Science and Magic

"From the point of view of basic physics, the most interesting phenomena are, of course, in the new places, the places where the rules do not work—not the places where they do work! That is the way in which we discover new rules."

— Richard P. Feynman

A "curiosity engine" built from questions may lead into unexpected territory. Scientists can pursue unconventional interests alongside their scientific work. The relationship between those interests and a particular discovery needs to be examined case by case.

Isaac Newton was a devout Anglican and an alchemist and saw his work as heavily influenced both by the occult and his belief in a supernatural power governing the universe he sought to understand. Though this aspect of his career is seldom appreciated, Newton gave as much weight to astrology, numerology, and biblical mysticism as he did his mathematics—in fact, he saw them as belonging to the same bigger discipline.

Long before Feynman won his Nobel Prize, physiologist Charles Richet won his for his work on anaphylaxis . . . but on his list of beloved problems were questions about psychic phenomena and how human beings could experience premonitions of things to come. Pierre Curie, physicist and husband of Marie Curie, was fascinated by mediums. Nineteenth-century German chemist August Kekulé said he had a breakthrough in visualizing the structure of benzene when he dreamed of a snake eating its own tail. Jack Parsons was a founding member of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab and invented a kind of solid rocket fuel. He was also a follower of infamous occultist Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis, and claimed that he had once summoned the devil himself, who then fashioned the perfect woman in the form of artist and muse Marjorie Cameron.

These anecdotes concern how ideas arise, not whether they withstand investigation. An unexpected association may suggest a useful hypothesis or a mistaken one. Calling inspiration something other than "real science" does not settle its value, and an "Aha!" moment still needs to be followed by a test.

Unfamiliarity alone does not make an idea "unscientific". The useful question is how to investigate it: what does it predict, what evidence would support it, and what result would count against it?

Feynman once said, "Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry." Don't be afraid to pull on one thread and see what happens . . .

The source’s fascia example proposes that "emotions can be stored in the body". It argues from the idea that tissues might mechanically "remember" an injury to a claim about emotional storage and consciousness. The analogy does not establish that stronger claim, and the passage supplies no evidence that confirms it. It would need a clear definition of emotional storage and a test that distinguishes it from other explanations.