5.
Describe magick using scientific jargon and terminology (magick is 'a technology', or an act of 'meta-programming').
There are many more methods, such as referring to magical texts as 'papers', but I'm sure you can come up with further examples should you wish to work with the scientific aesthetic. Remember: the scientific aesthetic is not the same thing as the scientific method. As stated earlier, we can apply the scientific method to magick (and it must be applied for it to be science), but the scientific method is not the current culture of science. Dressing in a white lab coat, using specialist jargon to describe the scientific method, or investing belief in the current favourite theory or model for quantum effects, does not make you a scientist. However, just because something is an aesthetic doesn't mean it is 'wrong' or useless. The question isn't 'is it correct?' but 'does making my magick look "scientific" float my boat?' CULTURE VULTURE
Beyond culture then, to what extent are explanations or models useful for the magician? It has often been assumed that working with different models of magick is beneficial to the magician, as it demonstrates the arbitrary nature of any viewpoint, and allows the magician to use belief as a tool for creating magical effects. This is referred to as 'belief shifting'.