Rubber hands and astral bodies: An argument for the reality of a cognitive science of magic
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractMagical practices are already studied under different names in established scientific fields. This paper argues that phenomena historically categorized as magic—such as ritual, suggestion, meditation, and mystical experiences—are investigated in psychology, anthropology, and cognitive science. Rather than treating magic as a separate or pseudoscientific topic, the author contends that existing research on cognitive biases, body schema, and placebo effects already covers these areas. Greater integration across these disciplines could improve understanding of underlying mechanisms and open new avenues for clinical and theoretical research.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key finding | Argues that magical practices, under other names, are already subjects of serious scientific investigation, and that integrating these research areas could advance understanding and clinical applications. |
Abstract
Recent academic discussion of magic has largely fallen into three camps: the psychological study of magical thinking, in an effort to explain it away; the sociological or anthropological study of magical beliefs and practices, remaining agnostic about their efficacy; and some attempts to make magic presentable as a subject of serious cognitive science. The present paper presents an alternative approach to the empirical study of magical practices. Rather than present an apologetic for magical practitioners or argue for a future area of research, the present paper argues that magical practices, by many other names, are already subject to serious scientific investigation, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Through evidence from the history and anthropology of magic and the psychological study of cognitive biases, the body schema, meditation, suggestion, ritual, and mystical experiences, it is argued that there already exists robust areas of empirical research dedicated to studying phenomena that have been historically folded under the umbrella of “magic.” It is further argued that increased communication and theoretical integration amongst these areas of research, forming a strong nomological network, could lead to both improved understanding of mechanisms underlying each phenomenon, as well as fruitful areas for future clinical and knowledge-driven research.