See David Hume’s essay on miracles. There he says that our experience of certain kinds of events is 100% uniform, e.g., every time I drop something it falls, whence the law of nature we call the law of gravity. Laws of nature, Hume says, are never broken. But our experience of other kinds of events is mixed: sometimes they happen one way, sometimes another way, e.g. the weather prediction for tomorrow, which may tell us, on the basis of the weather bureau’s records, that there is a 70% chance of rain tomorrow. What this means is that, in the past, on days on which weather conditions were what they are expected to be tomorrow, on seven out of ten of those days it has rained, so it is somewhat improbable, but not impossible, that it will not rain tomorrow.

It is tempting to see Mentalism as the home of Improbability effects and Magic as the home of Impossibility effects. But it does not really break down this way. It is true that Mentalists present many ESP effects, in which the performer or someone else seems to have knowledge of a thought in another person’s mind, or of a hidden object, or of an event still in the future. Again, not plausibly but not inconceivably, this demonstration of apparent knowledge could in truth be the result of a lucky guess, the way a student may guess the answer to a teacher’s question and so appear to know something the student does not really know. But, Mentalism does not consist entirely of ESP effects, that is, effects based on exhibiting knowledge not gained in the ordinary ways. Mentalism also includes PK effects which appear to exhibit action at a distance, something which classical physics declared impossible, not merely improbable. (Quantum mechanics has apparently opened up the possibility of action at a distance.) PK effects, which are presented as Mentalism, must be reckoned as Impossibility effects.

And, many effects presented as Magic are of the Impossible kind, such as levitations, productions, and so on. But card tricks, by contrast, are more often presented as magic tricks rather than as Mentalism, and a great many, maybe most, card tricks are of the Improbability kind – see the reference to Out of This World above. Or, it could be that one spectator’s card shows up in the deck at another spectator’s number by the sheer good fortune of the performer (once again, not plausibly, just theoretically). Thus magicians very often include Improbability effects in their repertoires.

Can anyone refer me to any theorist of magic or mentalism who has developed ideas like these? They seem so obvious to me as I think about them that I feel as though I cannot be the first to come up with this. Thanks for reading – I hope this is reasonably clear.

There are also subdivisions of "impossible" that are important. From one of my eBooks --

"Consider for a moment the concept of “inexplicable phenomena.” When you create an illusion of conquering the impossible, what is the observer perceiving or remembering?

Impossible – that which defies physical laws or common mental abilities.

Not Possible – limited by physical ability, size, strength or reach. A four-foot tall man cannot slam-dunk. A one legged woman cannot high jump. No one can move themselves in a wheel barrow. You cannot see your backbone.

Non-possible – that which is considered by an individual to be beyond their capacity or limited by the power of others. You can’t find a good employee. Can’t write a poem. Can’t ever get to work on time. Just can’t keep the weight off."

These distinctions are important for audience engagement and routine design. Experience indicates that some effects of each type should be included in a long show. I am now in favor of a Prelude or Overture approach in which early effects can measure the audience's interest and appreciation for "strong magic" and
allow for branching to meet/exceed expectations. Understanding what the "audience of the moment" considers "probable impossible" is part of that. There is evidence that today some observers will mentally reject factors that threaten their "screen of logic" and they will deny the event ever occurred rather than appreciate "awe&wonder."

I really like this topic and have had many dicsussions over the years about it. My own feeling is that regardless how good an effect you have it should never be impossible, immediately for a lot of people this just relegates it to being 'just a trick'. For me growing up, this was always my take on things. You can't make the statue of liberty disappear - it's just a trick. You can't saw someone in half - it's just a trick. People can't levitate - it's just a trick. Etc etc.

Now that's not to diminish these and other tricks, of course there is some great magic of this type out there, but lacks that element of belief. As an example Richiardi's version of sawing in half leaves that question in your mind - was that real? If you put the body back together and the assistant stands up and takes a bow, it's clearly not.

For me, making things improbable to the point of impossible is the best form of magic. That's why I love the whole area of mentalism/mental magic effects, it can offer a whole other dimension of possibilities if presented the right way to an audience, things like telepathy, esp, etc people are maybe willing to believe it - it's not sawing someone in half or making buildings disappear, so maybe there is a chance it could be real.

And in the extreme, this is why I believe the bullet catch is the greatest illusion ever invented, it lives in that fraction of a percent of a chance that maybe, just maybe, it's physically possible.

