How would a (DND) Wizard trick scientists into believing he is using science?

[Xar Zarath]

(This is a copy from a thread I started on another forum so if it looks similar, bear with me)

Lets say a Wizard as per dnd 3.5e, full Wizard 20 with appropriate WBL managed to visit our world. He doesn't want to restrict his magic use at all, meaning that he uses them in public frequently at whim and doesn't bother trying to hide it. However he doesn't want all the scientists to freak out or anything. Specifically, he wants his magic to seem to have scientific explanations.

By which he needs to make sure that magic or at least his Wizardry fits into what is the accepted view of what science and technology can do today. However, he doesn't want to change science though or create any new scientific fields or magitech or any of that. He doesn't want to change this world so he's not going to start making any new theories up about tech and sciences and stuff.

How does this Wizard go about it then? What exactly would he need to do to fake his way out of suspicion?

(Also for this scenario, the Wizard has technomancy/cybermancy spells as per d20 Modern/Urban Arcana, so he can tech magic it up a little to better cloak his powers)

One way I can immediately think of is going to James Randi and then failing the are you a psychic tests spectacularly. Once people think you're a fraud, they wont really bother you.

[eggynack]

Just have him say he's using science, probably. The basic assumption of most rational people is that any event happening before them has a naturalistic explanation, and that's gotta be doubly true for a scientist. Some stuff may strain credulity, but, as we all know, magic is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology.

[Kayblis]

The way it's phrased, it's a question of bluffing on the spot. You want to get an easy answer and isn't willing to use the many many options you already have, as the "wants to have an explanation" conflicts with "refuses to do anything to explain spells".

A Wizard 20 would usually have an INT score of above 30, while the maximum base humans can have is 18. This huge gap means Wizards can think so far ahead and process so many variables at once that he can certainly give any scientist a run for his money with a new "theory" that sounds absolutely solid with just a minute or two of thinking, along with a reason for him being able to use it while no one else can. A being with such an intellect is not really on the same realm as common scientists, so say it's a "simple thing" that's obvious when you solve this X equation(that takes hundreds of years for supercomputers to process because you messed up the numbers).

Then again, you could bull**** your way through anything just with bluff bonuses from spells and such. The common ways out would be convincing people you just "do it", stuff happens to go your way whenever you want and that's it. The idea of pretending to be a fake psychic is also a good one, because you discredit the idea of your powers being supernatural and convince people you have mundane tricks to do what you want.

[SangoProduction]

Use a scroll of Calm Emotion, and then explain it to whatever scientist you think has the best possibility to understand that he wasn't actually working on physics, and you have already mastered every fundamental force and understand the nature of reality so well that you manipulate it with but a thought. So much so that the every theory of reality so far has been so vastly incorrect as to be untenable.

...And then *you* explain how it works....because you're the one with at least 9 pages of just the stuff to memorize to cast a single 9th level spell. Let alone the theories and active practical experience you've put it through before getting it so refined. So yeah.

Magic is not "magical" in the world of D&D. It is permitted by the laws of the world....inconsistent though they may be. There are methods of using said laws in a logical fashion which bring about the expected result, in the same way a crustacean can click its claws together so fast that it creates a cavitation bubble as a ranged attack in the real world. In all intents and purposes, a wizard *is* a scientist. Just of a different world (and so nothing he knew is actually applicable anymore), and with hyper human intelligence.

[Ashtagon]

Simply saying the wizard is so clever he can come up with a "scientific" explanation for weird hijinks won't work. Comparatively, imagine you are talking to a mentally challenged person trying to explain simple science concepts. They may well be too slow to be able to understand the explanation at all. The super-smart wizard would have the same frustration if they tried to explain their stuff with "science".

Plus, of course, "science only explains what is actually possible with a known scientific theory. It's rather hard to do that when a) you haven't had a proper training in scientific theory, and b) you objectively know that science isn't the explanation for what happened.

No, this calls for Charisma-based Bluff checks, not Intelligence-based Knowledge checks.

[SangoProduction]

Simply saying the wizard is so clever he can come up with a "scientific" explanation for weird hijinks won't work. Comparatively, imagine you are talking to a mentally challenged person trying to explain simple science concepts. They may well be too slow to be able to understand the explanation at all. The super-smart wizard would have the same frustration if they tried to explain their stuff with "science".

Plus, of course, "science only explains what is actually possible with a known scientific theory. It's rather hard to do that when a) you haven't had a proper training in scientific theory, and b) you objectively know that science isn't the explanation for what happened.

No, this calls for Charisma-based Bluff checks, not Intelligence-based Knowledge checks.

...What do you thing "science" is? Science isn't a "thing". It's a method of (as objectively as possible) determining and predicting what happens in the physical world.

If it's something actually happening in the world, it can be explained. And if it can be reliably and predictably made to happen by thinking something while waving your fingers and speaking in tongues, then you can test it, and do science on it. There's no conflict between "magic" and "science".

[Raxxius]

Potions of glibness.

[noob]

By studying magic and observed physical phenomenon and using microscopes from each point of the universe for akerman(akerman(999,999),akerman(999,999)) years in time stop loops then repeating that the next instant all that while having an int value and a wisdom value comparable to the previously mentioned value then creating an united theory of physics and magic because he is just awesome enough for compensating the effect of time stop on his observations.
Then he is not lying anymore when he says he use science since now there is an uniting model of physics that explains magic and everything else and now he can just give his int to scientists(there is tons of ways to do that) and explain everything in a single round since there is no cap in words per round.

Oh unless you meant trick scientists into believing he is using currently technology they already know without increasing their intelligence and explaining the true laws of physics to them in which case it is harder.

[Darrin]

Clarke's Third Law. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClarkesThirdLaw)

[Cosi]

The question doesn't make sense. You don't "use science". When I post this message on this forum, I'm not "using science", I'm "using a computer". That computer was invented based off of scientific principles, but it's not itself science. It's just a thing we (as a civilization) can make because we've done a bunch of science. If you had a Wizard who was doing some magic that wouldn't not be science, it would just be a phenomenon we haven't studied. Indeed, if he's doing it, there must be some physical explanation for it, because it is a thing that happened, and science is just the study of stuff that's happened.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by SangoProduction
…and you have already mastered every fundamental force and understand the nature of reality so well that you manipulate it with but a thought. So much so that the every theory of reality so far has been so vastly incorrect as to be untenable.

No actual scientist is going to buy this just because some trickster spouts off.


Originally Posted by SangoProduction
In all intents and purposes, a wizard *is* a scientist.

No. Today’s science runs on data and the analysis thereof, and there’s nothing in a wizard’s job description that matches this.


Originally Posted by SangoProduction
...What do you thin[k] "science" is? Science isn't a "thing".

“Science” can be used to refer to the methodical study of natural phenomena, but also to the community of people who do this as a vocation, and also to the body of evidence and theory that results from their work.


Originally Posted by Cosi
…and science is just the study of stuff that's happened.

There’s a little more to it than that.

But yes, claiming to “use science” isn’t really accurate, and it doesn’t compare with, say, using the Force. (Which, as we know, isn’t always that simple either.) As you rightly point out, most people who use a computer aren’t “using science” when they do so.

[16bearswutIdo]

Mindrape. Boom, done.

[Mordaedil]

Scientifically speaking, casting any type of plane shifting spell would thoroughly blow our understanding of the universe into a corner so far removed from what we can feasibly observe, it might work on that premise alone. Shift them into the Astral plane, a place that looks like space, but where they can breathe, fly and have an astral cord that ties them to their mortal body. Cast Etherealness and they will be in a dreamlike-state observing their surroundings as through colored glass, but also freely move through everything.

Just claim you alone have figured out how to tap into these phenomena and once you figure out how, anyone can do it.

