Should I be allowed to divulge the secret?

[Brown]

Just this week, I created a magic trick. As far as I know, it is an original magic trick, and is not performed by any professional magician.

I created this trick by accident. Basically, something unexpected happened while I was handling a common household object. I said to myself, "Whoa, I'll bet I could fool somebody with that!" After a couple of minutes, I worked up a little presentation to accompany the trick.

The trick is a piece of fluff. Basically, you can pretend to show a spectator a lame magic trick. You let the spectator "think" he's figured it out. Then you "show" him that he hasn't figured it out at all. When the spectator again thinks that he has figured out the trick, then you "show" him that he still hasn't got it.

No sleight of hand is needed, just a little bit of acting ability. An average person can do this trick with any of several common objects.

Should I be allowed to divulge the secret to a trivial trick that I created myself?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Brown
Should I be allowed to divulge the secret to a trivial trick that I created myself?

Absolutely -- if you've done the due diligence to assure yourself that it is actually new. I would definitely ask around in a few fora -- the magic and illusion one, for example, and see if anyone knows of a similar effect to make sure that you're in the clear.

If so, you have a right to give it away or sell it as you like -- its your intellectual property at that point -- IMO.

NA

[no one in particular]

Hmm, quite interesting. So, if you come up with this trick on your own, true, it is your intellectual property and, as such, you are free to divulge it. However, do you know that someone else did not independently come up with this same trick and is making a living with it? For example, let us presume that I have come up with a simple levitation illusion. Let us also presume that I know very little of magic and I certainly have never heard of David Blaine. Would it be wrong of me to divulge my secret even though I may unknowingly hurt David Blaine’s career? After all, as far as I know, I made it up altogether.

[Cain]

Oh god, intellectual property! Property schmotery, how is the trick done? :D

You could at least be a little clearer in explaining the effect (without giving away the secret); so far this sounds very vague.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Cain
You could at least be a little clearer in explaining the effect (without giving away the secret); so far this sounds very vague. Here is a basic presentation, from the point of view of a spectator.

I pick up an ordinary object, such as car key, with my left hand, and put it in my right hand, making a fist. I describe the magician's well-known technique of "palming," in which I can hold an object unseen in my hand. I demonstrate by raising my right hand, with the palm facing away from the spectator, and opening my fingers. I might say something like, "You can't even tell that I'm holding the key."

The spectator should notice, however that my hand does not quite look quite "natural," and he will disagree with me. He will say that it DOES look like I am holding the key. I might agree, and say, "Yeah, my hand doesn't look quite right, does it? What if I do this? Does this make it look more natural?" I then open my fingers wider (still keeping the back of the hand facing the spectator). Eventually, I flex my fingers back as far as they can go. Then I wiggle my fingers, then I shake my whole hand, rather violently, with my fingers fully extended. Then I say to the spectator, "NOW it doesn't look like I'm palming the key, does it?"

At this point the spectator might protest that I never had the key in my right hand in the first place, and that I only pretended to put the key in my right hand.

But I close the fingers of my right hand, and with a flourish or two, present my closed fist to the spectator. When I open my fist, the key is there, and I lightly toss it off my palm for him to see.

As I say, this trick is a piece of fluff. From my standpoint, the entertaining part is that the spectator might think he knows what's going on, but he really doesn't.

(My car lease expires in about six weeks, and the leasing company has put my name on a bunch of mailing lists. Accordingly, I receive several promotional letters every week, and many of them include car keys, some of which look quite real. It was by handling one of these car keys that came in a promotional letter that I came up with this trick. I did not modify this key before using it in the trick, nor did I create any special apparatus for manipulating it.)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Absolutely -- if you've done the due diligence to assure yourself that it is actually new. I would definitely ask around in a few fora -- the magic and illusion one, for example, and see if anyone knows of a similar effect to make sure that you're in the clear.

If so, you have a right to give it away or sell it as you like -- its your intellectual property at that point -- IMO.

NA

Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on a TV show, but I do believe that the term "intellectual property" has a much narrower meaning than what you imply - it only covers patents and copyrights (and possibly buisness secrets, in as far as they are covered by law.) Ideas and inventions (that have not been patented) do very explicitly not have any protection under law.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Brown
Here is a basic presentation, from the point of view of a spectator.

I pick up an ordinary object, such as car key, with my left hand, and put it in my right hand, making a fist. I describe the magician's well-known technique of "palming," in which I can hold an object unseen in my hand. I demonstrate by raising my right hand, with the palm facing away from the spectator, and opening my fingers. I might say something like, "You can't even tell that I'm holding the key."

The spectator should notice, however that my hand does not quite look quite "natural," and he will disagree with me. He will say that it DOES look like I am holding the key. I might agree, and say, "Yeah, my hand doesn't look quite right, does it? What if I do this? Does this make it look more natural?" I then open my fingers wider (still keeping the back of the hand facing the spectator). Eventually, I flex my fingers back as far as they can go. Then I wiggle my fingers, then I shake my whole hand, rather violently, with my fingers fully extended. Then I say to the spectator, "NOW it doesn't look like I'm palming the key, does it?"

At this point the spectator might protest that I never had the key in my right hand in the first place, and that I only pretended to put the key in my right hand.

But I close the fingers of my right hand, and with a flourish or two, present my closed fist to the spectator. When I open my fist, the key is there, and I lightly toss it off my palm for him to see.

As I say, this trick is a piece of fluff. From my standpoint, the entertaining part is that the spectator might think he knows what's going on, but he really doesn't.

(My car lease expires in about six weeks, and the leasing company has put my name on a bunch of mailing lists. Accordingly, I receive several promotional letters every week, and many of them include car keys, some of which look quite real. It was by handling one of these car keys that came in a promotional letter that I came up with this trick. I did not modify this key before using it in the trick, nor did I create any special apparatus for manipulating it.)

Sorry you are not the first to try this trick a well known magician has been using this for years you have been reported to the forum administrator!

[Brown]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on a TV show, but I do believe that the term "intellectual property" has a much narrower meaning than what you imply - it only covers patents and copyrights (and possibly buisness secrets, in as far as they are covered by law.) Ideas and inventions (that have not been patented) do very explicitly not have any protection under law. "Intellectual property" is a much broader field than that, and protection for it extends beyond patents, trademarks and copyrights.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on a TV show, but I do believe that the term "intellectual property" has a much narrower meaning than what you imply - it only covers patents and copyrights (and possibly buisness secrets, in as far as they are covered by law.) Ideas and inventions (that have not been patented) do very explicitly not have any protection under law.

My understanding -- I am a lawyer, but not on the intellectual property side -- is that a number of things outside patents or copyrights are protected -- the patent gives a date certain when your idea is officially protected and allows certain presumptions under the law, but your ideas are still protected, regardless - you just may have a harder time proving your entitlement, and therefore a slightly harder burden of proof under the law. Writings and ideas may be intellectual property, even if never filed anywhere.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


My understanding -- I am a lawyer, but not on the intellectual property side -- is that a number of things outside patents or copyrights are protected -- the patent gives a date certain when your idea is officially protected and allows certain presumptions under the law, but your ideas are still protected, regardless - you just may have a harder time proving your entitlement, and therefore a slightly harder burden of proof under the law. Writings and ideas may be intellectual property, even if never filed anywhere.

This might be a difference in US and Norwegian law, but I was under the impression that ideas are never protected - patents only protect an actual implementation of an idea, and copyright only protect a particular embodiment of ideas (the concept of 'derivative works' does make that a little fuzzy though), and trademarks (which I should have included earlier) only protect a particular name or graphical design.

Originally posted by Brown

"Intellectual property" is a much broader field than that, and protection for it extends beyond patents, trademarks and copyrights.


What further legal protections are there?

