Tylor was the first who discussed magic as a science. The question that plagued him and aroused his curiosity was that when scientifically religion has no basis, why do tribals practise it? The question was valid and begged an answer.
Tylor noticed that the tribals themselves knew that magic was not true; even then it had a vital place in their life. He contemplated to answer the question:
(1) Magic is related to the commonsense behaviour.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(2) What magic does is actually done by nature also.
(3) Even when the magic fails to perform a certain action, there is no fault with it; there must have been something wrong in the practice of magic.
(4) – If magic inflicts some injury, there is always counter magic.
(5) The success stories of magic outweigh its failures.
Image Source: a3.format-assets.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Tylor argues that the development of magic in a systematic way takes the form of science. The crux of his argument is that magic runs on the principles of nature. Nature is run by positivistic laws, so it is also a science.
Frazer does not accept magic as a pure science. However, he does admit that magic is a semi-science. According to him, magic takes place on the basis of certain logic and rules. Ordinary people do not understand that magic is practiced on rules which are similar to science. People only see its applied aspect.
They do not think about the principles which guide the magical performances. For a magician, magic is only an art; even he does not understand that these are principles which are solely based on science. In theory magic is based on abstract laws.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Malinowski has worked among the people of the Trobriand islands. He has generated a rich stock of data though he has not raised the question of scientific nature of magic. He takes a functional perspective and says that magic exists in society; people practise it because it has certain functions to be fulfilled.
However, he accepts that the methods of magic and science, if not same, are truly similar. Both magic and science work on the logic of cause and effect.
Evans Pritchard fell in the same line of thinking as Tylor and Frazer. Despite their different approaches all the three agree on the following hypotheses:
(1) There is some supernatural power. This power has two faces. Its one face is benevolent and provides salvation to men. The second face of it is ugly and harmful. Science explores the benevolent face while magic the ugly face. Science and magic are the two aspects of supernatural power.
(2) Ruth Benedict argues that magic is not science. The findings of science are verifiable, whereas the findings of magic are beyond any verification.
(3) There are constant experiments in science. It has made tremendous progress during the last several centuries; instead of registering any progress, magic is increasingly becoming oblivious. Less and less people show their belief in magic.
(4) The basis of science is pure logic whereas the major premise of magic is faulty.