[Xar Zarath]

Just have him say he's using science, probably. The basic assumption of most rational people is that any event happening before them has a naturalistic explanation, and that's gotta be doubly true for a scientist. Some stuff may strain credulity, but, as we all know, magic is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology.

Doing this however, I wonder how long before other scientists are waiting for that peer reviewed study or journal on how you the Wizard is doing their thing, so to speak...It seems like it would still arouse suspicion...


...Just claim you alone have figured out how to tap into these phenomena and once you figure out how, anyone can do it.

Just to point out for this thread, the Wizard isn't going to start teaching or anything, he doesn't want any of his own secrets to get out and he isn't eager to empower us for our own benefit. Any learning of magic will have to be done on our own...

[Quertus]

So, as others have noted, what the D&D Wizard is doing "is science*". So, no bluff required, just tell them the truth: that you are from the future, doing things that they wouldn't understand, and that they are simultaneously too stupid and too ignorant for you to have the patience to explain it to them.

Also, Mindrape.

* In the meaning of the word "is (follows the rules of) chemistry", "is (follows the rules of) physics", etc. Why/how did the Apple fall? Science. Why/how did the Wizard Fireball? Science.

[Andor13]

You can't. The basis of science is replication of the result, and no one else can do what he does. Even he can do it only so many times per day.

Also, what spells does he need to be casting on the street that he needs to explain? D&D is mostly combat magic, or subtle. If he needs to explain talking to himself in weird languages he can just stick bluetooth headset in his ear and claim to be chatting with his cousin from Elbownia.

[noob]

You can't. The basis of science is replication of the result, and no one else can do what he does. Even he can do it only so many times per day.

Also, what spells does he need to be casting on the street that he needs to explain? D&D is mostly combat magic, or subtle. If he needs to explain talking to himself in weird languages he can just stick bluetooth headset in his ear and claim to be chatting with his cousin from Elbownia.

You can totally replicate the result.
Make ice assassins of wizards and you have other wizards that can do magic.
Heck for all you know you might yourself be an ice assassin.
Wizards consider most problems can be solved with more wizards.

[Vizzerdrix]

Mindrape. Boom, done.

This, or just take invisable spell metamagic and not worry about it.

[Nifft]

Attach unnecessary lightning rods (which spark with unnecessary lightning), pointless bubbling beakers, and plethoric myriads of blinking lights.

Announce your magical triumph in all caps, and start with: "GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!"

They will tend to assume you are using SCIENCE!

[GrayDeath]

Attach unnecessary lightning rods (which spark with unnecessary lightning), pointless bubbling beakers, and plethoric myriads of blinking lights.

Announce your magical triumph in all caps, and start with: "GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!"

They will tend to assume you are using SCIENCE!


I am using my work break to read atm, and your post made me laugh FAR too loud for my office.

Shame on you, I Say! ^^

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Considering how 'magic' and 'science' are typically considered antonyms, but 'science' can explain literally any- and everything that happens because, even if something happens that isn't explainable by our current understanding, that just means we don't understand enough yet, doesn't that mean that, by definition, magic literally cannot exist, because everything that exists is explainable in some form or fashion?

I mean, science is simply a process used to learn about stuff. If it can be learned about, science can be used to do so. Everything that exists can be learned about; otherwise, it wouldn't exist as far as we're concerned. So if magic is something that is the opposite of science, that means it can't be learned about, and thus doesn't exist.

So even a wizard or psion or cleric who has bona fide 'magic' couldn't win the money from the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge) and similar, because they're doing something that can be learned about via science (which is therefore not magic, by definition).

[Telonius]

Subverting the peer review process should be pretty trivial to a high-level Wizard. Suggestion alone would take care of half of the issues. All he has to do is write up a paper describing what he's doing and submit the results to a journal. Use divinations to figure out who the reviewers are. Suggestion on the reviewers and the editorial staff of the journal, "This is an extraordinarily important paper that you should publish." Repeat as necessary.

If you're getting an insufficient number of cites, Suggestion on another scientist, "You should really cite my paper."

If anyone starts poking around too closely, Suggestion. "I think this needs a bit more work before it's ready. Three or four additional experiments should do." Bonus points if the journal in question has a strict length limit, or you're in a field that has trouble getting funding.

[gkathellar]

Given that science is a process of observing and attempting to model the behavior of facts, I imagine the conversation would go like this:


“Assembled scholars, I submit for your consideration overland flight.”

“Oh wow, how does that work?”

“I have no idea. I can tell you what I’m doing to make it happen, but I haven’t made a study of the underlying principles.”

“Dang. We’re going to need to invent a ton of new models for this. Want to give us a hand with centuries of exhaustive research?”

“Sure.”

“Well then, congratulations, you are now a scientist.”

[GrayDeath]

That sums it up really well.


That or the "Wizard IS a Scientist" seem by far the most likely variants to work without brainwashing hudnreds of people.

[Segev]

Assuming that what the OP means is, "I don't want to have to explain my magic as 'magic,' but instead just want people to think there is some explanation within their existing models of the world," then the answer is simple: Do shows in Vegas.

When you use magic casually in the real world, insist, "Oh, yep, definitely magic." With a huge grin and a wink and a nod. People will assume there's a stunt or trick behind it, and look for that.

If you're using your high-end spells casually and regularly, people are going to be amazed and are going to ask questions. There's no avoiding that. Even if you have "perfectly scientific" explanations, somebody who's "technologically" solved the problem of casual flight is going to draw loads of attention.

Be coy. Make your claims that "it's magic" seem part of a schtick to which you're dedicated, and sell that with regular entertainment shows. Most people will insist that you're one of the most creative magicians of the age (perhaps bemoaning your lack of showmanship, if you're bad at that part of it; wizards are not Cha-based casters, after all), but that your refusal to share your tricks' secrets is annoying but within your prerogative.

Some may question if you're actually doing real magic. But they'll be seen as crackpots, or they'll be mostly joking, themselves. (Along the lines of the "Keanu Reeves and Patrick Stewart are secretly immortals" memes.)

The long and the short of it is: just do it, and do it publically, with a veneer of expectation that people would see you doing "magic" as obvious trickery. They'll make up their own explanations after that.

[daremetoidareyo]

An at-will item of glibness, and 5th ranked in the hollow shards affiliation from City of stormreach. He can just lie

[Random Sanity]

{Scrubbed}

[Segev]

{scrubbed}

Careful, your political insults are showing. The list I'd make would be equally insulting, but to different groups, and equally inappropriate to this thread.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Random Sanity
It's the two-thirds of the population too dimwitted to follow what the scientists are doing that will cause problems: the rednecks, the conspiracy theorists, the deniers, the preachers, the sheep.

I agree completely with Segev. I’m a scientist and I find this statement deeply insulting.

[Malphegor]

By explaining the rules of magic.

Science isn’t a mere rigid assembly of rules- it’s fluid as new evidence appears. And magic has observable, repeateable effects. Which means it’s a non-anomalous facet of how the universe works now. Which means it can be studied and brought into our collective knowledgebase.

That said, a lot of the sillier (typically bard spells) spell components that derive from AD&D and prior can be seen as maybe not magic. Juggle some tarts to make someone laugh, sure. Have a cricket soothe something to sleep- absurd but possible I suppose.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please avoid real world religion and politics. Also, keep it civil in here.

[Kish]

Charm them.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Either play around behind the scenes (as high level wizards are wont to do), or take refuge in audacity by proclaiming you're an extradimensional wizard. Make sure you look as stereotypical as possible, use Harry Potter incantations for your Verbal components, and really sell yourself as Mr(s). Magic (Wo)Man.

If you want to be public, make it a spectacle, be hammy, and get people laughing first, before people start realizing, "Hey, he might actually be serious about that whole 'magic' thing."