[Brown]

Originally posted by Baker
Sorry you are not the first to try this trick a well known magician has been using this for years you have been reported to the forum administrator!I realize that I have given some clues (including at least one really big clue) as to how the trick is done, but I don't believe I have given away the secret... have I? (Smirk.)

Basically, I have followed the technique of some books on magic, which divide the trick into "Presentation and Effect" and "The Secret." I have provided the "Presentation and Effect" part.

Seriously, if there is well-known magician who performs this feat, where he tries to convince a spectator that he's palmed an object, then tries to convince the spectator that he hasn't palmed the object, then tries to convince the spectator that he has palmed the object after all... well, I wonder if I've ever heard of him/her? Does he/she do birthday parties?

Seriously (again), the closest thing I can ever remember is a conjuror named Slydini doing a bad palm on the Dick Cavett show, and Dick (perhaps thinking the bad palm was part of the misdirection of the trick) pointing out the bad palm to the audience. Dick's remark that Slydini's hand looked unnatural actually spoiled the illusion that the conjuror was trying to create.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
What further legal protections are there? This is an excellent question, and I wish I had time to provide an extensive answer. This should probably be the subject of another thread.

There are a lot of things that are considered to be intellectual property (not a tangible "chattel" or "real," i.e., related to land) that are protected in various ways by various statutes and legal doctrines.

Patents, trademarks and copyrights have been mentioned. Trade secrets have been mentioned. There are all sorts of things that involve intereference with another's property or are related to intellectual property, such as passing off, palming off, reverse palming off, unfair competition or trade practices, false advertising, license interference or breach, and so on.

Some law schools teach a whole course on the various kinds of intellectual property and how they can be protected, without ever going into patents (which is a highly specialized legal area).

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by Brown
Should I be allowed to divulge the secret to a trivial trick that I created myself?

You have created your own unique piece of magic. Why would you want to ruin it by revealing the secret?

[Brian]

Although the presentation is yours, it sounds like it works by using a standard principal of magic.
I don't think you'd be allowed to disclose the principal here.

[wert]

It just sounds like you are pushing the rules my friend.

If you have truly come up with something original, why not keep it to yourself or share it on an actual magicians forum?

Aside from pushing the rules here, why else would you want to expose principals of conjuring on these skeptical forums?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Brown


(My car lease expires in about six weeks, and the leasing company has put my name on a bunch of mailing lists. Accordingly, I receive several promotional letters every week, and many of them include car keys, some of which look quite real. It was by handling one of these car keys that came in a promotional letter that I came up with this trick. I did not modify this key before using it in the trick, nor did I create any special apparatus for manipulating it.)

That's funny, I used to get those same keys.

I used to put them on my keyring with the others, and then use them to demonstrate, "The Gellar Effect."

Anyone who has played with these keys for any length of time knows what I'm talking about.

Not that that has anything to do with how Brown's trick is done.

[Brown]

Originally posted by wert
It just sounds like you are pushing the rules my friend.

If you have truly come up with something original, why not keep it to yourself or share it on an actual magicians forum?Actually, I don't think I'm pushing the rules at all. And this trick is really too trivial for a magician's forum. (Some of the best tricks are the simplest, but this one is really trivial.)

I have made a decision, however: I do not intend to reveal here how I accomplished the trick. I have already mentioned some techniques that I did NOT use, but I have not mentioned the precise technique that I did use, and neither has anyone else.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Brown
I realize that I have given some clues (including at least one really big clue) as to how the trick is done, but I don't believe I have given away the secret... have I? (Smirk.)

Basically, I have followed the technique of some books on magic, which divide the trick into "Presentation and Effect" and "The Secret." I have provided the "Presentation and Effect" part.

Seriously, if there is well-known magician who performs this feat, where he tries to convince a spectator that he's palmed an object, then tries to convince the spectator that he hasn't palmed the object, then tries to convince the spectator that he has palmed the object after all... well, I wonder if I've ever heard of him/her? Does he/she do birthday parties?

Seriously (again), the closest thing I can ever remember is a conjuror named Slydini doing a bad palm on the Dick Cavett show, and Dick (perhaps thinking the bad palm was part of the misdirection of the trick) pointing out the bad palm to the audience. Dick's remark that Slydini's hand looked unnatural actually spoiled the illusion that the conjuror was trying to create.

I have no idea if anyone has tried it before it just seemed like an amusing reply.:D

[GroundStrength]

Brown,

What is the flourish or two. I can repeat this using a standard move. So what did the hands do during the "flourish"?

Thanks

[Earthborn]

Brown, I saw a trick similar to this on Discovery once, in a program called the Secrets of Magic, or something similar. It was done by a magician who did something with eggs, explained what palming was and managed to trick the audience several times that they figured it out. At the end of his little magic lesson, he does something totally unexpected... Unfortunately I can't remember the details of the trick.

If someone else saw the program, he was the guy who joked about palming: "I used to practice it at the local supermarket..." :)

By the way: I think I have a pretty good idea how you did it, but I am a bit confused about the magic rule and will not present my theory.

[Brown]

Originally posted by GroundStrength
What is the flourish or two. I can repeat this using a standard move. So what did the hands do during the "flourish"?If by "standard move," you mean a sleight-of-hand move, there were no real sleights in this trick. Part of the presentation, however, includes moves that magicians make that often disguise sleights, this may provide misdirection, but it also provides a delay between the time the spectator sees me put the key in my right hand and then open my right hand (palm facing away from the spectator).

Let me be a little more vague. This trick does involve manipulation of the object, to be sure, but no sleights. The moves would be easily learned by someone having just a single exposure to the trick, and would not really require any practice to master.

Basically, one purpose of the flourish is to provide another delay, in particular, a delay between closing my fist (after demonstrating that I couldn't possibly be palming the key... or could I?) and opening my fist to reveal the key. The flourish can be any movement of the hands that creates the delay.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Brown, I saw a trick similar to this on Discovery once, in a program called the Secrets of Magic, or something similar. It was done by a magician who did something with eggs, explained what palming was and managed to trick the audience several times that they figured it out. At the end of his little magic lesson, he does something totally unexpected... Unfortunately I can't remember the details of the trick.Yes, I've seen Mark Wilson and Lance Burton do variations of this. They appeared to stuff a handkerchief into their hands, and then open their hands to reveal an egg. They would then show "how" they did the trick using a false egg. The finish involved showing that their explanation, which seemed plausible, was actually not correct, because the egg turned out to be real (as they proved by breaking the egg open into a glass)!

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by Earthborn
...I am a bit confused about the magic rule....

What is it about the rule that is confusing you?

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Brown
I created this trick by accident. Basically, something unexpected happened while I was handling a common household object.This isn't The Disappearing Hairbrush, is it?

:D

[Earthborn]

What is it about the rule that is confusing you?In this thread: Ideomotor Communication and Art (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17390) I discussed to a potential claimant the reasons for blinding an experiment. For this I presented a magic trick, which I later explained how it worked. (This was before the rule was instituted). I got much praise from people for my meticulous, patient and logical responses. And I think Aster, who is pretty smart, really understood what I was saying. Now if I were to do this again, whould I violate the magic rule? How else am I supposed to explain the importance of certain procedures, if I can't use such examples?

In short: how can we educate people by keeping secrets?

[GroundStrength]

I can see the point about debunking those who claim paranormal abilities, but there shuold be no reason to expose the secret of "card in lemon" magic trick.

It may seem disingenuous to just say to "believers" something along the lines of "Oh, thats just a magic trick" when debunking something like a seance. Doesn't really work in my book. In some case I feel that you need to be able to say "The guy is doing ..." to make to point.

[Earthborn]

but there shuold be no reason to expose the secret of "card in lemon" magic trick.Do you mean by that some sort of trick whereby the magician cuts open a lemon and pulls out a card?

