Technomancer time!

@Prof.NightJack  
That feeling, incidentally, is why I kept responding.

@Darth Sonic  
When people keep telling me I’m wrong like I don’t know what I’m talking about I get like that.

@Prof.NightJack  
I now get what you are trying to say, but until now, you weren’t explaining yourself well, and when @Vitruvius misinterpreted your intentions, you acted like an asshole. Seriously, you really overreacted there.

@Prof.NightJack  
The concept wasn’t dismissed for what it is. All I said was if magic existed it’s classification would change, not the effects itself. The concept of magic could never be dismissed, because it’s a fun and interesting concept, but all I am saying is that calling it magic wouldn’t be feasible then. Does that make sense.

@Eeveeinheat  
…..  
As I told him, I was talking of the idea, the concept.  
Please stop dismissing a concept that can be used in fiction just because of reality.

@Prof.NightJack
 
@Vitruvius  
Vitruvius is only trying to explain that if that concept of magic was made real then it would exist in Nature Therefor it wouldn’t be supernatural since it existed. Nature is everything that exists and can exist due to the current, and unknown, laws of physics. It ties in to what I was saying.

@Prof.NightJack  
Science has not resulted in things outside of nature, what are you talking about? We can’t break the laws of physics.

“Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from friendship”  
-Twilight Sparkle

@Prof.NightJack  
If you were discussing magic as a concept rather than as a phenomenon, then it was I who misunderstood you. Having looked back at that post, I can now see that as an interpretation, although I still think the post was perhaps not as clear as it could have been.
 
If we’re talking about the concept of magic, then yes, obviously that exists (and existing makes the idea part of nature, if not necessarily the phenomenon described by the idea). It also becomes a rather interesting paradox - one that may best be saved for another day.
 
 
@Prof.NightJack  
If you feel I was insulting you, I apologize. It was never my intent to do so. I was only trying to reach a point where each of us understood what the other was trying to say.

@Vitruvius  
It’s like you where insulting me for accepting an idea just because it’s not something that is real.

@Vitruvius  
I was talking about the IDEA behind them.  
I never said anything about if they actually exist, but you keep going with how it’s not nature or natural, so you where saying the IDEA of it does not exist.  
That’s what I was pointing out to Eeveeinheat, the IDEA.  
That’s why I was saying how one version of the line sounds better….

@Prof.NightJack  
I only said once that magic does not exist. I had not expected it to be a controversial statement.
 
Subsequent to that, you responded and it became clear that you did not understand my post. At the time, I did not know exactly what you misunderstood. I had thought that you misunderstood my definition of Nature. Maybe you did and maybe you didn’t; it’s irrelevant now, because I think you get the gist of it.
 
I have now come to believe that your misunderstanding is that you think I am insisting that magic and psychic powers do not exist, and that I am using my definition of Nature to prove it. I will reiterate that I have only claimed once in this thread that magic does not exist. I am not trying to prove that they do not exist. If you revisit one of my earlier posts, you will see that I included, for the sake of definition, the possibility that psychic powers do not exist, the possibility that they do exist, and also the possibility that at one moment they do not exist and at the next moment they do. I included all three possibilities because by that point, it had become irrelevant whether magic and psychic powers exist in reality, and equally irrelevant whether I believe in them. I was only trying to make the meaning of the word itself clear.

@Vitruvius  
Then why is it every time I say something you replay “it don’t exist”…
 
God all this just form me saying how one version of the snowclone of Clarke’s Third Law sound better then another…

@Prof.NightJack  
I’ve already tried to explain this. I’m not saying “X does not exist because it is not natural.” I’m saying “If X does not exist, then X is not natural.” There is a difference. I’m not making a claim here as to whether psychic powers exist or not. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn’t even matter. I’m saying that whether they exist changes whether or not they would be considered natural.

@Vitruvius  
I mean heck part of one definition for supernatural is “beyond scientific understanding” that doesn’t me it doesn’t exist, that mean that it is something current understanding of science can not explain.

@Vitruvius  
No you DO have a grasp of word meanings, just because “nature” has a common definition or a specialized definition doesn’t mean every other thing that isn’t that just flat out does not exist.  
You are coming off worse than a religious nuts that refuses to believe when science proves something just because the it’s not in line with what the Bible says.  
Look, I like to think I’m of a logical, scientific mind but I’m not going to shut out that possibility of something just because it may not be “nature” or “natural” by some common or specialized definition.

@Prof.NightJack  
There are some things that are common to all branches of science. One of those things is the concept of Nature as a cohesive set of phenomena governed by common underlying principles.
 
And I already told you that this use of the word is fairly common among us. It’s not that I have a bad grasp of the word; it’s that the word has a common definition and a separate, more specialized definition that you didn’t know about.

@Vitruvius  
For a scientist you sure have a bad grasp of word meanings.  
Also, your line of work?  
So you work in all fields of science?  
If not then you can’t speak for everything, just in your field.

@Prof.NightJack  
Actually, I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.
 
You may not share my definition of “nature” and “natural,” but it’s a common definition in my line of work and it’s what I’m going to stick with. Using my definition, anything that exists is natural. Anything that does not exist is not natural. If psychic powers exist, they are natural by virtue of existing. It doesn’t matter if they’re being investigated; it doesn’t matter if I, as a scientist, believe in them or not. If they don’t exist, they are not natural. If the universe changed tomorrow and psychic powers went from not existing to existing, they would become natural simply by being part of what is allowed to happen in the universe.

@Vitruvius  
Being supernatural don’t mean it doesn’t existed, you have the wrong idea of what it mean if you honestly think that.  
It’s something said not to be subject to the laws of physics or exist above/beyond nature.  
Psychic powers are counted as this and that’s something that scientific evidence for is elusive, but it;s still studied by science.

@Prof.NightJack  
If it existed, it would be a natural phenomenon. It’s only supernatural because it doesn’t exist.

well, yeah. magis is science.

Let’s just put it like this, the idea of magic is to manipulate the world by supernatural means, nothing says one can’t understand it, rater that it’s meted is not fully natural.

@Prof.NightJack  
From a scientific perspective, “nature” is the set of things and phenomena which exist. So humans, science, and the things that humans create with science are all part of what science would call “nature.”
 
Some people like to capitalize “Nature” when the word is used in this way to distinguish it from the more prosaic definition which excludes things and phenomena resulting from human existence.