Get them used to the idea by using cantrips to pull flowers from behind young (wo)men's ears, make babies laugh, and a few other silly things. Use illusion magic to give yourself bunny ears, and just generally be a bit odd, but not someone who seems like a planet-buster (as high level wizards are also wont to be).

Then, when people find out you can fling fire using a snap of your fingers, they're already used to the fact that you can do things outside of their expectations. Less likely to panic, I'd think.

[Esquire]

The very easiest way to do it would be to assert that we're actually in the Matrix [or conceptually-similar approximation thereof] and that you (the wizard) have figured out how to access the command console. So, disintegrate, behold-6-pages-of-ultracomplex-diagrams-here, basically parses to something like:

PROC DISINTEGRATE data=arcane.disintegrate;
TARGET userdesignate / method=(point,RTA);
THEORY mordenkainen / period=lunar
spheres=standard;
RUN;

For: run the 'disintegrate' subprogram from the 'Arcane' library, on a user-designated target (designation by pointing and raycasting), under Mordenkainen's relational database theory using a lunar calendar and the standard crystalline sphere settings, or whatever the in-universe magical jargon is. Wizardry not involving spell research or nonstandard magic item creation is more like programming than science.

(Why yes, I do work with SAS at my job, why do you ask? :smallsmile:)

[Almadelia]

Science is the study of things that exist, and if you cast Dimension Door then there's really two options - one, you've fooled the experimental apparatus, or two, you're invoking a physical law beyond our understanding. That doesn't actually mean you're 'not using science' any more than X-rays were 'not using science' back in the late 1800s, people just didn't understand what they were looking at. The very fact that it's happening means that by definition, science has to be able to cover it, even if our science doesn't. Science isn't a set of rules, it's a worldview that states "we can understand what happens in our world", and the flavor text of Wizards and Epic Spells clearly implies that a Wizard knows exactly what he's doing when he casts Ray of Frost. He doesn't have to trick scientists. All he has to do is do the impossible over and over and over and eventually physicists and chemists and so on will realize something is severely ****ed with how we view the world, and then they get to work.

If you just mean how a D&D Wizard would trick scientists in general, then much the same way they do anything else - spells. Glibness, Mindrape, Suggestion, or just Power Word Kill spam followed by Animate Dead.

If you mean how would he be able to fit his spells into the theories we already have today, then there's really no possible way to do so. Blatant and extreme violation of conservation laws, violations of causality, violations of relativity, and things that are when it comes down to it physically impossible by our present understanding are all within the purview of the level 20 Wizard, and often within the range of his first few spell levels - Prestidigitation can heat or chill objects without any other energy source, while any spell of the Creation subschool or Transmutation school would have most scientists pitching fits. At best you'd have to bluff that you're using some sort of tool with an incredible amount of energy at its disposal - something like having a wormhole into the heart of supergiants or near a quasar, considering the things that a Wizard can do. But then people would want to see said tool, and you'd either have to bluff your way out (in which case, see Spells) or show them the tool - your magic - and then scientists would have to get to work redesigning out understanding from the ground up.

[Jack_Simth]

How does this Wizard go about it then? What exactly would he need to do to fake his way out of suspicion?The Wizard needs to do nothing.

Seriously: There's no need to do or say anything. If the wizard simply says nothing of how it's done, folks will come up with their own ideas. Folks' own ideas line up with what they think is possible. There may be some hubhub of folks arguing back and forth on how exactly it was done, but basically everyone will have their own position that lines up with what they believe to be true.

Some folks will say "That video was clearly faked" - and thus, you're fine with those folks (they didn't observe it directly, and don't really believe what they saw, as Hollywood does a rather lot of fun things on screen).
Others will say "How'd you hide the wires?" or "Clearly, he was in on it" - and thus, you're fine with those folks (the way most stage magic works: Something is false - a planted "volunteer", wires that are arranged to be essentially invisible pulling on things, pre-recorded scenarios, asking someone to pick A or B without telling them the result and then doing a "By your word we remove this one" or a "By your word we keep this one", et cetera).
... and so on.

While discussing opposing theories on things, I've had folks tell me - to my face - statements of "That's just one of the things we haven't sorted out yet. We'll get there." and still hold their position is better than mine, even though they could not get a similar statement in return. Folks will delude themselves. In mass. OK, yes, if the guy submits to detailed examination and cooperates with the folks that want to observe him in exquisite detail, folks will eventually be coming up with an amended or new theory of reality. But if the wizard doesn't actively cooperate? Only a few crackpots will say "real magic!" and most of those can simply be ignored.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You could just say two words: Multiverse Theory.

You're pulling in energies from outside the boundaries of the known universe.

Thing is, you're not even lying. That's pretty much what wizardry does, innit?

[Xar Zarath]

You could just say two words: Multiverse Theory.

You're pulling in energies from outside the boundaries of the known universe.

Thing is, you're not even lying. That's pretty much what wizardry does, innit?

The spells a vanilla Wizard has in and of itself already breaks our scientific theories out of the water, proven planes of existences and multiverse?

I wonder how many heads would go off at that?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The spells a vanilla Wizard has in and of itself already breaks our scientific theories out of the water, proven planes of existences and multiverse?

I wonder how many heads would go off at that?Thing is, you can prove it. Planar travel is pretty easy for a high level wizard. Heh. You could throw the current "knowledge" of scientific and religious cosmologies into complete disarray. Take the heads of several religions and scientific institutions on a planar tour to go see Garl Glittergold, Elhonna, Pelor, Mystra, Bahamut, The Lady of Pain...

That would be hilarious.

[Allanimal]

Potions of glibness.

Not possible. Glibness is Range: Personal. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

[gkathellar]

By explaining the rules of magic.

Science isn’t a mere rigid assembly of rules- it’s fluid as new evidence appears. And magic has observable, repeateable effects. Which means it’s a non-anomalous facet of how the universe works now. Which means it can be studied and brought into our collective knowledgebase.

That said, a lot of the sillier (typically bard spells) spell components that derive from AD&D and prior can be seen as maybe not magic. Juggle some tarts to make someone laugh, sure. Have a cricket soothe something to sleep- absurd but possible I suppose.

Spell components that could’ve been used to “fake” spells were sort of a running joke in the early days, and a lot of them have carried forward as a matter of legacy. One memorable instance is the use of a pair of amber rods to cast lightning bolt - rubbing chunks of amber together creates static electricity.

[Xar Zarath]

Thing is, you can prove it. Planar travel is pretty easy for a high level wizard. Heh. You could throw the current "knowledge" of scientific and religious cosmologies into complete disarray. Take the heads of several religions and scientific institutions on a planar tour to go see Garl Glittergold, Elhonna, Pelor, Mystra, Bahamut, The Lady of Pain...

That would be hilarious.

It would probably drive the whole world wild...not just the scientists...

[Ashtagon]

There's a world of difference between explaining it as a function of type of science which people are already familiar with (which is basically impossible), and explaining it as a new branch of science heretofore unknown (which cynics will likely say "yeah, you just reskinned "magic", especially is anyone other than you is unable to replicate it).

[Raxxius]

Not possible. Glibness is Range: Personal. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.


It worked for the order of the stick. It works for me ;)

[Xar Zarath]

There's a world of difference between explaining it as a function of type of science which people are already familiar with (which is basically impossible), and explaining it as a new branch of science heretofore unknown (which cynics will likely say "yeah, you just reskinned "magic", especially is anyone other than you is unable to replicate it).

Hmm but the results cannot be denied, its one thing for someone to say that you are doing "science" or "magic" but its another thing to utterly destroy the certain laws and concepts that we have come to know.

[Ashtagon]

Hmm but the results cannot be denied, its one thing for someone to say that you are doing "science" or "magic" but its another thing to utterly destroy the certain laws and concepts that we have come to know.

