>>43358374>Is magic science?Your question is stupid.
However magic is defined in whatever system you use, science can be applied to it.
But your question is stupid.
You might as well ask, "Is potato science?" or "Is dream science?"
See what I mean?
>>43372964>If you're studying it, and doing experiments with it, and recording the results of its use, it's science.THIS
>>43373075>Is it still science if the result of the experiments is not the same every time, despite the procedure and environment being exactly the same?>>43373222>Even if you could find all possible modifiers and control them, what of the results were STILL different?Yes.
It's still science.
Science is the study.
Just because the study and experiment does not yield reliable results, that does not change that it is science.
There have been entire fields of science devoted to the study of phenomenons that turned out not to exist.
>I'm a huge fan of wild and, frankly, unscientific magicI like thoughtful methodical wizards, but I am also a fan of *unpredictable* magic.
Wild magic can be awesome and fun.
There is also the idea of magic being treated as more of an art than a science.
Science can be applied to the works of Mozart, Van Gogh, or Bernini, but it has yet to be able to allow an average person to match their ability.