If so, what if someone claims to be able to paranormally materialize objects in fruits? Or if someone claims to be able to grow apples with banknotes in them?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Do you mean by that some sort of trick whereby the magician cuts open a lemon and pulls out a card?

If so, what if someone claims to be able to paranormally materialize objects in fruits? Or if someone claims to be able to grow apples with banknotes in them?

The fact that many different magicians - who have no claim for paranormal powers - can duplicate the effect should be evidence enough.

If the fact that numerous magicians can perform the same stunts is not enough, then I sincerely doubt that extra information about how its done will turn the lightbulb on over someone's head. After all, the fact that you -could- perform the feat via trickery is (as Randi himself says) no proof that the psychic is not doing it through sheer mental power. It just means that he is doing it the hard way.

NA

[GroundStrength]

Earthborn,

Point taken, but most magic shows are just that..shows, entertainment.

But I am of the mind that it is okay to expose any secret that someone is using to pass themselves off as paranormal (as opposed to abnormal, which most of us magicans are)

[Earthborn]

The fact that many different magicians - who have no claim for paranormal powers - can duplicate the effect should be evidence enough.I don't think it is. If someone cannot understand how something is possible without paranormal powers, why would this person assume these magicians do it without?

And I disagree that magicians don't claim to have paranormal powers. Have you ever seen a magic show? Did you ever hear "After the break, David is going to pretend to walk through the Great Wall." or "Next, David is going to make it look like the Statue of Liberty is disappeared." ? I don' t think you have.

The suggestion is given that he really is going to do these things. That's a paranormal claim. People who watch such a show are expected to be critical enough to know that is just pretend. I'm sure that's how those television psychics justify their actions to themselves.

Problem is, many people are not critical enough. There are lots of people who believe David Copperfield has magical powers, just because they can't imagine how they are being tricked.If the fact that numerous magicians can perform the same stunts is not enough, then I sincerely doubt that extra information about how its done will turn the lightbulb on over someone's head.That is your assumption. I disagree. You assume that they are too dumb anyway. I say they are kept dumb, by not telling them how they are being deceived.After all, the fact that you -could- perform the feat via trickery is (as Randi himself says) no proof that the psychic is not doing it through sheer mental power.No, but if people know how it can be done with a trick, they can look out for the signs of trickery. It is irrelevant whether they continue to believe there might be people who can do such things with paranormal powers. What's important is that they are educated enough not to fall for obvious frauds.But I am of the mind that it is okay to expose any secret that someone is using to pass themselves off as paranormalOkay, great. I hearby claim to be able to do all the things David Copperfield can do without resorting to tricks. Please expose me as a fraud by showing that it can be done with trickery...

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Earthborn
And I disagree that magicians don't claim to have paranormal powers. Have you ever seen a magic show? Did you ever hear "After the break, David is going to pretend to walk through the Great Wall." or "Next, David is going to make it look like the Statue of Liberty is disappeared." ? I don' t think you have.

Reputable magicians make such disclaimers regularly. Penn and Teller, for example, have, as have a number of mentalists. Moreover, the context of the performance is one of "magician," thus implied trickery, and not "magic powers." Many - perhaps even most - magicians do not make a disclaimer before every performance because they do not expect the audience to believe that they have supernatural powers to begin with. Most disclaimers are made by mentalists for the reason that the mentalism field is open to more confusion and has more risks in that area.

The suggestion is given that he really is going to do these things. That's a paranormal claim. People who watch such a show are expected to be critical enough to know that is just pretend. I'm sure that's how those television psychics justify their actions to themselves.

TV psychics may try to excuse what they do similarly, but it doesn't pass the smell test - nor do I think it comparable. When asked point blank, magicians will say that it is trickery. Within the profession, members come down hard on those who come close to the line of pawning themselves off as mystics *cough*David Blaine*cough*. People who try to profit off such a reputation and claim such powers open themselves up to legitimate criticism.


Problem is, many people are not critical enough. There are lots of people who believe David Copperfield has magical powers, just because they can't imagine how they are being tricked. That is your assumption. I disagree. You assume that they are too dumb anyway. I say they are kept dumb, by not telling them how they are being deceived.

The above isn't very clear to me, but you seem to be putting words into my mouth. I don't think that the people who really believe in mystics are dumb - many are quite intelligent. Neither are they necessarily ignorant, as you state. They, in many cases, simply -want- to believe. Look at how many people will champion Geller even though the exact methods of his cheating -have- been exposed, repeatedly.


--- interior quote----
But I am of the mind that it is okay to expose any secret that someone is using to pass themselves off as paranormal
--- end quote---
Okay, great. I hearby claim to be able to do all the things David Copperfield can do without resorting to tricks. Please expose me as a fraud by showing that it can be done with trickery...

(1) I didn't write the original quote, so I'll allow that person to answer you, and
(2) You can claim anything, but the debunking comes second -- first you'll have to make the Statue of Liberty disappear, only then will I worry about whether to tell a secret that earns illusionists tens of thousands of dollars regularly.

NA

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Earthborn
And I disagree that magicians don't claim to have paranormal powers. Have you ever seen a magic show? Did you ever hear "After the break, David is going to pretend to walk through the Great Wall." or "Next, David is going to make it look like the Statue of Liberty is disappeared." ? I don' t think you have.True, but you also never see commercials for tv shows which say "Tonight, the actress who plays Buffy and an actor playing a demon will pretend to fight to the death!" This doesn't mean that anyone is trying to actually fool the audience into anything. It's all simply part of a dramatic presentation.

[Earthborn]

TV psychics may try to excuse what they do similarly, but it doesn't pass the smell test - nor do I think it comparable. When asked point blank, magicians will say that it is trickery.Maybe so, but both are trying hard to undermine people's confidence that the world is an understandable place.Penn and Teller, for exampleFor Penn and Teller I make an exception. They often tell how things work. They even use transparant props, to show that no magic is involved, only incredible skill. Even though they don't tell everything, people who watch their shows will feel more confident that things are explainable.They, in many cases, simply -want- to believe.Why do they want to believe in obvious frauds? Is it perhaps because there are people undermining their understanding of the world by not telling them how they are tricked?(2) You can claim anything, but the debunking comes second -- first you'll have to make the Statue of Liberty disappear, only then will I worry about whether to tell a secret that earns illusionists tens of thousands of dollars regularly.Oh, you think I can't do that, hey? Well, I can. I can do it in the exact same way as David Copperfield did. Even if I don't do it, I can still claim that Copperfield did it by paranormal means. Now prove to me that usch powers are not necessary!True, but you also never see commercials for tv shows which say "Tonight, the actress who plays Buffy and an actor playing a demon will pretend to fight to the death!" This doesn't mean that anyone is trying to actually fool the audience into anything. It's all simply part of a dramatic presentation.True, but then again actors are listed by their real names, and in interviews they are willing to tell them what they did and how they did it. It is pretty difficult to keep believing any of them is who they play on TV.
And special effects experts don't start yelling that people are revealing their trade secrets if someone shows how the tricks work. They reveal those tricks themselves!
Just imagine if SFX experts had the same magic code of magicians, and people saw all those hyperrealistic monsters, and people with superpowers. Don't you think people would become insecure about what is real and what isn't? Don't you think people become scared... How could they be confident that these monsters aren't bred in such underground lab especially for the film?

You can say of course that even though people are shown how these creatures appear on film without such genetics labs, there still is no proof that some filmmakers don't it this way. But very few people believe that this is what happens... Why? Because they are educated enough to know there is a simpler way. Magicians are denying them such an education about card tricks and sawing people in half...

[davefoc]

Earthborn's reference to a thread where she talked about how the mentalist communicated with an assistant was the kind of thing I thought of when the don't disclose magic trick secret rules was put forth.