Quite easy to deny the results when no one else can do it. Remember when cold fusion was "discovered" back in 1989 by Fleischman and Pons? No? Turns out, no one could replicate their experiments. It took a couple of years, but he was almost thoroughly discredited (aside from some investment by Toyota who clearly had a blue-sky fund). That's what'd happen to an actual wizard claiming to be able to do science. Unless their spells can be replicated exactly by a non-wizard, they would be denounced as a fraud within science circles. If the wizard carried on with his public displays of magic "science", he may well then gain a reputation for actual magic. But that is the opposite of what was asked for in the OP.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Funny thing; anyone can be a wizard, even if they don't have the proper Int score to cast. But anyone with average intelligence can at least cast cantrips, and so this stuff can be passed on via mathemagics. Whether the wizard would want to pass on magic to a world that would soon actually be a threat to him as a result, on the other hand...

[SangoProduction]

{Scrubbed}

You could also say that about a group which publishes "academic" papers that are indistinguishable from trolls who just did Ctrl+R on Mein Kampf, and where the "normal" published paper is little more than a blog.

[Quertus]

So, to answer the question that I believe the OP was trying to ask: bluff. Take your 0 ranks in bluff, and your Charisma penalty, and bluff. Claim that it was "magic". Poorly. No-one will believe you. Problem solved.

EDIT: For an added "bonus", use Bestow Curse to give yourself an additional penalty bluff.

[Xar Zarath]

That would seem the best, however using magic to make yourself more personable and convincing people that way would seem to work as well.

[gkathellar]

Quite easy to deny the results when no one else can do it. Remember when cold fusion was "discovered" back in 1989 by Fleischman and Pons? No? Turns out, no one could replicate their experiments. It took a couple of years, but he was almost thoroughly discredited (aside from some investment by Toyota who clearly had a blue-sky fund). That's what'd happen to an actual wizard claiming to be able to do science.

There's a pretty big difference between "I did cold fusion in my basement, I swear!" and "have I mentioned I can fly this morning, because I can fly here let me fly around some." The former is an experimental claim to be verified, and the latter is a fact of nature to be explained.

If something appears to be happening right in front of you, there is either something happening or there is a problem with your perceptions. And after a certain number of people in sufficiently wide circumstances verify identical perceptions despite double-blind testing, something is definitely happening. The wizard could satisfy all of those requirements trivially.


Unless their spells can be replicated exactly by a non-wizard, they would be denounced as a fraud within science circles. If the wizard carried on with his public displays of magic "science", he may well then gain a reputation for actual magic.

This is very nearly a false-ism, for two separate reasons. The first is one of definitions: if you can replicate the spells, you are arguably a wizard.

The second has to do with your characterization of replicating results. Non-athletes cannot replicate a four minute mile, but that doesn't mean it's not happening or can't be explained, it just means that it requires particular qualifying skills to orchestrate. Most people can't do sleight-of-hand, either, but the principles underlying most sleight-of-hand tricks are well-established (and where they're not well-established, it's because the experts have refused to share, not because there are no such principles). A scientist doesn't doubt these things just because only certain people can do them, so long as their reality readily demonstrable - instead, the scientist takes the fact that only certain people can accomplish these feats as another thing to understand.

Modern science is premised on the assumption that the behavior of facts can be modeled, even if such modeling is non-trivial or even necessarily incomplete (see also: cosmic censorship hypothesis, incompleteness theorem). Someone trained in this worldview is not going to say, "that's not science! That's magic!" They're going to say, "magic is real guys we've got to totally rethink a huge portion of the literature." Some of them might even be excited about it, considering the sighs of disappointment you hear from physics circles every time an objection to the standard model gets overturned.

[Cosi]

Unless their spells can be replicated exactly by a non-wizard, they would be denounced as a fraud within science circles. If the wizard carried on with his public displays of magic "science", he may well then gain a reputation for actual magic. But that is the opposite of what was asked for in the OP.

No, because that's not the claim the Wizard is making. He's not saying "anyone can do these things" (or if he is he's presumably laying out a course of study that would take people from no magic to enough magic to do these things). He's saying he can do these things. A valid attempt at replication isn't you trying to cast fireball, it's you contacting the Wizard and casting him to cast fireball in front of you. Your suggestion is akin to saying that because you have to replicate experiments in nuclear fission with fissile material rather than some random rocks from your backyard, fission doesn't real.

But even if we accept your position, that wouldn't cause scientists to throw up their hands and declare his behavior to be "magic". I mean, they might call the phenomenon "magic", because that's a pretty good name for it, but they wouldn't consider it to be outside the domain of science. Because science isn't some set of fixed rules, it's the process for discovering what the rules are. And if there's a guy who can cast fireball, the real rules must allow for the existence of at least one guy who can cast fireball.

There's nothing you can do to escape scientific analysis, because scientific analysis is just a kind of analysis. The question is akin to asking "what could a Wizard do to get people who speak English to talk about his spells in English". The answer is "he doesn't have to do anything, because talking about things in English is the default mode of behavior for people who speak English".

[Deophaun]

Peer review.

You just need to set up an experiment (or model, if you're working your magic in one of the softer sciences) where nothing seems obviously wrong. Make it slightly inconvenient for anyone to bother replicating, and viola! You can write a paper on your magic and get it published in prestigious journals.

Certain things are approached with more rigor. Basically, anything related to engineering, steer the heck away as the backyard hobbiests will turn you into a punchline. "Promising" cancer treatments, however, are always getting floated and are difficult for random Joe Schmoe to validate. The sad fact is, not all science is created equal, or even science.

[Ashtagon]

There's a pretty big difference between "I did cold fusion in my basement, I swear!" and "have I mentioned I can fly this morning, because I can fly here let me fly around some." The former is an experimental claim to be verified, and the latter is a fact of nature to be explained.

If something appears to be happening right in front of you, there is either something happening or there is a problem with your perceptions. And after a certain number of people in sufficiently wide circumstances verify identical perceptions despite double-blind testing, something is definitely happening. The wizard could satisfy all of those requirements trivially.


Oh, the audience will be convinced something is happening. But they won't be convinced it is science as science is conventionally understood. At best, you'll convince them that you've successfully made the laws of physics shut up and sit down.

For it to be convincing that you've done it using science, you'd need to be able to replicate it using things that are not intrinsic to the person doing them (which is why your analogy of sleight of hand and athletics is flawed; you're not trying to convince your audience its a physical feat; you're trying to convince them its science).

[Zombimode]

Funny thing; anyone can be a wizard, even if they don't have the proper Int score to cast. But anyone with average intelligence can at least cast cantrips, and so this stuff can be passed on via mathemagics. Whether the wizard would want to pass on magic to a world that would soon actually be a threat to him as a result, on the other hand...

Any player character can be a wizard if their player wants it. If that is equivalent to "anyone can be a wizard" is a setting detail. It may be true in your setting, it may not be true in other settings.

[gkathellar]

Oh, the audience will be convinced something is happening. But they won't be convinced it is science as science is conventionally understood. At best, you'll convince them that you've successfully made the laws of physics shut up and sit down.

That's not how the laws of physics work. That's not what the laws of physics are. Given the revolutionary changes to our understanding of the universe produced by relativity and quantum mechanics, it's pretty well established at this point that if something can make the "laws" of physics stop working, the so-called laws are simply not what you believe them to be. We're running into the problems of the word "law" here, frankly, as that word implies a set of negotiated rules that can be disobeyed. Reality is a brute fact, and when human beings observe and codify patterns in its behavior, we call those patterns "law" and say they "govern" physical interactions because that helps us to contextualize what we're looking at. But that's a helpful way of looking at things, not a truth.

