It seems some people require examples, since they do not understand concepts. In particular, many fantasy geekboys come here and say that magic cannot be quantified. Perhaps they do not understand what quantification is, or how numbers apply. Allow me to provide an example:
A fantasy wizard has a magic spell which is said to make him invincible. Let us further suppose that we see him use it against a foe who can throw lightning, and it seems to work.
The magic geekboy would look at this and conclude "yes, this spell makes him invincible. We know because he used it and it worked. Therefore, God himself
could not overwhelm this spell."
An empirically-minded (read: scientifically minded) person looks at this same evidence and says "if we had not seen the spell in action, we would not know whether it works at all
. Now that we have seen it in action, we know that it works well enough
to block or at least redirect a lightning strike. We can use data from normal lightning strikes as a rough estimate for the energy and power levels involved, and this would represent a lower limit for its capabilities."
extrapolation of its abilities is unreasonable unless you assume literal semantic inerrancy on the part of the source. And bear in mind that even if one does
assume literal semantic inerrancy on the part of the source, all you have to do is find a single
flaw in the literal semantic inerrancy of the entire book (or comic series, or entire series of books, etc) and that house of cards comes crashing down.