Orson Welles, towards the end of his life, went on tv talk shows claiming to be some sort of psychic, which disgusted me even when I was fairly young. One of his stunts was to show the written out prediction of something an audience member was going to select. Of course this was nothing more than having several different versions of the answer written out and hidden in different places. I am fairly sure that discussion of simple mentalist trickery like this is not covered by the rule. But am I right?

[Earthborn]

I am fairly sure that discussion of simple mentalist trickery like this is not covered by the rule. But am I right?I can't imagine why these tricks would not fall under the magic rule. After all, all magic tricks are basically very simple. If we are allowed to reveal simple tricks, I can't see why I wouldn't be allowed to reveal how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear. The first time I saw it on TV (and I wasn't half as good at figuring out tricks as I am now) I thought: "L-a-a-a-a-m-e-e-e-e!".

I can't imagine what exactly is permitted under this rule. If I invent a trick myself, revealing it still teaches someone some principles of magic, allowing him/her to instantly see through a trick by a professional magician. Since we are supposed to make sure people will still marvel at the magic (keep them ignorant), it appears to me that we can't tell them anything except "oh, it's a trick..."

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I can't imagine why these tricks would not fall under the magic rule. After all, all magic tricks are basically very simple. If we are allowed to reveal simple tricks, I can't see why I wouldn't be allowed to reveal how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear. The first time I saw it on TV (and I wasn't half as good at figuring out tricks as I am now) I thought: "L-a-a-a-a-m-e-e-e-e!".

I can't imagine what exactly is permitted under this rule. If I invent a trick myself, revealing it still teaches someone some principles of magic, allowing him/her to instantly see through a trick by a professional magician. Since we are supposed to make sure people will still marvel at the magic (keep them ignorant), it appears to me that we can't tell them anything except "oh, it's a trick..."

IIRC, Penn and Teller once demonstrated on television how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.

People will still marvel at magic even if they know how the trick is done. The idea that divulging magician's secrets will cause a loss of income for magicians seems bogus to me.

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by tamiO
People will still marvel at magic even if they know how the trick is done. The idea that divulging magician's secrets will cause a loss of income for magicians seems bogus to me.

Go learn a single, simple, good magic trick. I don't care which one. Learn it, and practice it so that you can do it well. Perform it for someone. Note the reaction of the person to your trick. Then tell the person how it was done. Note the reaction you get from the person when you reveal the secret.

Do the same trick for that person again sometime, and compare the reaction you received when she/he did not know the secret to how it was done, to the reaction you get when she/he knows how it is done.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose


Go learn a single, simple, good magic trick. I don't care which one. Learn it, and practice it so that you can do it well. Perform it for someone. Note the reaction of the person to your trick. Then tell the person how it was done. Note the reaction you get from the person when you reveal the secret.

Do the same trick for that person again sometime, and compare the reaction you received when she/he did not know the secret to how it was done, to the reaction you get when she/he knows how it is done.

If I did that, I would be a lame magician.

A good magician would be able to entertain the same guy with the same trick, but do it in a different way. Not everyone is up to Penn & Teller's standards.

Now that gatekeeping is going by the wayside, magicians will have to do more than buy some tricks and learn them to make a living. They will actually have to think and be entertaining.

You can't stop people from revealing the secrets they learn or that they figure out on their own. You can only deal with the reality.

[wert]

Originally posted by tamiO


IIRC, Penn and Teller once demonstrated on television how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.
Proof? I think you're quite mistaken here, but would be willing to be persuaded otherwise by actual evidence.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by wert
Proof? I think you're quite mistaken here, but would be willing to be persuaded otherwise by actual evidence.

I might very well be quite mistaken here. This is why I added, "IIRC". I was also very loose with my wording.

I said: "IIRC, Penn and Teller once demonstrated on television how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear."

I should have said the television show demonstrated one of the possible ways that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.

What I remember is a show on television. It was within the last 5-6 years. Perhaps it was that masked magician guy on Fox; I can't find reference for the actual show anywhere.

If it wasn't Penn & Teller, I probably attached Penn & Teller to the revelation because I know of their lack of respect for David Copperfield.

Although I haven't been able to track down who I saw revealing one of the possible ways to make the statue disappear on television that night, I have found the same possibility described, in detail, from a quick google.

I would give you a link to click, but I am pretty sure a link is not allowed here on this forum. Hell, maybe I can't even tell you what words I used in a search engine.

In my research this morning, I have found some really good interviews and articles. One interview ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/00/teller1229.htm ) with Teller that the Washington Times published was especially good.

Here is a quote:
Arlington Virginia: I've read that the illusions for which you and Penn reveal the mechanics for how they work, are illusions the two of you have designed and not illusions designed by others (or classical magician's tricks). Is that true?

I can understand why: who want's to get kicked out of the Magician's union?

Teller: That is true. But the reasons we have to design the tricks ourselves is because regular magicians tricks are so damn dull when you reveal them. I mean basically it all comes down to palming, mirrors and trap doors. okay a little "black art" once in a while but that stuff is so dull that even that gooney guy on fox in the mask couldn't make it entertaining. so we have to think up really clever tricks to expose otherwise you'd just shrug.

I even spotted our friend James Randi in a picture on page 80 in Penn & Teller's book "How to Play with Your Food"

The note at the bottom of the page says, "Without Randi, there would not be a Penn & Teller." :)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Maybe so, but both are trying hard to undermine people's confidence that the world is an understandable place.

We disagree on this, obviously. I do not feel that a magician tries to undermine anyone's confidence that the world is an understandable place -- a magician comes out and tells people he is going to fool them and fool their senses.


Why do they want to believe in obvious frauds?


Well, that has =always- been the $64,000 question, hasn't it? Why -do- people want to believe in things that just aren't so. logical need to believe things, from lack of conbtrol over the universe, to fear of the unknown, to grief, to a number of other factors.


Is it perhaps because there are people undermining their understanding of the world by not telling them how they are tricked?

There are frauds and irrational beliefs out there on almost every topic imaginable -- Do you mean to say that people fall for a roofing scam or the Nigerian bank fraud or any number of frauds wholly unrealted to psychic powers because magicians refuse to divulge their secrets?!

If not, then perhaps -- perhaps -- the exact same forces that allow frauds in all those other areas are the ones working in the mentalism/magic area, as well.

btw, Randi's take on when things should be revealed/not revealed were mentioned in one or two of his commentaries, IIRC.


And special effects experts don't start yelling that people are revealing their trade secrets if someone shows how the tricks work. They reveal those tricks themselves!

Yes, and dentists may not mind that "secrets of their dental training" are spoken of, but its a different field, different profession, and different rules. Even so, some new techniques for F/X when they are first developed are jealously guarded.


Just imagine if SFX experts had the same magic code of magicians, and people saw all those hyperrealistic monsters, and people with superpowers. Don't you think people would become insecure about what is real and what isn't? Don't you think people become scared... How could they be confident that these monsters aren't bred in such underground lab especially for the film?

To my memory, I have -never- seen anything showing the way that those things are created. And yet, even without knowing specifically how they are created, I have never for a moment thought that my home was about to be crushed by Godzilla, or that Tokyo was destroyed back in 1956 and its non-existence was kept secret by the government. They say its motion picture trickery, and that suffices.


Magicians are denying them such an education about card tricks and sawing people in half...

. . . and therefore people can obviously bend spoons with their mind.

Here's a question - the method of bending spoons -has- been revealed on a number of occasions, but a large people still feel the need to believe in Geller. The -need to believe- mentioned above is still there, even with a full expose. What happens if you reveal all of the magicians' tricks and people still want to believe?