Now of course, most or all of what we think we know in the sciences consists not of absolute truths, but of mechanical models of variably limited scope, which describe the behaviors of entities within a certain set of parameters. Models are functional and descriptive, approximating the facts as they appear to be, given stated or unstated limitations. Often the full extent of these limitations are discovered only as the factual basis of a model is further investigated, which has become so much the norm over at least the last two-hundred years that many scientists devote their whole careers to finding problems with and overturning existing models. As the limitation of a model are defined, it will frequently continue to be useful at the scale of observation it was based in to begin with. This is why we talk about "Newtonian physics," and "classical mechanics," as things which have continued relevance, even though many of their postulates have been overturned following continued examination. But we also accept that these descriptions are only adequate for particular ends, rather than the broader scientific project, and so we go looking for new facts and use them to build more precise models.

(The preceding paragraph is, itself, a very brief behavioral/sociological model of the scientific method.)

If you present a whole new set of physical facts that don't fit with any existing understanding of the universe, it's going to cause a huge upset and force dramatic changes to a wide variety of disciplines. It'll limit the usefulness of models which will be subsequently understood to inaccurately represent the behavior of phenomena they were once thought to adequately describe. Physics would become a battleground ... just like it was until the standard model gained traction in the late 70s-early 80s. The only reason it isn't now is because it's gotten really difficult to gather evidence. Show an audience full of physicists that you can fly and yeah, half the room will assume you drugged the punch at first, but once you get past that everyone will be really excited.

If your point is just, "magic can't be explained with any known science" then yeah, sure. But the behavior of superfluids couldn't be explained with any known science in the 1500s.


For it to be convincing that you've done it using science, you'd need to be able to replicate it using things that are not intrinsic to the person doing them (which is why your analogy of sleight of hand and athletics is flawed; you're not trying to convince your audience its a physical feat; you're trying to convince them its science).

Science is a way of examining and explaining facts, not an actor or a tool of itself. "Using science" is an acceptable phrase for describing the application of knowledge gained through scientific methods towards an end, with the end result being either a technique or a technology. But just as frequently, the role of scientific inquiry has been to investigate and explain existing techniques and technologies that were formulated without a clear basis in scientifically acquired knowledge. There's no ontological difference between either type of technique or technology, simply a historical question of origins.

[Ashtagon]

The thing about "using science" is that the person doing the "using" isn't an integral part of the action and whose replacement would inevitably lead to the process failing.

[Cosi]

The thing about "using science" is that the person doing the "using" isn't an integral part of the action and whose replacement would inevitably lead to the process failing.

Sure, but then we're back to "the question the OP is asking is poorly formed". Whether you create it by casting fireball, throwing a grenade, or something else, creating a dangerous explosion isn't "using science". "using science" would properly describe the process by which someone might determine how you created the explosion in question. So again, the Wizard isn't the person doing the science, people observing the Wizard are. It's an entirely valid scientific claim to say "this specific person can do this specific thing" and your insistence that science breaks down if you make that claim and other people can't do the thing is simply baffling. I can't run as fast as Usain Bolt. That doesn't mean I think he's magic.

[gkathellar]

While "using science" is an acceptable turn of phrase for casual discussion because in general we know what it means, it's not really a precise description of anything. The closest thing I can find to a really coherent meaning is that it describes the processes of research and of development. By this definition, regardless of its origins or how well understood it is, the execution of a technique or use of a technology will never be "using science." However, if someone submits the technique or technology to scientific examination, especially that of others, they are almost certainly "using science," because that's what science is and what science does.

EDIT: Cosi said this so much better than I did. If any of this seems obtuse, default to their post.

[Xar Zarath]

Certain things are approached with more rigor. Basically, anything related to engineering, steer the heck away as the backyard hobbiests will turn you into a punchline...

Actually that would not be too bad, as a Wizard trying to evade suspicion, the more you are ridiculed and not taken seriously, the more useful it is to hide in plain sight especially if accredited people don't bother with you.

[Segev]

I think we're back to asking what the OP really means.

Is the wizard trying to convince the scientific community that the scientific process can be applied to his 'magic,' thus making it replicable science and technology/techniques?

Or is he trying to convince the scientific community that he's not "doing magic" at all, but is using some sort of technology that he either isn't explaining or is obfuscating to make it look "magical" when there's really an explanation that fits into the standard accepted modern models of reality?

Or (and this is similar to the second) is he trying to convince people he's a charletan, and that his "magic" is just tricks, so he can use it openly and have people marvel at his skill but "knowingly" nod that it's not really magic?



Because depending on what he's trying to do, the answer to the OP's question changes.

[Xar Zarath]

Or (and this is similar to the second) is he trying to convince people he's a charletan, and that his "magic" is just tricks, so he can use it openly and have people marvel at his skill but "knowingly" nod that it's not really magic?

This. But the other points can also be debated. Bigger threads are nicer.

[gkathellar]

This. But the other points can also be debated. Bigger threads are nicer.

Oh, well then he just needs to (a) cultivate a reputation for that kind of thing, and (b) not do anything too crazy. So overland flight and wall of stone are probably out at most places and times, but burning hands and grease are probably in the clear. Anything that can be explained away as mentalism, sleight of hand, or gadgetry is probably in the clear. It helps a lot that stage magicians are frequently loath to reveal their best tricks even in the modern day.

[Jack_Simth]

This. But the other points can also be debated. Bigger threads are nicer.

Then he doesn't have to do anything. Simply by remaining silent on how it's done, and not actively cooperating with folks who want to prove how he does it, everyone will simply assume that there's some explanation that fits their paradigm, just like with all the other magicians out there.

Now, if he makes a sufficiently giant splash (e.g., demolishes a building), that might be a problem. But for the most part? No need to do anything.

Edit: Granted, for teleportation or summoning effects, something like Cloudy Conjouration (Complete Mage, page 40) would be useful (leave behind a cloud of smoke as a decoy and/or appear in a cloud of smoke), but not too terribly necessary.

[Cosi]

People are honestly quite willing to accept supernatural claims about the world. Take a look at this poll (https://news.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx). 30% of people believe that people can read minds. 25% of people believe in ghosts. If we take them seriously those claims are super important. If people can read minds, or come back from the dead, that is a huge deal, and if they can't that's a quarter or more of the nation that believes something totally detached from reality. But no one treats it that way. If you were to go around telling people that you were a Wizard and could use detect thoughts or whatever, you could easily hide in the swaths of people who already say that unless you went out of your way to prove you could.

I don't even think personally doing some flashy magic outside laboratory conditions would be too convincing to the average person. People claim to have evidence about ghosts all the time. There have been entire TV shows about hunting for evidence of ghosts. But they haven't convinced anyone to take ghosts seriously. Short of submitting yourself for rigorous scientific testing, I think the only thing you could really do to convince people that magic was real would be going to the middle east and smacking around some military assets. People don't take claims to be magic seriously, but the Pentagon takes anything that can shoot down a predator drone seriously.

[gkathellar]

There have been entire TV shows about hunting for evidence of ghosts. But they haven't convinced anyone to take ghosts seriously.

FWIW, for a lot of people the appeal of those shows is mostly the same as any other reality TV: watching people act like morons on camera.

[Segev]

FWIW, for a lot of people the appeal of those shows is mostly the same as any other reality TV: watching people act like morons on camera.

Is that the allure? A few years ago, I tried watching Ghost Hunters International on Syfy, but was horribly disappointed by the obvious credulity of the "investigators" and the way they'd claim they "heard something definite!" on the recording and...the background music of the episode would peak at just that moment so you couldn't hear a THING on the tape, only everyone present agreeing that they heard it, and how it proved things!