That is charlatanry.

only is you charge for it or claim to have special abilities for the purpose of fraud.

Putting "magician" on your card/ticket automatically eliminates charlatanry.

Putting "politician" or "lawyer" on you card probably means it is true.

Mentalism is up in the air.

That is just what a charlatan would say.

In contrast, the legit magician would say:

"The modern magician does not deceive his spectators-that is to say, the legitimate magician. The modern charlatan, of course, has no more conscience than his predecessors. He will deceive anybody who will give him the chance, and he will try to deceive even those who don't; just to make sure of missing no possible opening for chicanery. He and the legitimate magician, however, are as far apart as the poles, in aim and procedure. A legitimate magician never deludes his audiences as to the character of his performance. He makes no claim to the possession of powers beyond the scope of physical science. Neither does he, while rejecting the suggestio falsi, substitute in its place the suppressio veri. That method is one frequently adopted by charlatans in magic. The latter gentry often refrains from committing themselves to any definite statement on the subject of their powers. In effect, they say to their spectators, "We leave you to decide upon the nature of our feats. If you can explain the methods we employ, you will know that what we do is not miraculous. If, on the other hand, you cannot explain our methods you will, of course, know that we have the power to work miracles." Since the majority of people attending public performances cannot explain the simplest devices used in magic, it is scarcely likely that persons of such limited capability will arrive at any satisfactory explanation of processes involving even a moderate degree of complexity. Consequently, the mere reticence of the charlatan suffices to convince many people that "there is something in it." So there is, no doubt; but, usually, not much-certainly, nothing such as the innocent dupe conceives."

Maskelyne, Nevil; Devant, David. Our Magic: The Art and Theory in Magic (pp. 125-126).

That book, written more than a century ago, was not written for magicians. It was written for the general public to educate them to the differences
between performance magic and practices of mediums and psychics claiming to have special powers. By today's standards it is a reveal of methods.
It was a commercial ploy to popularize his particular type of performance by "putting down" the work of others.

His use of "Modern charlatan" is comparative, not definitional. His efforts did result in codification 'by law' penalties for many practices to dupe the public.
Different forms of gambling were included, as well as 'fortunetelling'. Perhaps you are guilty over making money from running a gambling establishment.

In these 'modern times', we use a dictionary to discover the common use of terms as they apply today rather than "out of context" extracts from antiquity.

There are many olde books that offer different definitions too, but we avoid those as "from a different time." Note the title "theory in magic."

Also, the phrase, "it is scarcely likely that persons of such limited capability will arrive at any satisfactory explanation of processes involving even a moderate degree of complexity." is wrong on several counts.
First off, it is insulting to persons better educated today than those in 1900 - you know, high school diploma's and such. Secondly, the assumption that "explanation of process" is the desire of audience members has been refuted by many psychological studies of later centuries, especially the neurobiological discoveries of the 1990's. Remember Whit's Dilemma? The objective of the performing magician is to make sure the observer can't "figure it out." Nothing to do with charlatanry because of the "wink."

But, now we have Mentalism enter the picture and a range of psychics on stage and other media. You may have a valid point that some risk "crossing the line" with their claims or silence - not because of an old book, but by codification of law. Yes, many such practices popular might draw people aways from a show such as what Myskelyne and Devant provided. The average person today is readily duped by marketing claims and rantings of politicians. They seem to want to be duped over the effort to apply reason or ethics. Where do we find a 'legit' audience? Folks love to be deceived as long as they can blame someone else.


Now you slander me when I quote the law. Shame! But, I will allow that you fall into the "innocent dupe" category who treats his personal delusions as fact.

The theme of this thread is the distinction between impossible and improbable, not the ethics attached thereto.
History shows that your ability to ever post ideas related to the actual theme of the thread is highly improbable.

You certainly do not get to put works into the mouth of any legit magician today - or a scoundrel either.

[quote]On Aug 21, 2023, funsway wrote:
That book, written more than a century ago, was not written for magicians. It was written for the general public to educate them to the differences
between performance magic and practices of mediums and psychics claiming to have special powers. By today's standards it is a reveal of methods.
It was a commercial ploy to popularize his particular type of performance by "putting down" the work of others.

That, potentially is new information to me. Does that come from a particular source?