NA

[Earthborn]

I do not feel that a magician tries to undermine anyone's confidence that the world is an understandable placeOkay, maybe he doesn't try it, but it is the effect of what he does.Why -do- people want to believe in things that just aren't so. logical need to believe things, from lack of conbtrol over the universe, to fear of the unknown, to grief, to a number of other factors.I think a major factor is lack of education about how people can be fooled. I can't think of a better, more enjoyable way than showing them magic tricks and later explaining them how those work.Do you mean to say that people fall for a roofing scam or the Nigerian bank fraud or any number of frauds wholly unrealted to psychic powers because magicians refuse to divulge their secrets?!Yes, in part. It is because they haven't learned to think critically. How can we expect people to see through elaborate hoaxes, if they can't even see through the 'linking rings' ?the exact same forces that allow frauds in all those other areas are the ones working in the mentalism/magic area, as well.Exactly: someone who can be made to believe the Statue of Liberty is actally gone, can be fooled in other ways, too. For fun or ... for profit.Randi's take on when things should be revealed/not revealed were mentioned in one or two of his commentaries, IIRC.Yes, but never very convincing, IMHO.To my memory, I have -never- seen anything showing the way that those things are created.You have never seen a 'Making of ...' documentary? Or a documentary explaining computer graphics, camera tricks or Special Effects? Well I have, and I am sure most people have.Even so, some new techniques for F/X when they are first developed are jealously guarded.Yes, keyword here is: when they are first developed. After the film is released the people who spend more time and effort into these effects (than any magician ever did in theirs) they just can't keep their secret to themselves and want to make sure everyone knows how much effort they put into it. Not only does this give people the confidence that the next cool effects are made with pure skill and effort too. It also forces the SFX people to come up with something better the next time. Magicians are still stuck at the 'linking rings' level.What happens if you reveal all of the magicians' tricks and people still want to believe?The same could be said about : "What if all people were educated in the theory of Evolution, but they still want to believe God created life?"
I would say believing what they want is their godgiven right! I don't want to crush peoples beliefs, I want them to be educated. I don't care whether people believe in Creationism, as long as they understand evolution and understand that it is a very good theory and there is lots of evidence for it. (And I don't think the fact that people will still believe in Creationism is a reason not to educate about the theory of evolution!)

Simirlary I want to make sure people know how Uri Gellers feats can be done with trickery. I don't demand that they give up their belief that he might be real. All I want is that they are able to see the signs that he might be cheating, and perhaps start asking him: "Sure I believe you can do this for real, but could you please do it in a way that cannot be done with trickery, just to convince the skeptics? Just once?"

I think frauds will have it mighty difficult if their followers are better educated.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Earthborn

Yes, keyword here is: when they are first developed. After the film is released the people who spend more time and effort into these effects (than any magician ever did in theirs) they just can't keep their secret to themselves and want to make sure everyone knows how much effort they put into it. Not only does this give people the confidence that the next cool effects are made with pure skill and effort too. It also forces the SFX people to come up with something better the next time. Magicians are still stuck at the 'linking rings' level.

No, they are guarded initially from the competition. Unlike magicians, they don't care if the general public knows, per se -- they just want to hold onto the technical edge for as long as possible.

Forces people to come up with something better? Maybe in sF/X, but not in magic under your system. You state that the magician has a duty to reveal their methods. Not just the old, crappy methods being used by scam artists -- every trick must be explained, or else it would allow the public to believe that magic powers ecist. So why would any magician anywhere spend time or effort coming up with new effects -- and contrary to your asserttion above, many spend a great amount of time, effort, and ingenuity on these effects -- if he or she must stop the show and explain to everyone how it was done?


The same could be said about : "What if all people were educated in the theory of Evolution, but they still want to believe God created life?"

Thanks for a partial example -- because many people have had all of the facts behind evolution explained to them, and they still disbelieve it -- it gets back to the need to believe. Just like many still believe in Geller, despite the fact that his methods have been exposed on more than one occasion. Unless we can show a real benefit to the exposure, I cannot support it.

Telling these people how to make the space shuttle vanish is -not- goting to have any effect on their belief patterns. The extra exposure you are mandating will not convince them of anything because they do not wish to be convinced.

I remain, therefore, unconvinced that withholding magic secrets leads people to invest their money into roofing scams.

I am unconvinced that revealing all of magicians' secrets will suddenly make people who -want- to believe in irrational things -- mystic and otherwise -- turn around and "see the light."

I am unconvinced that there will be any real world difference between telling people that something is a trick and showing them how it is done, except to end magic as an entertainment form.

I am also unconvinced that people cannot be taught critical thinking without such exposure.

NA


Edited to add: Perhaps I can narrow the area where we are disagreeing, as I have not been precise wnough in these posts. I see a qualitative difference between specific effects being used to commit fraud against people versus all magical effects out there.

Where people are having effects presented as true and being bilked, I see a much more immediate and compelling reason to expose that specific technique. there is an obvious nexus and the harm being committed is clear. There is, therefore, a tight nexus between the harm and the desired exposure.

On the other hand, exposure of any/all effects in general on the off hope that it will contribute to clear thinking is much, much more attenuated, if the effect even exists at all. Exposing the statue of liberty will not help creationists or people wanting to invest in Nigerian bank scams. Exposing a simple switch -might- actually help someone going to see gypsies. Whether you agree with the exposure, or not, it -has- to be admitted that the gypsy example constitutes a much stronger and more direct jusitifcation for exposure than a general "feel good" educational goal.

Would you agree with that?

[Earthborn]

Unlike magicians, they don't care if the general public knows, per se -- they just want to hold onto the technical edge for as long as possible.Well, every time I see a 'Making of ...' they seem eager to tell how it works. Sure the want to hold on to the secret for a while, to be able to flabbergast the public. But once such an effect is revealed it becomes pretty much public domain.

I never heard that Steven Spielberg tried to make sure no one revealed how to 'realistically depict dinosaurs or other reptilian type creatures on film'. In fact after Jurassic Park the genie was pretty much out of the bottle on that one.Not just the old, crappy methods being used by scam artists -- every trick must be explained, or else it would allow the public to believe that magic powers ecist.No, not every magic trick has to be revealed. Just enough to give the general public enough insight to see through any method a scam artist might use. Just revealing the crappy methods will just force the scam artists to use better ones. The fact that frauds use crappy methods is just proof that people are not educated enough.and contrary to your asserttion above, many spend a great amount of time, effort, and ingenuity on these effectsI did not say that this is not true. I said that the level of effort, amount of time, labour, ingenuity, expertise, technology, and expenses used in SFX for films is much greater.

And have you read that piece of interview TamiO quoted? Penn and Teller put extra effort and ingenuity in the tricks they reveal, because the normal tricks are just too lame! They are actually advancing magic!Thanks for a partial example -- because many people have had all of the facts behind evolution explained to them, and they still disbelieve itRight. Does that mean that you are against the teaching of evolution too? If not, could you explain why you think people are allowed to know how life developed (for everyday use pretty useless knowledge) but you oppose teaching them how to know when they are being deceived?Unless we can show a real benefit to the exposure, I cannot support it.How is this for a real benefit: people are always at risk of being deceived, and this is a bad thing which we should avoid. So we need to teach them how deception works. That is not just saying that they are deceived, it is giving them the insight in recognizing when they are and how they are. If we manage to teach them that, both magicians and frauds are out of a business. I think trying to put criminal frauds out of business is more important than making sure magicians can continue to perform thousands of years old tricks before an ignorant audience. Perhaps you have different priorities.