I grew up watching Unsolved Mysteries, and I loved the hauntings episodes, but what made them great and even a little chilling is the way they took an objective stance on it. More credulous than, say, a skeptic debunker, but only in the sense that they didn't say "it's impossible." They spend time telling you the myths and legends, interviewing people who are experts on the haunting, but also interviewing experts with more mundane explanations and making a point of discussing things that could explain each phenomenon. They closed with, "So, is it just some mice chewing through the walls, or is there really a ghost haunting the halls of [place]?" - or some variant thereon - each time. It was cool, entertaining, and didn't come off as schlock because they were just reporting on a mystery, not claiming to have found proof with absolutely no effort to even consider alternate possibilities. :smallfurious:


But yeah, for a wizard 20 who wanted to openly use magic but wanted to be taken as a charletan, that's easy: refuse to explain it, and be a little over-the-top about "it's MAGIC!" as you make a performance of of it. People will assume you have things set up. Somehow. There will be skeptics, debunkers, and professional magicians who will even think they know how you did the trick. And others who will remain sure it was a trick, but acknowledge your impressive skill at hiding how you did it.

Few will really believe your claims. Which is what you want. And is why you're making them in the hammy manner you are. There's a wink-and-a-nod in it that is, itself, the actual lie.

[Deophaun]

I grew up watching Unsolved Mysteries
Unsolved Mysteries was #$%^ing amazing.

But yeah, for a wizard 20 who wanted to openly use magic but wanted to be taken as a charletan, that's easy: refuse to explain it, and be a little over-the-top about "it's MAGIC!" as you make a performance of of it. People will assume you have things set up. Somehow. There will be skeptics, debunkers, and professional magicians who will even think they know how you did the trick. And others who will remain sure it was a trick, but acknowledge your impressive skill at hiding how you did it.
There will be the third type of skeptic that will be the most entertaining: those who recognize that the claims are impossible, but also realize that the effect is very real. "I wish he'd just tell us how he's actually doing it so we can have our flying cars already!"

[Spore]

Wizard: You try to do things you could not previously?
Scientist: Yeah, we call it research.
Wizard: Cool, so you too break the previous laws of what was possible by your research, just like I do. Just that my research grants more power depending on how people interpret these rules *hands them a spell list*
Scientist: Wait, wha...?
Wizard: Yes, magic is subjective. It can do whatever you interpret into it. Now excuse me while I create Ice Assassins of the most intelligent people on earth.
Scientists: Assassins?
Wizard: It's just a NAME. Think perfect copies made out of ice.
Scientist: Uh....what?
Wizard: I'll first make an Ice Assassin from me to explain you that.
Scientist: ...

Seriously though, with some scientific breakthroughs I feel like humanity is basically cheating or reinterpreting the rules of the universe rather than finding out something new about the immutable natural laws.

[Nifft]

There will be the third type of skeptic that will be the most entertaining: those who recognize that the claims are impossible, but also realize that the effect is very real. "I wish he'd just tell us how he's actually doing it so we can have our flying cars already!"

He could appear on Oprah and pull a flying car out of his hat, then gift it to a member of the audience.

Just arrange for those specific skeptics to be in the audience and they'll happily go along with "yeah it's magic, look at my flying car motherf--" (camera suddenly cuts to commercial)

[Xar Zarath]

...There will be the third type of skeptic that will be the most entertaining: those who recognize that the claims are impossible, but also realize that the effect is very real. "I wish he'd just tell us how he's actually doing it so we can have our flying cars already!"

Or another kind of sceptic where they actively try to dispute your "acts" and try to prove that you either really have "magic" or that you are a total hack. Either way I think you still win, since those kinds of people tend to get all sorts of negative press.

[SimonMoon6]

We already live in an age of miracles, unthinkable a few decades ago.

The wizard could simply hold a cell phone, cast a spell, and claim that the results were a new app on his phone that he created.

[Segev]

We already live in an age of miracles, unthinkable a few decades ago.

The wizard could simply hold a cell phone, cast a spell, and claim that the results were a new app on his phone that he created.

"How did you open a temporary portal from the skyscraper across the street to this room here, both on the 20th floor!?"
"There's an app for that."

[Deophaun]

I like to believe that Michael Carbonaro is an actual wizard, and he just goes with the "hidden camera magic show" to mess with people.

[Felyndiira]

Couldn't the wizard make himself a scientist? I imagine he could walk into any top university, do a demo of - oh, say Dimension Door - in front of the Dean of Quantum Physics, and walk out with a shiny full tenureship, a group of the university's brilliant minds at his beck and call, and assured news coverage around the world.

With that, he/she could convince anyone that his spells are just NEW SCIENCE!

[MaxiDuRaritry]

With that, he/she could convince anyone that his spells are just NEW SCIENCE!And suddenly, dancing the Macarena while singing "I'm a Little Teapot" and throwing bug guts at people is considered a viable career path, instead of being grounds for induction into an asylum.

[Necroticplague]

Couldn't the wizard make himself a scientist? I imagine he could walk into any top university, do a demo of - oh, say Dimension Door - in front of the Dean of Quantum Physics, and walk out with a shiny full tenureship, a group of the university's brilliant minds at his beck and call, and assured news coverage around the world.

With that, he/she could convince anyone that his spells are just NEW SCIENCE!

Because science doesn't just involve demonstrations of capability. Science requires not just a demonstration of a phenomena, but an attempt to explain the reasons for that phenomena (thus, difference between laws and theories). While the wizard-scientist could do the former, they're entirely unable to do the latter do a degree that could satisfy a scientific community.

[Felyndiira]

Because science doesn't just involve demonstrations of capability. Science requires not just a demonstration of a phenomena, but an attempt to explain the reasons for that phenomena (thus, difference between laws and theories). While the wizard-scientist could do the former, they're entirely unable to do the latter do a degree that could satisfy a scientific community.

That's not true. A major part of science is simple observation and reproducibility. Even if you go back to a period where you don't know how yeast makes bread rise, you know that yeast makes bread rise and can make it happen multiple times. That's science.

You're thinking laws and theories of theoretical science. A big part of applied science (or engineering) is just that - conducting trials and inferring results from it, or creating processes from existing knowledge. Entire papers are written from a guy, say, planting a bunch of corn in different fields, measuring the results, and reporting on the data regardless of whether the genomes and chemistry behind those results are known. All you really need for a paper is a rigorous experiment with an academically interesting result that can be reproduced, not go down and try to explain the math and molecular physics behind every little thing.

A wizard scientist has the reproducibility down pat. Any physics department of an accredited university, upon observing someone that can teleport reliably, will be interested in studying the process. If said wizard demanded tenure and recognition for his services in exchange for his cooperation, I can't imagine why they would not they not give it to him.

[Necroticplague]

That's not true. A major part of science is simple observation and reproducibility. Even if you go back to a period where you don't know how yeast makes bread rise, you know that yeast makes bread rise and can make it happen multiple times. That's science.

You're thinking laws and theories of theoretical science. A big part of applied science (or engineering) is just that - conducting trials and inferring results from it, or creating processes from existing knowledge. Entire papers are written from a guy, say, planting a bunch of corn in different fields, measuring the results, and reporting on the data regardless of whether the genomes and chemistry behind those results are known. All you really need for a paper is a rigorous experiment with an academically interesting result that can be reproduced, not go down and try to explain the math and molecular physics behind every little thing.

A wizard scientist has the reproducibility down pat. Any physics department of an accredited university, upon observing someone that can teleport reliably, will be interested in studying the process. If said wizard demanded tenure and recognition for his services in exchange for his cooperation, I can't imagine why they would not they not give it to him.

Fair enough.

Funny that you should mention reproducibility, though, because, while a wizard may have that (in that he can demonstrate his abilities several times), he completely and utterly lacks the similar trait of replicability (nobody else using their methods will get the same results), which is usually a sign of pseudoscience more than science. A couple failures to replicate is chance, literally everyone else failing to replicate is a sign you're some manner of charlatan.

Which doesn't necessarily mean he won't find traction among some section of a scientific community. Even homeopaths have their schools and proofing, after all.

[Xar Zarath]

Couldn't the wizard make himself a scientist? I imagine he could walk into any top university, do a demo of - oh, say Dimension Door - in front of the Dean of Quantum Physics, and walk out with a shiny full tenureship, a group of the university's brilliant minds at his beck and call, and assured news coverage around the world.

