Magic is a concept that can be experienced by anyone whose mind is shocked and/or fooled by their senses in conjunction with their expectations.
Therefore, the issue of whether magic can actually be experienced isn't just an issue of whether one's senses can be fooled, but by whether one's expectations themselves are foolish.

Those who reject magic, do so not because of what they have witnessed (even if impressive), but because of their expectations/attitudes. This isn't to say that magic is real or unreal, just that why it is or not is a mirror of one's expectations/attitudes.

This becomes interesting when we ponder the act of 'science', which is supposedly an act based upon 'objective observation', since then we understand that HOW we observe something IS actually a metaphysical preference.

As an aside, I'm a rational idealist. For me, there is no thing but for magic because my philosophy allows me to account for no existent thing, other than God, such that all [other] things are [therefore] magic.

Just to note that 'objective observation' is not part of modern science. Intersubjective observation is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubj ... ifiability

jamest wrote:As an aside, I'm a rational idealist. For me, there is no thing but for magic because my philosophy allows me to account for no existent thing, other than God, such that all [other] things are [therefore] magic.

That statement may make you an idealist, but I don't see what it's got to do with rationality. You aren't reasoning your way into that position, it's a pre-supposition you seek to validate through post-hoc reasoning towards it.

Are conspiracy theories a kind of magical thinking?

Gullibaloo doesn't exist. Gaylord, who is the lord of the gay frogs, is in charge. The gay frogs who drink the blood of the victims of The Biden Crime Family and Obama Hussein.