Or perhaps you think it is possible to educate people enough not to fall for frauds, but still remain marvelled at magic shows. If so, please explain how.it gets back to the need to believe.Are you against freedom of religion? I happen to think people have a fundamental right to believe what they want. I also believe they have a fundamental right for an education.The extra exposure you are mandating will not convince them of anything because they do not wish to be convinced.Irrelevant. I'm not interested in changing peoples' beliefs.I am unconvinced that revealing all of magicians' secrets will suddenly make people who -want- to believe in irrational things -- mystic and otherwise -- turn around and "see the light."Irrelevant. I'm after education, not conversion.I am unconvinced that there will be any real world difference between telling people that something is a trick and showing them how it is doneCan you see the difference between telling someone that maths can be done, and teaching the to make sums so they will have insight in it? Do you see a difference between showing someone that it is possible to ride a bike and teaching them to do it? Do you see a difference between telling someone 'God didn't create life' and teaching them how life could have developed by itself, showing the evidence how it happened, the evidence that it is still happening and how insight in this process helps us to understand geology, medicine, economics and even politics?

Surely you can see a difference.I am also unconvinced that people cannot be taught critical thinking without such exposure.Well, I am unconvinced. Could you please explain how you would do it? I can't think of any way. Please tell me: how can I explain how things work, if I am not allowed to explain how things work?

(BTW: Do you understand how Copperfield made Lady Liberty disappear? If not, do you still consider yourself a critical thinker?)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Does that mean that you are against the teaching of evolution too? If not, could you explain why you think people are allowed to know how life developed (for everyday use pretty useless knowledge) but you oppose teaching them how to know when they are being deceived?

This is a complete mischaracterization of my point, and seems to willfully ignore about half of what I have written in my last post -- the distinction between immediate fraud and a person's inability to avoid being cheated in a roofing scam because David Copperfield, et al haven't gone public with all his effects.


How is this for a real benefit: people are always at risk of being deceived, and this is a bad thing which we should avoid. So we need to teach them how deception works. That is not just saying that they are deceived, it is giving them the insight in recognizing when they are and how they are. If we manage to teach them that, both magicians and frauds are out of a business.

And my point -still- is that it is not necessary to put magicians out of business in order to catch frauds - much less to prevent frauds that have literally no connection to magic oir magicians' methods.

In all of your posts, you simply assume the truth of your allegation - that exposure of any/all effects, regardless of any connection with an alleged fraud - somehow magically makes people more discerning. I doubt that.

Moreover, you follow that up with what appears to be an internally incoinsistent position -- that you don't care whether exposure actually helps stop frauds, or not -- you are in it simply for education-for-education's-sake. Frankly, that seems a weak justification -- especially as the alleged connection between the statue of liberty and a roofing scam against the elderly is merely being assumed by fiat.

Earlier, I asked if you would agree that there is a distinction between methods being used to perpetrate a fraud (and representing an immediate threat to people's property and living) and those that have no such connection -- I am guessing that you see no great distinction. I am not sure whether that is accurate, or not, but I am left to guess.


I think trying to put criminal frauds out of business is more important than making sure magicians can continue to perform thousands of years old tricks before an ignorant audience. Perhaps you have different priorities.

Well, my priorities include not rephrasing other people's opinions in such a way as to willfully distort their point, if that's what you mean.

We obviously will disagree on this at a fundamental level; it appears we are simply talking past each other now.

[davefoc]

And my point -still- is that it is not necessary to put magicians out of business in order to catch frauds - much less to prevent frauds that have literally no connection to magic oir magicians' methods.

If a little discussion on this site could put magicians out of business, magicians are in serious trouble. There are thousands of books, hundreds of internet sites, and thousands of magic tricks for sale all revealing in fairly good detail how tricks are done.

The main reasons to not reveal tricks on this site are out of respect for Randi's request and because they might just ban you if you do.

edited to add.
Of course the rule is ambiguous and presumably talking about simple mentalist tricks especially ones that have been revealed by Randi is probably OK. Brown's trick that he invented is probably not, IMHO, but probably wouldn't draw any censoring either. A discussion of how P & T do the bullet in the mouth trick is definitely not acceptable and probably would get the powers that be mad at you, at the least. That's my interpretation anyway, of the rule.

I might mention, that when I was a youngin, I read a book that had a description of how the trick was done. The explanation has stayed with me all these years because apparently some people have actually been killed doing it. Having said that, I don't fully understand how P & T do some aspects of their trick, but I don't think I'm giving too much a way to say that Penn doesn't really catch a bullet fired from a gun in his mouth.

.

[Earthborn]

This is a complete mischaracterization of my pointI figured you would say that. Now can you explain to me why the comparison doesn't hold?In all of your posts, you simply assume the truth of your allegation - that exposure of any/all effects, regardless of any connection with an alleged fraud - somehow magically makes people more discerning. I doubt that.No, I argue that it would help enormously.you are in it simply for education-for-education's-sake.I like the sound of that: education-for-education's sake!

Yes, I believe there is some intrinsic value of education. I believe it is better for people to be educated than not be educated.

If education of people in a particular subject puts a very specific group of people out of business (your claim, not mine) than, yes, I think that's worth it.especially as the alleged connection between the statue of liberty and a roofing scam against the elderly is merely being assumed by fiat.The connection is quite simple: if someone is unable to see through such a simple deception, than they are most likely also unable to see through a more complex deception that is set up to part them of their money/health/whatever.I am guessing that you see no great distinction.Correct. I see no fundamental difference. I just see a difference in degree: magic tricks are usually done with more skill and often more elaborate than frauds. Although sometimes it is just the other way around.
The fact that many frauds can get away with very simple tricks, proves to me that people are simply not educated enough for the frauds to be forced to improve their skills.Well, my priorities include not rephrasing other people's opinions in such a way as to willfully distort their point, if that's what you mean.I hope one of your priorities is also to explain why you think someone is rephrasing other people's opinion, and how that opinion would be better represented.it appears we are simply talking past each other now.You appear to be talking past me. There is a difference. :p

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I figured you would say that. Now can you explain to me why the comparison doesn't hold?No, I argue that it would help enormously.I like the sound of that: education-for-education's sake!

Well, I explained it in my reply - the bit you cut out: "This is a complete mischaracterization of my point, and seems to willfully ignore about half of what I have written in my last post -- the distinction between immediate fraud and a person's inability to avoid being cheated in a roofing scam because David Copperfield, et al haven't gone public with all his[should be "their"] effects."

You assume it would help enormously because of a connection that you -- wait for it -- assume exists. You continually hold your argument as true by fiat, and then continually -- after assuming (or wishing) your premises to be true -- rephrase the inquiry as a dichotomy. Such as:


I think trying to put criminal frauds out of business is more important than making sure magicians can continue to perform thousands of years old tricks before an ignorant audience. Perhaps you have different priorities.

Well, obviously, anyone that doesn't agree with you or your premise simply wants criminal frauds to stay in business -- that's their (or "my") priority.

Moreover, you say that you are NOT claiming that any extra frauds will necessarily be put out of business through exposure. Education for education's sake, remember? Not looking for conversions or to change anyone's beliefs?

But then you turn around and immediately spit out your either-or scenario: Either we expose magician's secrets or you are in favor of allowing frauds to stay in business. Can you see that these positions are not consistent? If you cannot show that exposure -- beyond the immediate methods being used -- will actually lead to preventing frauds, you also cannot use "preventing frauds" as a benefit for exposure.


Yes, I believe there is some intrinsic value of education. I believe it is better for people to be educated than not be educated.

A general statement without context that also robs it of any real meaning.


If education of people in a particular subject puts a very specific group of people out of business (your claim, not mine) than, yes, I think that's worth it.

No. Your claim; your words:
If we manage to teach them that, both magicians and frauds are out of a business.

. . . except that the connection between exposure of methods wholly unrelated to the frauds being perpetrated seems a bit murky.