With that, he/she could convince anyone that his spells are just NEW SCIENCE!

While I don't doubt that any institution of scientific achievements would give a Wizard a tenureship etc, what I would worry most is that if I were said Wizard, I think the most dangerous thing is that there would be other factions such as govt organisations, power groups, think tanks and the like who would actively try to coerce you in any number of ways to get at magic...I mean any latest weapons tech has interests but the guy who can rewrite reality?

[Jack_Simth]

While I don't doubt that any institution of scientific achievements would give a Wizard a tenureship etc, what I would worry most is that if I were said Wizard, I think the most dangerous thing is that there would be other factions such as govt organisations, power groups, think tanks and the like who would actively try to coerce you in any number of ways to get at magic...I mean any latest weapons tech has interests but the guy who can rewrite reality?

Fancy magic...
Fire and noise...
All outdone...
By humanity's toys.
(Source (https://egscomics.com/comic/2018-01-05))

While yes, the guy who can use teleportation and mind control to flip several rulers in different countries in the space of a few minutes is a powerhouse... so's a few ICBM's. You can put controls on the ICBM's to make them extremely unlikely to to turn on you (activation codes, background checks on the people involved, multiple folks in control of the devices to prevent a betrayal from any one spelling doomsday, et cetera). You can't really do the same for an individually powerful person. Oh, you can make things inconvenient for the wiz, you can threaten loved ones, you can blackmail with inconvenient photos, and so on... but if the reason you're trying to coerce the bloke in the first place is because he can slip through any security on earth and mind-control anyone without leaving a trace ... well ... threats and blackmail are inherently bad ideas: There's little to stop him from slipping through your security and mind-controlling you.

As a result, all serious attempts (there will be some unimaginative thugs not bright enough to picture how things can go wrong, but I don't count those as "serious" for a high level wizard) at controlling the wizard will be based on trying to give the wizard something he wants in exchange for something the giver wants. Other than the annoyance, it's not really something the wizard should fear.

[Segev]

Because science doesn't just involve demonstrations of capability. Science requires not just a demonstration of a phenomena, but an attempt to explain the reasons for that phenomena (thus, difference between laws and theories). While the wizard-scientist could do the former, they're entirely unable to do the latter do a degree that could satisfy a scientific community.

Wizards who make it to level 20 are generally smarter than anybody you've ever met or even heard of. They are highly knowledgeable in several fields. It would not be out of the realm of possibility for them to be able to write very erudite scientific papers on the subject of their magic.

The question of replicability comes in, of course, but their lower-level things won't require more than a few years' study from some dedicated students. I mean, 20-year-old humans are very frequently 1st level wizards in D&D.

[Felyndiira]

Fair enough.

Funny that you should mention reproducibility, though, because, while a wizard may have that (in that he can demonstrate his abilities several times), he completely and utterly lacks the similar trait of replicability (nobody else using their methods will get the same results), which is usually a sign of pseudoscience more than science. A couple failures to replicate is chance, literally everyone else failing to replicate is a sign you're some manner of charlatan.

Which doesn't necessarily mean he won't find traction among some section of a scientific community. Even homeopaths have their schools and proofing, after all.

The wizard's "science" is reproducible, though. He can give public demonstrations to anyone who doubts his abilities, functionally infinitely. If no one else can replicate his results using fancy gestures and words, the logical next step is to figure out what sort of factors makes this individual able to produce teleportation while the rest of the world is not, not denying its existence or doubting its usefulness to academia.

As a different example, none of us can run as fast as Usain Bolt, but that doesn't mean that his records don't exist/isn't possible or that scientists won't be interested in studying his physiology. If you see a wizard teleport today, strip of his gear and put him in an enclosed room, and he teleports again tomorrow and the next day, that's all you really need for reproducibility.

Homeopathy is different, in that its results are dubious even in the hands of its practitioners.

So, the wizard is totally getting his tenure. MIT is definitely going to convince their most brilliant professors and PhD students to run experiments, and that spell becomes just another to-be discovered mystery of science.

EDIT: Also, as Segev mentions, level 20 wizards make Einstein look like an idiot in comparison. Even if they choose not to demonstrate DimDoor, they can just obtain tenure the old-fashioned way and become a famous academic by solving Riemann's Hypothesis or something like that.

[Xar Zarath]

...So, the wizard is totally getting his tenure. MIT is definitely going to convince their most brilliant professors and PhD students to run experiments, and that spell becomes just another to-be discovered mystery of science

Hmm but going by the scenario, the Wizard doesn't want to be known as the guy who brought magic or knowledge of wizardry to this world. Rather he just wants to coast along without having his abilities questioned.

so lets say the Wizard does a few tricks then walks away. Can the scientific community "force" him to further test his powers for their benefit especially if the Wizard has no intention of propagating the learning of magic in our world?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

so lets say the Wizard does a few tricks then walks away. Can the scientific community "force" him to further test his powers for their benefit especially if the Wizard has no intention of propagating the learning of magic in our world?At level 1? Sure.

At level 20? No way in hell.

[Segev]

Hmm but going by the scenario, the Wizard doesn't want to be known as the guy who brought magic or knowledge of wizardry to this world. Rather he just wants to coast along without having his abilities questioned.

so lets say the Wizard does a few tricks then walks away. Can the scientific community "force" him to further test his powers for their benefit especially if the Wizard has no intention of propagating the learning of magic in our world?


At level 1? Sure.

At level 20? No way in hell.

It also depends what you mean by "force," especially since you used scare-quotes. Do you mean physically tie him down/cage him/use armed guards to hold him prisoner and withhold food and water until he teaches his knowledge? Do you mean just hound him like paparazzi, begging him for his wisdom until he finds giving lectures on a regular schedule less arduous than dodging the would-be students? Do you mean something else?

Obviously, at level 20, he can't be physically coerced by anything this world can do, but if he actually wants to coast along, living in the world and openly using magic, then yes, they can hound him. Because all the means he'd have of avoiding being hounded lead either to hiding his magic, not living in and among the world, or actively turning the world against him. (The last would involve using levels of force to scare/force people away that would cause police and/or military forces to be arrayed against him. He could withstand it and even win, but it would make "living in the world and coasting along, casually using magic" impossible.)

But I don't think it'd come to that if he just put a wink-and-nod "It's magic! Really!" and a little bit of showyness into some of his "performances." There'd be some who Believed, but the majority of them would be gullible sorts that nobody else trusts. And those few Believers who actually think the wizard is obfuscating real magic with fake fakery will be lumped by most in with the gullible, and thus not trusted. He'd probably be heralded by other professional magicians as an innovator, and lambasted as not contributing when he shares NONE of his secrets, even in the community, but the common wisdom would be that it's brilliant fakery.

[Felyndiira]

Hmm but going by the scenario, the Wizard doesn't want to be known as the guy who brought magic or knowledge of wizardry to this world. Rather he just wants to coast along without having his abilities questioned.

so lets say the Wizard does a few tricks then walks away. Can the scientific community "force" him to further test his powers for their benefit especially if the Wizard has no intention of propagating the learning of magic in our world?

To be fair, a normal professor's job is probably "coasting along" for someone of said Wizard's intelligence. All he needs to do is show up for lectures maybe 3 days in a week, be in his office just enough for students and grad students to ask questions, and he'd have the rest of his time to himself. He doesn't even need to do active research - he already has a wealth of knowledge and can pump out a few papers at a whim whenever he feels like contributing something.

Joining the scientific community and establishing his magic as a to-be discovered branch of science is a pretty good camouflage. The side effects of overeager grad students isn't something that can be sidestepped anyhow; you can't really avoid drawing a crowd if you teleport in public, whether there's a scientific explanation or not, without some serious mass brainwashing.

