Iirc the rules were prove magic is real as described. Ie. Prove the rules of divination as written in their belief system. Of course it’s a scientific approach, and it would make the unexplained explained, conventionally that means it “stops being magic” but all they had to do was prove their beliefs aren’t bullshit.
Ie. Prove the rules of divination as written in their belief system.
Traditionally, you prove (or more practically refute) the efficacy of a magical system like divination through empirical consistency.
Divination doesn’t work because it is unreliable. I can predict, say, the next week of weather or the outcome of an athletic game through climatology or sabermetrics far more reliably than the I Ching or Tarot.
But let’s pretend it did work. I’m not sure how you’d functionally prove it.
If you can explain how magic works, it isn’t “real magic”. Sort of the paradox of magic as a concept.
If I can dangle a steel penny in the air with a couple of magnets, is that a miracle? Only if I don’t know how magnets works.
Iirc the rules were prove magic is real as described. Ie. Prove the rules of divination as written in their belief system. Of course it’s a scientific approach, and it would make the unexplained explained, conventionally that means it “stops being magic” but all they had to do was prove their beliefs aren’t bullshit.
Traditionally, you prove (or more practically refute) the efficacy of a magical system like divination through empirical consistency.
Divination doesn’t work because it is unreliable. I can predict, say, the next week of weather or the outcome of an athletic game through climatology or sabermetrics far more reliably than the I Ching or Tarot.
But let’s pretend it did work. I’m not sure how you’d functionally prove it.