[snip] I hope the above sets out at least a major part of your question here. I question the nexus between the statue of liberty and roofing frauds. You can blythely assert that such a connection exists a dozen times, but it is no more true or self-evident than the first time. Without that connection, I do not believe any perceived benefits justify exposure. To say -- or imply -- that not believing your blanket assertion is tacitly applauding or allowing frauds is a mischaracterization of my point.


You appear to be talking past me. There is a difference. :p

Yes, indeed. The smug factor is certainly different by a whole order of magnitude.

Here is I think where the communication breaks down: I can understand you without agreeing with you. Despite what your posts seem to imply about your beliefs on the subject, those are two very different things.


NA

edited because I cannot type worth a darn

[Cain]

http://www.raceworx.com/funnypics/arguing.jpg

Calm down you two.

[Earthborn]

Well, I explained it in my reply - the bit you cut out: "This is a complete mischaracterization of my point, and seems to willfully ignore about half of what I have written in my last post -- the distinction between immediate fraud and a person's inability to avoid being cheated in a roofing scam because David Copperfield, et al haven't gone public with all his[should be "their"] effects."Hmmm... Only now do I actually understand what you mean by 'ignore about half of what I wrote'... Half of what you wrote in that post was edited in later and I missed it. What an evil ploy! :)Perhaps I can narrow the area where we are disagreeing, as I have not been precise wnough in these posts. I see a qualitative difference between specific effects being used to commit fraud against people versus all magical effects out there.

Where people are having effects presented as true and being bilked, I see a much more immediate and compelling reason to expose that specific technique. there is an obvious nexus and the harm being committed is clear. There is, therefore, a tight nexus between the harm and the desired exposure.

On the other hand, exposure of any/all effects in general on the off hope that it will contribute to clear thinking is much, much more attenuated, if the effect even exists at all. Exposing the statue of liberty will not help creationists or people wanting to invest in Nigerian bank scams. Exposing a simple switch -might- actually help someone going to see gypsies. Whether you agree with the exposure, or not, it -has- to be admitted that the gypsy example constitutes a much stronger and more direct jusitifcation for exposure than a general "feel good" educational goal.

Would you agree with that?Yes, I more or less agree with that. Revealing tricks that are used by frauds are more in need to be exposed than those by magicians. That's what you are saying right? Fine.

The problem is that there is no fundamental difference between the tricks by frauds and by magicians. If we reveal a fraudulant trick there is little doubt that somewhere we are robbing a magician of a trick he uses in a show.

But it is even more difficult to make a distinction between the two reasons for trickery: all tricks are based on a very limited number of principles. If we reveal one trick, a reasonably intelligent person can work out thousands of others, just because the underlying principles are exactly the same. How can you prevent people who heard about the trick a criminal used, to deduce how a magician does what he does, when it is basically the same thing?

Also I when I say I want to educate people, I don't just want to reveal tricks (that's just a method of doing it). I want to give them insight into deception. I want to increase their ability to see through deception, so even if someone tries to scam them with a totally new trick they recognize its underlying principles and won't fall for it. This will inevitably affect the magic profession as well. They may not use the exact same tricks as the frauds, they still won't be able to trick people knowledgable of the principles of deception to the same degree as people who are not knowledgable.

I also want to be able to explain to a claimant, like Aster, why I choose to design a particular experiment in a particular way. Preferably in words that are not too difficult to understand, for instance by giving an example. Such an example is likely to be a magic trick (for instance the code trick in Aster's thread) or to include something magicians use (for instance the fact that when you ask people to think of a number between 1-10 they choose some numbers more often than others. I won't reveal which ones, as that could be violating the magic rule).

Lastly I want to be able to give such examples to scientists (like Sivitsky or Schwarz) so they can design their experiments in such a way to prevent fraud. (Or explaining others how they may do that and are simply not interested in doing so.)

All these things have an effect on how effectively magicians can trick their audience. Theoretically as it may not be completely possible, an audience that has been immunized against fraud by a perfect education, cannot be tricked by a magician, even if the trick he presents is completely new and original. It would be like revealing all present and future magic tricks at once.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Hmmm... Only now do I actually understand what you mean by 'ignore about half of what I wrote'... Half of what you wrote in that post was edited in later and I missed it. What an evil ploy! :)

That material was placed in as soon as I hit the post button. I made sure there were no replies when I did so.

That material was -not- added after your post as some sort of "ploy."

Edited to add:
As shown by the time stamps on both my edit -- 6:44
and your reply 7:25.

That material was there for over 40 minutes prior to your response.

[Earthborn]

That material was -not- added after your post as some sort of "ploy."No, it was added while I was formulating my response. When I do that I don't check every once in a while whether something is changed in the original message, and that's why I missed it.

[scribble]

Originally posted by tamiO

I even spotted our friend James Randi in a picture on page 80 in Penn & Teller's book "How to Play with Your Food"

The note at the bottom of the page says, "Without Randi, there would not be a Penn & Teller." :) [/B]

It may have been that photograph that eventually led me here. I don't have the book in front of me (in fact everything I own is in a locker in a friend's basement at the moment), but I still recall the title on the photo:

"THERE WILL BE A NAME FOR YOUR PAIN, 'JAMES RANDI!'"

It always bothered me because I think the comma should be a colon.

Teller does make a decent Uri Geller though.

-Chris

[scribble]

On topic, the only thing I'd like to add is that I've been a fan on Magic for a long time, I've read all the books, I know a lot of how things are done, and I've yet to see a trick I couldn't come up with an obvious method for.

Nonetheless, I'm still impressed and thrilled by professional magicians. I believe many magicians make a habit of performing for each other, as well, and must have the same experience. I would take this to indicate that it's not the trick that's as important as the performance.

-Chris

[Brown]

Originally posted by scribble
I would take this to indicate that it's not the trick that's as important as the performance.It's mostly in the performance, I agree. The secret is often a relatively minor thing. In the trick I described, the secret is trivial. If I were to explain it publicly, people would say, "WHAAAT? You mean there's no more to it than that?" Well, yeah, there is more to it than that. There's the performance. The performance is what fools the spectator.

Every now and then you'll hear magicians say on television: "The magic is in your mind." That sounds like "Grade A Baloney," but there is a good deal of truth in it. The magic occurs in what the spectator thinks is going on, rather than what is actually going on. It's the performance that causes the spectator to think the way he does.

I cannot tell you how many times I have experienced "magician's disappointment," which is my term for describing how I feel when I learn some magic secrets. Many of them are so simple that I feel like a moron for not catching on to them right away.

[rustypouch]

I cannot tell you how many times I have experienced "magician's disappointment," which is my term for describing how I feel when I learn some magic secrets. Many of them are so simple that I feel like a moron for not catching on to them right away

I think I know what you mean. I felt that way when I first learned about certain devices. Then I realized that if they can fool me, what chance does the average person have?

I have since come to learn many fine tricks with seemingly simple pieces of plastic.

[shemp]

AHA! I've figured it out! And I'm going to give away the secret!

Before you start the trick, you have smeared super glue on the back of the key! Then you perform the trick, and when ready to show the key, you spit out some "Attack" (a product which dissolves super glue; you have some tucked away in your cheek) and dissolve the glue!

Well, am I right?

[Brown]

Originally posted by shemp
Well, am I right? You're close. I actually built a robotic hand that fits over, and is indistinguishable from, my real hand. By application of pressure with my real hand at selected sites, I can cause the robotic hand to do all the things I described.

In the creases of the palm of the robotic hand is hidden a small incision, in which I tuck the key.

No, I am NOT serious. Construction of a realistic robot hand is not the secret... to THIS trick, anyway.

[DrMatt]

As far as I can tell, conjuring is a performance art.

It belongs to a large category of performing arts which includes ballet, playing the french horn, and comedy, among others.

