence suggests that both A) the spectator is random, and B) the ball is ungimmicked. If at any point I ask the spectator, "Now, have I ever seen you before?" I've just cast doubt on both A and B, regardless of how they answer. (I cringe when I hear a magician ask that because they've just offered "proof" without evidence- how do I know they didn't pull them aside before the show?)
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
CasualSoul Special user Edmonton, Canada 541 Posts
|
Ok, maybe my brain isn't working tonight, but isn't "evidence" just a synonym for "proof"? I don't get how there is any notable difference in the meaning between the two words unless either:
a) we know the thoughts of our audience with certainty; or b) we are assigning a special distinction for the purpose of this discussion.
"Open their mind by performing the impossible"
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27434 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-06-05 23:50, Michael Baker wrote: New to who? From writers to Lawyers and salespeople, the basic rhetoric of building conviction and establishing consensus has been studied since ancient Rome. Quote: On 2006-06-06 03:15, CasualSoul wrote:... a) we know the thoughts of our audience with certainty... not so likely. Proof? The term does have a specific meaning in mathematics. Outside of mathematics it seems to mean "twice the percent content of alcohol by weight" which seems appropriate around here. A thing is not proved in context till all other options are ruled out. Evidence is data offered in context. Perhaps the term "firmly established presumption about the context" would be more appropriate.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 15717 Posts
|
I look at it in legal context because it not too dissimilar as we are trying to persuade. As an advocate tries to persuade a jury by presenting evidence with the tools of his trade which are words so the magician tries to persuade an audience by presenting evidence with "tools of his trade" - which are what? I am not sure what they are! What would you say they are Jon?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27434 Posts
|
? proof that someone (if not many here) could do with some time reading. Start with rhetoric and then on to the methodology of persuasion.
For the lazy who presume themselves too clever to burden themselves with an education, try "logical fallacies" via google search and go from there. When we have all gotten familiar with pacing and leading and anchoring... Or is writing more important than reading?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6110 Posts
|
Evidence implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it.
Proof is the effect of Evidence that proves or tends to prove the existence of a particular fact. With solid Evidence the Proof is stronger. The coin was in the hand. The hand closed and when opened it was gone. This is not to say that circumstantial Evidence is not enough to convince. The coin was put into the hand. The hand closed and when opened it was gone. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27434 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-06-06 08:31, Jaz wrote: Perhaps better for most here to start with The Structure of Magic Volume One and expect to be tested on the language skills therein. Then on to logic and rhetoric. note to mods: see what happens when you don't allow editing AND permit the system to lose the intended edits on posts when an edited post does not save. 
Posted: Jun 6, 2006 8:45am Quote: On 2006-06-02 16:54, Michael Baker wrote:...I am now starting to consider the fact that both have equal merit... How can you know when someone accepts what you wish to offer as a proof?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 15717 Posts
|
The truth hurts.
 Thank you all the same.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27434 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-06-06 09:13, tommy wrote: Which truth? Truth to who? hurts who where? Who is you? By all do you mean entirely? The same as what? Meta-model exercise.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6110 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-06-06 08:42, Jonathan Townsend wrote: |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27434 Posts
|
To accept something as evidence for (or against) a proposition requires a framework both of reasoning and context.
Without that active framework of reasoning (line of thought) the data is impertinent. Likewise without establishing the pertinence of the context, both the data and the reasoning are impertinent. See earlier post asking about accepting something as proof.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 22242 Posts
|
The big difference in "evidence vs. proof" if you will allow me for a second.
Evidence is something that is examined. Proof as you are using it is "offered". Proof is more something YOU do, evidence is more something they see. Sublte but important difference. You "prove" a deck is real by saying "this is a real deck" or a NORMAL DECK. "evidence" as it is being used, is in how you handle it, let them handle it, and so forth. To me "evidence" just kind of is. It is there and is what it is. "Proof" is something that is being offered and therefore more under scrutiany. Now it is important to mention not all will see the evidence and need proof offered. With that said I feel most magicians rely too much on proof as opposed to letting the evidence speak for itself. Can both be used? Well yes.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6110 Posts
|
Darn! My previous post looks awful!
People will decide whether supplied evidence is or isn't enough proof. That's why there's hung juries, false or rightful convictions. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Subtle proving or direct proving (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jun 5, 2006 04:19 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2025 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|