Here, the emphasis is on how the effects evoked in each trick including the sense of wonder are created. A complete trick is a complex entity, with a method that typically has multiple components. Explorations have already begun of several such components—e. Ideally, such studies will become more powerful, knitting together our knowledge of individual components, and allowing us to understand each magic trick in its entirety.
Lamont considers magic tricks as lacking sufficient structure for this to happen. There appear to be two reasons for this concern. But they can still be analyzed using approaches such as phrase-structure grammar 2 Chomsky, and psycho-linguistic experimentation see O'Brien et al.
In such approaches, appropriate selection of more basic elements and their rules of combination can let us understand aspects of a potentially infinite set of items. Methods in magic appear amenable to this, being composed of distinct components. Lamont provides a nice discussion of what some of these might be.
Note that there is no problem if a component is used for different purposes in different tricks—if its analysis is based on functional considerations as we have suggested , there will be no ambiguity in its role. Another source of variety mentioned is a lack of clear boundaries. In this view, a trick carried out in a slightly different way is a different entity; given the nearly infinite number of small differences possible in methods e. But this challenge has been faced—and met—in many other sciences.
For example, each individual animal is different and even changes over time. But this does not impede biology—this matter can be handled by the careful use of abstraction, with animals collected into groups of largely similar character. This approach could be readily applied to magic tricks, considering as equivalent those with little or no differences in how they are experienced—e. A more interesting factor—one obliquely referred to in Lamont —is what might be called contingency : different methods can often achieve the same effect, and no reasons may exist as to why one method should be chosen over another.
However, this might be handled by grouping together those tricks with similar effects, and focusing on the aspects common to the group. Another approach would be to define a particular trick as using a particular method; the issue would then reduce to one of explaining its use in a given performance. The choice made could depend on a large number of factors, such as the tricks used in the rest of the performance, or how the magician is feeling at that moment.
Such contingency reflects the artistic nature of a magic performance, but does not rule out the possibility of scientific study. Given that humans respond in roughly similar ways to a given stimulus, there are stable regularities in what results once a particular method and context have been selected. If this did not occur, magic could never have become a popular form of entertainment. And such regularities can be studied in a systematic way 3.
Regarding possibilities at the highest level of our framework systematization , Lamont claims that the lack of structure in tricks also prevents their classification in a principled way. Note, however, that systematic analysis is just one level of our framework: even if this were somehow entirely impossible, the other levels would remain.
And contrary to Lamont's assertion, we have never claimed that a science of magic requires a complete inventory or classification. Although, a complete inventory or classification is a laudable goal, it is not a necessary one: such systems can often be valuable even when incomplete—e.
But even assuming that magic tricks have little structure, would this necessarily prevent their systematic classification? Various taxonomies for magic tricks clearly exist see e. But although natural kinds can facilitate classification, they are not necessary for this. It is entirely possible, for example, to relate in a systematic way designs described by continuous parameters, even when these parameters interact with each other in complex ways see Woodbury, As to how a principled classification might be created for magic tricks: this is a complex issue, involving a great amount of empirical detail.
This paper and our two earlier ones are in some ways preliminary exercises in the philosophy of magic 4 , concerned with issues of a more general nature. But as an example of how such a venture might proceed, we have elsewhere proposed a way to classify methods of misdirection Kuhn et al.
This is based on two principles: i rely on psychological mechanisms as much as possible, and ii have the highest levels of the taxonomy center around the mechanisms affected, and not the mechanisms that control these.
For details, see Kuhn et al. These principles greatly reduce the number of arbitrary decisions that typically enter into a classification of magic tricks see Lamont, ; as such, we believe the result to be a fairly natural one. Other classifications are of course possible. For instance, some classifications may be better than ours for particular purposes, such as the teaching of prospective magicians. And even in established sciences such as biology, proposed taxonomies can vary—e.
But if history is any guide, it can be done. Our proposal—or one like it—therefore appears to have some potential to help researchers use magic to better understand perception, memory, and reasoning. And it could equally well enable knowledge of perception, memory, and reasoning to help better understand magic.
These very powerful examples illustrate that if people are sufficiently distracted they can fail to see a gorilla even when one is right in front of their eyes. Magicians frequently exploit these attentional limitations by misdirecting your attention and so preventing you from seeing their secret moves. In some of our research we have shown show how this can be used to prevent you from seeing fully visible events.
In the lighter trick , for example, a magician is seated at a table across from the viewer a. He picks up the lighter and flicks it on c—f. He pretends to take the flame away and make it vanish, providing a gaze cue as misdirection away from his other hand. At f , the lighter is visibly dropped into his lap g—h. The lighter appears to have vanished. Although the lighter is dropped in full view, half of the viewers completely fail to see this happen because they are distracted.
What this, and other tricks show, is that people often fail to see things even when they are looking straight at them. Festival of Social Science — Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire. Edition: Available editions United Kingdom. Explanation: Well, like every other magic trick, Angel used deception! Angel removed one foot from the shell of his shoe and stepped upward with the now-concealed leg. Meanwhile, his pants-leg and shoe remain behind.
This again was made popular by Criss Angel, who even made it look convincing by dropping his show to the bottom to show that there's nothing but water below him. Explanation: Angel was in fact walking atop plexiglass pillars! Plexiglass has a refractive index that's very similar to water's and is nearly invisible in water. How many of you remember David Blaine pushing a card through a window? I always wondered how he did it, till I read an article that explained his modus operandi. Explanation: Such a trick requires the participation of another person with an identical deck of cards on the other end of the window.
As part of the act, the volunteer shows the card to everyone but the magician. In the act, the partner on the other side of the glass gets to see it to, who slaps the card against the glass, making it seem like impromptu street magic.
Source: HalifaxVideos. Ever seen a person being hacked by a guillotine, yet escaping unscathed? It's just a smart trick employed by magicians to entertain the audience. Explanation: While the upper part employs a real, deadly blade like the one used in a real guillotine , the lower part has secret compartments.
You must have seen women being suspended in mid-air without support?
0コメント