As far as I can tell, every art involves illusions--whether the illusion of the observer being suspended in space over a sunset on a scenic canyon of the Old West when they're actually looking at a painted canvas in Washington, DC, or the illusion of having just engaged in a profound philosophical dialogue when they've actually just been listening to an orchestra play Beethoven, or even the illusion that a very dramatic moment just unfolded before their eyes while all the people involved somehow just happened to remain within their eyesight when what actually happened was that actors performed a script while carefully following the principles of good blocking.

In all these artforms, a discussion of the techniques used to create the illusion is almost--but not absolutely--always not compatible with the actual performance. But in all of these artforms, discussion of the underlying techniques is a matter of open public discourse--outside of the actual performance itself.

Except for conjuring.

Conjurers guard the secrets of their trade as if their illusions would be less valuable if the secrets were known.

How would this detract from their value?

I don't own a TV, so I'm relatively out of touch with David Blaine's antics, but last New Years Eve I got to see a bit of it on TV. All the shots WITHOUT Blaine in the frame were of people gushing how amazing and magical his performance was--and there, perhaps, is part of the answer.

I am led to formulate some hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: The bulk of fans of magic shows believe they are seeing supernatural events, and value them for that purpose.

Hypothesis 2: Most conjurers keep the tricks of their art secret mainly because they give some credence to Hypothesis 1, and believe that if the secrets of their art were freely available, the gullable majority of their fans would lose interest. A secondary concern is the wrath their fellow artists, who are presumed to similarly believe Hypothesis 1.

I am not sure whether Hypotheses 1 and 2 are readily testable.

But I'd like to point out that there seems to be evidence from the whole debunking phenomenon that true believers cannot be disuaded from belief by being shown how the trick is done. True believers--and perhaps even most fans--will continue believing they've seen something supernatural no matter what.

As a composer, I regularly get accused of engaging in mystical fervor, colluding with gods and spirits and demons, and all sorts of things in the creation of my art--when I actually work in a realm of melodic shapes, harmonies, rhythmic interplay, counterpoint, variable loudness, phrasing, instrumentation and orchestration, and other similar technical details about which I have no secrets. Non-musicians who like my work insist that I'm still hiding some sort of magical secrets. I think the gullable very quickly becomes the perma-gulled, and if their belief is part of their appreciation for conjuring, that gullable appreciation wouldn't have its foundations shaken by open publication of conjurer's secrets.

That's my opinion. Whatcha think?

[shemp]

Originally posted by Brown
You're close. I actually built a robotic hand that fits over, and is indistinguishable from, my real hand. By application of pressure with my real hand at selected sites, I can cause the robotic hand to do all the things I described.

In the creases of the palm of the robotic hand is hidden a small incision, in which I tuck the key.

No, I am NOT serious. Construction of a realistic robot hand is not the secret... to THIS trick, anyway.

Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an opening in your own hand big enough for a key, and sew skin over both inner sides of the incision so as to form a pocket?

[DrMatt]

Nu, as far as I know, the trick to most magic tricks is to cheat--at another moment in the trick when attention is diverted elsewhere. No robots, no superglue, hardly any gimmicks at all--just theater.

I don't pound myself over the head for not figuring out tricks. I've struggled to learn a lot of things, but most of what I've learned is how little any one person knows--and conjuring isn't my specialty.

[schplurg]

I have a different angle on this...well slightly. As an ex-amateur magician (?) I would perform a trick and then challenge people to figure out how I did it. They rarely did. If someone eventually figured it out, that would motivate me to try something new, in the hopes that I could still fool this person anyways.

It's an "us and them" situation, generally speaking. Magicians will happily divulge how the psychic "frauds" fool people, while considering their own craft as superior and worthy of protection. The psychics probably feel the same way about their craft. Most psychics are just out to charge a fee to read a persons' fortune, nothing more. Yes, some psychics will rip people off out of thousands of dollars by scaring them ("You will die in 3 days if you don't bring me $5,000"), but most are just out earning a meager living.

So the magicians think that they're morally superior to psychics, and indeed the psychics disagree. They all make money by tricking and fooling people. Is a card or palm reader who provides this type of entertainment (that's what this is right?) less legit than a guy who claims to be able to levitate or make the Statue Of Liberty disappear? Are either of them breaking any laws? Is John Edward? Do we have the right to give away the secrets he uses in making his legal living just because we don't like him? Well...yes we do.

As I said, I was and still am a magic enthusiast, so I'm playing Devil's advocate here somewhat. It seems silly, or at least ironic, for a magician to have a site largely devoted to debunking people who use many of the same tricks as he and his own colleagues, while expecting the secrets of his own chosen profession to remain sacrosanct.

My true feelings on this issue would be that I don't mind the rule and that I just hate psychics because they're phony and that whether or not there's a double standard here doesn't bother me in the least. But that's not thinking very critically now, is it?

Just stirring up trouble...

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by schplurg
I have a different angle on this...well slightly. As an ex-amateur magician (?) I would perform a trick and then challenge people to figure out how I did it. They rarely did. If someone eventually figured it out, that would motivate me to try something new, in the hopes that I could still fool this person anyways.

It's an "us and them" situation, generally speaking. Magicians will happily divulge how the psychic "frauds" fool people, while considering their own craft as superior and worthy of protection. (etc.)

Hm, the superiority of musical craft seems to lie not in better-guarded secrets but in excellent performances. We hide no secrets of the craft, but anybody who wants to perform well is going to have to take the time to master the craft anyhow. We composers even spend a certain amount of our energy developing music theory, a moderately coherent and widely disseminated explanation of the patterns of sounds which make musical effects possible.

I'm still not convinced that secrets do conjurers any good, though I can see that the keeping of conjurer's secrets may be helpful to charlatans. The "us and them" isn't performers-vs-audience: both are hoping to see a spectacular illusion. :roll:

It really looks to me like conjurers' secrets are a matter of tradition. Conjuring and charlatanism evolved out of a common ancenstral practice, and a bit of the ethos of the latter is still stuck in the tradition of the former. Frankly I think it's an unfortunate bit, but that's just my opinion.

[Bob Klase]

The basic premise of this trick is in Bobo's Coin Magic. It's a very old idea that's been used by many magicians. I have a video of Lance Burton doing a version of it on a Japanese TV show.

The fact that you use a key instead of a coin doesn't really make it original. You've just re-invented a trick that's been around for quite a few years.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Bob Klase
The basic premise of this trick is in Bobo's Coin Magic. It's a very old idea that's been used by many magicians. I have a video of Lance Burton doing a version of it on a Japanese TV show.

The fact that you use a key instead of a coin doesn't really make it original. You've just re-invented a trick that's been around for quite a few years. Quite possible. I did not see it in my copy of Bobo's, but I have not finished the book yet.

[Bob Klase]

Quite possible. I did not see it in my copy of Bobo's, but I have not finished the book yet.

It's on page 50 (at least in my edition)- Sucker Vanish.

[Kevin_Lowe]

As an interested layperson, I admit that I get bored watching stage routines that I understand.

"Uh huh. The beautiful assistant is going to teleport across the stage in a minute, and I know that just from what props are on stage."

"David Copperfield is flying. *YAWN*".

Whereas the first time I saw the teleport effect I was gobsmacked.

On the other hand, I still love watching guys like David Blaine on TV even though the majority of the time I can figure out at least one fairly easy way the trick could have been pulled. Because they do it so smoothly that it's neat to watch.

So I think it's kind of mean to reveal the secrets behind stage magic blockbuster effects, because they're no fun if you know the secret and they're no use to charlatans.

But revealing how Uri Geller breaks spoons is fine by me. I'd still pay to see it done well up close, and it educates people about the possibilities available.

By the by, no one seems shy about publicly discussing the secrets of cold reading, even though legitimate performers use it in their routines. What's up with that?