My strong view is that you don't.
Yet you cant prove it
It is a natural force. It can be measured in terms of effect. It can definitely be examined (not in a modern scientific lab which is no equipped). It can certainly be observed, and it doesn't require philosophy or high-powered instruments or iddhi or clairvoyance.
If it cant be measured, experimented upon/with and the data shared then it is not science, and you still havent proved to me that it exists or that is is anything other than a notion in your head
"Superstition surrounds everyone and coats everything that we study." Do you deny that it doesn't? You can find superstition ANYWHERE.
Science is not superstition
I explained that I myself indeed cannot prove it to you, but I say that it can be proven by attentive inquiry.
Which is a cop out, if you cant prove it to me...
The Buddha didn't teach it, the Buddha didn't teach it. The Buddha hardly taught anything in regards to modern science, which you hold in great esteem.
Magic is not "modern science", cant believe im having this conversation in the 21st century
The Buddha taught scarcely little of the things that are popularly taught today. He taught something that was not taught by anyone else, the Dhamma. Everything that didn't come out of his mouth shouldn't be warranted as leading-to-dukkha. You can't divide everything into 1) Buddhadhamma 2) Modern Science 3)leading-to-dukkha.
The Buddha was concerned with Dukkha and its ending, which "magic" (regardless of it exists or not) has nothing to do with
However your claims enter the realms of science, and you have not yet proved that it exists
You deny the evidence because it is not in terms of modern scientific study.
What ****** evidence? You havent given anything other than white noise and your own opinion
"The University is not a miraculous place where all definite knowledge is stored."
Straw Man. I didnt say it was, you claimed that magic was a scientific field, if it was then it would be taught at uni, which it isnt...
Why does it sound that way?
Because its a lot of words that dont explain anything
It is a science. Evolutionary theory is a science, and it is far less useful.
Ok, firstly if it is a science, where is the hypothesis, data, experiment and peer reviewed articles?
Secondly, Evolution is far more useful than "spells"
I am not superstitious and I've said nothing to suggest that I am superstitious. I have no incentive for superstition.
Why do you say "huh?" when I explained that you cannot accept more elaborate insight into the workings of these forces if you cannot even approach an explanation in basic words? You seem so certain that you know everything there is to know about magic, and what it really is, yet in a controversy you claim repeatedly that it would be impossible to confirm what I'm trying to explain to you. The fact is, you haven't confirmed it, and as long as you would like to stay in the sphere of Modern Science, you won't be able to confirm that it is in fact anything. I've told you that it cannot be studied in that way, it must be studied with a delicate science of increasing precision.
The onus is on you to provide evidence, which you have failed to do
I dont have to prove magic exists, you do, even more so if you claim it is a "science"