Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Recent articles calling for a scientific study of magic have been the subject of widespread interest. This article considers the topic from a broader perspective and argues that to engage in a science of magic, in any meaningful sense, is misguided. It argues that those who have called for a scientific theory of magic have failed to explain either how or why such a theory might be constructed, that a shift of focus to a neuroscience of magic is simply unwarranted, and that a science of magic is itself an inherently unsound idea. It seeks to provide a more informed view of the relationship between science and magic and suggests a more appropriate way forward for scientists.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lamont et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: