I wasn’t there at the time, but if EY’s description is roughly accurate, I suspect the ordinary-seeming woman understood him in the opening anecdote. The specific chain I’m looking at is:
EY: Magic does not exist. OSW: Science doesn’t understand everything? EY: Ignorance is in mind, not reality. OSW: Magic is impossible!
I see no way that OSW could deduce this fact about magic unless she compared magic—stuff which you are necessarily ignorant of—to the correct interpretation of EY’s point.
Beware the double illusion of transparency ?
I wasn’t there at the time, but if EY’s description is roughly accurate, I suspect the ordinary-seeming woman understood him in the opening anecdote. The specific chain I’m looking at is:
EY: Magic does not exist.
OSW: Science doesn’t understand everything?
EY: Ignorance is in mind, not reality.
OSW: Magic is impossible!
I see no way that OSW could deduce this fact about magic unless she compared magic—stuff which you are necessarily ignorant of—to the correct interpretation of EY’s point.