My own impression of "Our Magic", which is an extraordinary piece of work, is that it was a genuine attempt to lay out some theory behind performance magic, set in a time when conjuring had become a fashionable hobby among educated, well to do men (in particular) and an underlying desire to raise the status of magic, and claim it as a true "Art".

The introduction to that book rings absolutely relevant today, downplaying the mere methods and technical trickery as just a starting point. The final paragraph of the intro seems firmly aimed at newer, younger magicians.

On the topic of improbability v. Impossibility, I believe it is the "process" or power tha the magician is claiming to exert, that makes an impact, rather than pure numeric odds. So ACAAN is only a 1 in 52 chance, but as long as the "fake process" is clear and confidently presented (prediction, influence of the spectator, moving the card invisibly) then the "odds" drop away and it is the process that becomes inexplicable.

[quote]On Aug 22, 2023, ChrisPayne wrote:


Agree on the value of the book if one looks at the period and audience it was intended for. They had good reason to decry public performances designed to defraud the public.
It does elevate 'art' but is also just theory and opinion. They had learned what worked for the post Industrial Revolution masses, but also the growth of those preying on that opportunity.
We face much of the same gullibility today fm social media.

Look at the preface to the book written by the authors. "Our Magic" does not refer to magic in general, but the the type offered by this duo in contrast to others popular at that time.
This revelation was pointed out to me by an old magician decades ago. My copy is in storage so I can't give exact page or quote.

Our local Magic Circle had folks using the term 'charlatan' in reference to folks giving readings after a magic performance.
He gave chemistry-magic shows and had been accused as being an anti-charlatan by revealing how some trick are done.

and is only becomes charlatanry if you then claim "for a fee" that you can use the same process to chat with dead Uncle Earl
in an attempt to find his real, hidden will.

Another to criticize Nevil Maskelyne was Madame Blavatsky and that’s no coincidence.

I dunno... I tend to think that a lot of this is over-thought, which may explain why I like silent acts over talking acts. To me, magic is visual, and I can decide what it is when I watch it; hopefully, I'll decide that what I just saw was impossible.

Hume: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43......cles.htm

In part - if when accounting for the magic (that's part of the effect) the performer claims to be guessing. The notion of accounting for the "how" is critical here. Is it skill?, is it a mystery?, a special property of some arrangement of everyday items? When the claimed cause (specious of course) is "holding the rock in your left hand while facing north" then we are in the realm of magic... which might be called metaphysics if you like to play with such things

Subjectivism - or a Bayesian model of reality - it's all we have ( unless you want to give credence to tabloid claims etc )

"Our Magic" - really more David Devant's book - and IMHO a half hearted attempt to produce "On Magic" modeled on Aristotle.

If Maskelyne dealt with the art and Devant dealt with the science of our magic in the book, then I think it is apples and oranges as they say. Clockwork and Oranges perhaps.

Incidentally, Erdnase in his book The Expert at the Card Table advocates sleight of hand for the professional as opposed to devices, but Maskelyne in his book Sharps and Flats takes the opposite point of view. Recently I think I found out why Maskelyne preferred devices to sleight of hand: Maskelyne was apprenticed to a watchmaker and he once said "I have devoted most of my attention to the production of optical and mechanical mysteries; in fact, I have not practised sleight-of-hand for more than thirty years." He thought such devices more astonishing.

https://www.victorianvoices.net/ARTICLES......lyne.pdf

Because Madame Blavatsky was a charlatan.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/madame-bl.......6478885

Mr. Maskelyne mind you, did not win them all: "In 1906 Mr. Maskelyne was involved in a controversy with Spiritualist sympathizer Archdeacon Thomas Colley, who had challenged him to reproduce the phenomena of medium F. W. Monck (incidentally exposed in fraud). Maskelyne staged a remarkable illusion, but Colley claimed it fell short of the requirements of his challenge. After a court case, Colley's claim was upheld, perhaps surprisingly in view of opposition to Spiritualism at that time."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/enc......839-1917

Here is a bit about Mr. Monk:

https://archive.org/stream/NotesonSpirit......djvu.txt

"British spiritualism is generally said to have begun in 1852, with the arrival on these shores of the American medium Mrs W. R. Hayden." That bit made me stop and think for a moment.

Part I The Art in Magic (Nevil Maskelyne)

Part II The Theory of Magic by Nevil Maskelyne

Part III The Practice of Magic by David Devant

https://www.martinsmagic.com/allmagic/bo......-devant/