I don't think the scientific community can "force" him to do anything, either, given that he is a level 20, reality-bending wizard. Maybe some students and researchers will hound him a bit too much, but professors have a lot of leeway in this sort of thing. If they get annoying enough, some stealthy Enchantment spells behind closed doors can make them go away, as well.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

A simple alter self can prevent others from hounding him, assuming he doesn't do so right in front of them. Otherwise, enchantment effects would be enough to ward away particularly annoying and persistent individuals. Occasionally utterly humiliating stalkers paparazzi would probably get rid of those, as well.

[Segev]

To be fair, a normal professor's job is probably "coasting along" for someone of said Wizard's intelligence. All he needs to do is show up for lectures maybe 3 days in a week, be in his office just enough for students and grad students to ask questions, and he'd have the rest of his time to himself. He doesn't even need to do active research - he already has a wealth of knowledge and can pump out a few papers at a whim whenever he feels like contributing something.

Joining the scientific community and establishing his magic as a to-be discovered branch of science is a pretty good camouflage. The side effects of overeager grad students isn't something that can be sidestepped anyhow; you can't really avoid drawing a crowd if you teleport in public, whether there's a scientific explanation or not, without some serious mass brainwashing.

I don't think the scientific community can "force" him to do anything, either, given that he is a level 20, reality-bending wizard. Maybe some students and researchers will hound him a bit too much, but professors have a lot of leeway in this sort of thing. If they get annoying enough, some stealthy Enchantment spells behind closed doors can make them go away, as well.Heck, he doesn't even need to be in for his office hours. A simulacrum will be plenty good enough for most students' needs. Heck, he could keep several on campus to be extra-available for his students, and still never have to bother with them when he doesn't want to.


A simple alter self can prevent others from hounding him, assuming he doesn't do so right in front of them. Otherwise, enchantment effects would be enough to ward away particularly annoying and persistent individuals. Occasionally utterly humiliating stalkers paparazzi would probably get rid of those, as well.This doesn't allow him the freedom to casually use magic that the OP asked for. It allows him to go on vacation without being hounded as long as he doesn't use magic in obvious ways, but he may not consider "having to hide my powers" a "vacation."

[AvatarVecna]

There is a well-known skeptic I watch on occasion, and one thing that comes up in a number of their videos amounts to: "if magic and miracles and whatnot are real, they are scientific, because they actually happened. Determining what actually happened and how it can be done again is what science is about. And determining whether miracles are truth or merely lies made up to fool people is simple: just test it. If you're making a claim of magical powers, that's one thing, but if you can back it up, if you can show that you can make this thing happen repeatedly and on command, then that constitutes proof to some degree."

You don't need to prove that you're "using science", you just need to prove that what you're using is actually scientific in nature. Were I capable of the magic a 20th lvl wizard is capable of, and didn't have the english words or the patience to explain the scientific phenomenon I'm exploiting to this simpletons, I could explain that when I think about things a certain way, and twitch my fingers and say these weird words, I can turn energy into matter with the power of my mind, or other equally ridiculous things...but as long as I could do so consistently, that would constitute proof.

Alternatively, if what you're wanting is "pretend to be using technology when really you're using magic", that requires the Bluff skill (and maybe the ability to create convincing-looking "technology").

[Quertus]

There is a well-known skeptic I watch on occasion, and one thing that comes up in a number of their videos amounts to: "if magic and miracles and whatnot are real, they are scientific, because they actually happened. Determining what actually happened and how it can be done again is what science is about. And determining whether miracles are truth or merely lies made up to fool people is simple: just test it. If you're making a claim of magical powers, that's one thing, but if you can back it up, if you can show that you can make this thing happen repeatedly and on command, then that constitutes proof to some degree."

You don't need to prove that you're "using science", you just need to prove that what you're using is actually scientific in nature. Were I capable of the magic a 20th lvl wizard is capable of, and didn't have the english words or the patience to explain the scientific phenomenon I'm exploiting to this simpletons, I could explain that when I think about things a certain way, and twitch my fingers and say these weird words, I can turn energy into matter with the power of my mind, or other equally ridiculous things...but as long as I could do so consistently, that would constitute proof.

This presents an interesting question: what if something can only be done once? If I tell you that I can make a river flood tomorrow, and I do, but I have no inclination or ability to do so again, is it a Miracle? Science? Coincidence?

Suppose the Wizard has a scroll of a spell he hasn't learned (um, what?). Let's pretend that it has a cost that the Wizard isn't willing to pay, but he got the scroll as loot.

He tells you that, one time, at his whim, he can make something happen - but only once.

How does Science treat this very provable but unrepeatable claim?

[Jack_Simth]

This presents an interesting question: what if something can only be done once? If I tell you that I can make a river flood tomorrow, and I do, but I have no inclination or ability to do so again, is it a Miracle? Science? Coincidence?

Suppose the Wizard has a scroll of a spell he hasn't learned (um, what?). Let's pretend that it has a cost that the Wizard isn't willing to pay, but he got the scroll as loot.
Straightforward to arrange, actually. Ranks in UMD and a spell that isn't on his class list (but is still Arcane; a Bard spell, say). Needs just a UMD DC 20 check to get it on his class list for long enough to activate the item. Potion or something would be simpler, as there's no need for the skill check... and if you look around, you can find potion-like items that don't have the "3rd level or lower" restriction on them. A Skull Talisman of a non-Wizard spell would work well for this example. Regenerate, perhaps.

He tells you that, one time, at his whim, he can make something happen - but only once.

How does Science treat this very provable but unrepeatable claim?
About the same way they treat anything else non-repeatable. Observe and record as much as they can with whatever equipment is available, and analyze the results as much as they can.

[Xar Zarath]

...Do you mean just hound him like paparazzi, begging him for his wisdom until he finds giving lectures on a regular schedule less arduous than dodging the would-be students?

Yes, more this. The more violent methods can be circumvented but constant houndings by the press, other scientists, notables, govt agents/operatives and such?

And going by this, lets say the Wizard doesn't resort to killing these paparazzi and such? how to deal with annoyances like these?

[Nifft]

And going by this, lets say the Wizard doesn't resort to killing these paparazzi and such? how to deal with annoyances like these? Charm Person and ask them to leave.

Suggestion and point them at something else.

Antipathy (assuming paparazzi is a specific kind of creature and/or alignment).

Mindrape ("you think you interviewed me").

... or just a Hat of Disguise.

[AvatarVecna]

This presents an interesting question: what if something can only be done once? If I tell you that I can make a river flood tomorrow, and I do, but I have no inclination or ability to do so again, is it a Miracle? Science? Coincidence?

Suppose the Wizard has a scroll of a spell he hasn't learned (um, what?). Let's pretend that it has a cost that the Wizard isn't willing to pay, but he got the scroll as loot.

He tells you that, one time, at his whim, he can make something happen - but only once.

How does Science treat this very provable but unrepeatable claim?

If I am a wizard attempting to prove that magic is scientific in nature and my method of choice is a single-shot item that I can't replicate with my personal magic, my Int isn't worth my class levels.

EDIT: Additionally, I think this hints at the deeper point a number of people are making in this thread: in the same way that there's only one kind of wizard who can be outperformed by an equal-level fighter, there is only one kind of wizard who cannot reliably prove that his magic is a repeatable phenomenon following existing and observable rules...namely, some flavor of "deliberately bad" wizard.

EDIT: And I do mean "deliberately bad" - not merely a bad wizard, but one actually going out of his way to make magic seem as nonsensical and unreliable as he can when he's presenting it. Even a wizard 1 with Int 10 can cast 3 cantrips a day. As long as you use the more show-offy ones, and you do everything in your power to make sure they don't have reason to believe it's some kind of stage magician's trick, they will accept that the demonstrated phenomenon abides by rules and will begin going about trying to learn/understand those rules.