Of course it was magic

The question: Why is "magic" not a good enough answer for how the spot disappeared and re-appeared on the tongue depressor in Tuesday's class with Dr. Kruse.

I believe that this is the wrong question. I believe that the question should be why not.

Why isn't "magic" the answer? Let's look at the facts and examine our options...I saw it appear and disappear...the whole class did. I think it was magic. We need to be able to address all possibilities as a teacher, and not cast off an answer as ridiculous or simply not an option.

While I recognize that some personal, societal and cultural beliefs may reject my contention, I say that we should be careful of pre-conceived perceptions and interpretations unduly influencing our judgment. "Of course it's not magic...there is no such thing as magic" is not a scientific look at the phenomena of spots appearing or disappearing on the tongue depressor. When a student suggests an answer, we need to consider it and explain our thoughts scientifically.

We all carry perceptions and interpretations of life with us. While we may think that we're using standard scientific procedures and criteria to minimize personal influences, we usually draw the line somewhere. "No such thing!" But until further information is available to test my hypothesis, I will support the contention that what we saw was magic. And any dismissal based on personal beliefs is not supported by the facts.

Do you have difficulty believing in magic? Why? Experience suggests that the vast majority of the human race believes in it - usually called "miracles;" so why should there be any problem with "magic?" Is there a substantial leap from one term top the other? Let's look at miracles;

According to Merriam-Webster, a miracle is "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment." Humanity, society, and individuals routinely cite miracles for explanations for things aren't understand. Seems like we see miracles all the time. For instance:

- Men and women of science - medical Doctors - often cite miracles in medicine when they cannot explain a recovery scientifically.
- Religious leaders regularly cite miracles, preaching on TV to millions; in fact the Roman Catholic Church "saints" deceased believers based on investigations and confirmed reports of miracles performed.
- Survivors of a fiery car crash or plane crash claim that it was only by a miracle that they survived.
- Whole societies believe in miracles because they read about them in the bible.
- Even lottery's - the mathematical certainly that a random number combination is chosen - is still believed to be a miracle by the winning ticket owner.

So large segments of society throughout history- and today - believes in "miracles." With this nearly omnipresent belief in the supernatural - how does "magic" differ? ("Do you Believe in Magic?" The Lovin Spoonful, 1965.)Maybe it's just a case of semantics run amuck. Merriam-Webster defines magic as "an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source . . . " Pretty similar to the definition of "miracles," no? How can you believe in miracles and not magic?

So, I suggest my hypothesis is sound. Even though it's not yet at the level of a scientific theory. (I understand that in science "a 'theory' is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true." Science Daily.) However - my magic hypothesis is based on evidence just the same, certainly more evidence than many of the examples of miracles cited above. It's based on actual observation of all the students in the room today. We all saw the spot appear and disappear with our own eyes . . . the balance of evidence is in the favor of magic.

Finally, as I are student learning how to teach science, I should be prepared to design experiments to test, quantify, confirm, modify, or even contradict magic, testing this hypothesis. So perhaps it will be proven correct or incorrect by additional data in a future class. But until we can exact those tests, my contention is that it must have been magic .