Help me to prove the validity of tarot

[Blasted]

^:laugh:

What Peter fails to see, is that most people (generalising here) don't base their whole lives around a pack of tarot cards - which I think is what you're referring to in your rant Pea.  Tarot cards are not the new "bible" for new agey folk, they are just something which guides you, clears things up a bit and may answer a question or two.

Something to be taken with a pinch of salt.

On the other hand Peter, what you fail to see is that not everything can be explained scientifically in the same way as not everything is black and white, or bullshit and science.

I could help you with your little experiment but as I said before, I really see no point to it.

[Lucifer]

Can't be arsed to get into this discussion to be frank. 

I'm taking pics of my dream catcher and that's it.

I find these sort of discussions pointless really, because most people don't change their point of view that easily, especially when they are convinced that something is a load of bollocks.

how about me then, petal: i'm convinced it's bollocks, i read the tarot and am fucking good at it, and i've seen enough evidence (i.e. "results") to think it works. 

Doesn't seem to apply to me either   Everything Peaguy is saying seems to apply to Peter more, especially the ad hom attacks.

womma, we are just unique, obviously. 

[Peter]

Next thing you know, people will be trying to tell us that there are particles smaller than atoms! 

Um, there are?

No, there aren't, but some upstart is always poking around with new theories...

Well, that was the common thought in the 19th century... 

Now we know that the particles are made up of particles.

So, didn't they exist before we had proof of them, of course they did, we just didn't believe it.

Before we had evidence of subatomic particles, there was no reason to believe in them.  When the first evidence of the existence of subatomic particles emerged, scientists raced to verify their existence and quantify their characteristics, giving rise to the entire field of particle physics.  The difference between particle physics and many of these 'upstart theories' that people seem so fond of is that particle physics is testable, repeatable and supported by a mountain of evidence while many 'upstart theories' are untestable or are testable but fail those tests and thus don't have a scrap of evidence to their name.  The upstart theories that are testable and repeatable, as the theory of subatomic particles was in it's early days, quickly acquire ample supporting evidence and are incorporated into the main-stream scientific understanding.

[thepeaguy]

 

i take it you'd like me to read your tarot next time you come round then, pea? 

You wanna see me wield Excalibur again?

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v179/Shuggy/?action=view&current=subjectivereality.flv

Subjective reality for the win!

(Wasn't saying fuck you to Lucifer, so don't bite, people. )

[Peter]

^:laugh:

What Peter fails to see, is that most people (generalising here) don't base their whole lives around a pack of tarot cards - which I think is what you're referring to in your rant Pea.  Tarot cards are not the new "bible" for new agey folk, they are just something which guides you, clears things up a bit and may answer a question or two.

Something to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I never thought for a moment that anyone here based their lives around tarot cards.  People here are making claims, however, as to the efficacy of tarot as a predictive medium, and I'm of a disposition to examine the evidential basis for such claims and to test them.

On the other hand Peter, what you fail to see is that not everything can be explained scientifically in the same way as not everything is black and white, or bullshit and science.

It doesn't have to be explained; merely being shown to work is sufficient.  We still don't have a rigorous explanation of gravity yet, but we know it works as experiments that test it give repeatable and highly predictable results.  If something can not be examined scientifically, then that's a different matter, as it means the phenomena has no bearing on the physical world.  Even neutrinos are detectable by the ingenious instruments of science, and they can pass through a light-year of solid lead without interacting with anything.

I could help you with your little experiment but as I said before, I really see no point to it.

That's ok.  If tarot means so little to you that you're not even interested in determining if the purported effect is real or not, I understand why you'd be unwilling to devote time to such an experiment.

[choccybiccy]

 

i take it you'd like me to read your tarot next time you come round then, pea? 

You wanna see me wield Excalibur again?

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v179/Shuggy/?action=view&current=subjectivereality.flv

Subjective reality for the win!

(Wasn't saying fuck you to Lucifer, so don't bite, people. )

  That's more like it and funny too. But you should try, you might like.    Subjective reality for the win!!

[driftingblizzard]

Next thing you know, people will be trying to tell us that there are particles smaller than atoms! 

Um, there are?

No, there aren't, but some upstart is always poking around with new theories...

Well, that was the common thought in the 19th century... 

Now we know that the particles are made up of particles.

So, didn't they exist before we had proof of them, of course they did, we just didn't believe it.

Before we had evidence of subatomic particles, there was no reason to believe in them.  When the first evidence of the existence of subatomic particles emerged, scientists raced to verify their existence and quantify their characteristics, giving rise to the entire field of particle physics.  The difference between particle physics and many of these 'upstart theories' that people seem so fond of is that particle physics is testable, repeatable and supported by a mountain of evidence while many 'upstart theories' are untestable or are testable but fail those tests and thus don't have a scrap of evidence to their name.  The upstart theories that are testable and repeatable, as the theory of subatomic particles was in it's early days, quickly acquire ample supporting evidence and are incorporated into the main-stream scientific understanding.

No, Peter, you are wrong.  Plain and simple.  The theories came before the proof. And originally, the experiments were NOT repeatable, as it was new science and not altogether understood, and the one's with the theories didn't always get it right, so many were labeled as "you're nuts".  It was only until someone of stature stated (or stole) a theory to work on and present that it became generally accepted. Then other scientists would get about to prove or disprove it.  (Many proofs didn't come for years, if at all).   I believe that besides just being a walking bag of chemicals, there is a spirit in me, that is UNIQUELY me.  I don't need to prove it to you in order for me to believe it. 

You have GREAT hindsight, but your nearly blind looking forward.

[ALLDAYGLOWRANDY]

Yes I am open to such things as tarrot cards, but I will not jump to conclusions.

[Lucifer]

 

i take it you'd like me to read your tarot next time you come round then, pea? 

You wanna see me wield Excalibur again?

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v179/Shuggy/?action=view&current=subjectivereality.flv

Subjective reality for the win!

(Wasn't saying fuck you to Lucifer, so don't bite, people. )

no - i fear for the safety of your goods and chattels. 

[Blasted]

 

It's not about whether tarot is important to me or not, it's more of the fact that I can't be arsed getting into a discussion about it.

Maybe tomorrow when I have the energy.

[Pyraxis]

how about me then, petal: i'm convinced it's bollocks, i read the tarot and am fucking good at it, and i've seen enough evidence (i.e. "results") to think it works. 

Same question for you as choccybiccy, then - do you think it's magic making it work, or can it all be explained by things like self-fulfilling prophecy?

Edit: ooops, should have read the other thread first.

[Lucifer]

how about me then, petal: i'm convinced it's bollocks, i read the tarot and am fucking good at it, and i've seen enough evidence (i.e. "results") to think it works. 

Same question for you as choccybiccy, then - do you think it's magic making it work, or can it all be explained by things like self-fulfilling prophecy?

Edit: ooops, should have read the other thread first.

yes, to all of the above. 

[choccybiccy]

 :lol: me too 

[Lucifer]

[El]

Not being an expert in tarot divination, I would appreciate any input from those who know more about it than I do.  I've been reading about tarot, and based on what I've learned, I've devised an experiment which could potentially validate tarot as a predictive method, but I'd like feedback on the experiment so that adjustments can be made if I've misunderstood something.

Using a Rider-Waite tarot deck, I propose to take a large number of readings of myself using the five card spread.  Each time the cards are dealt, each card and it's position in the spread will be noted.  While taking these readings, I'll focus on the question "What is my current situation?", unless someone suggests a better question.  The deck will be well shuffled by myself between readings.

My theory is that if tarot is valid, there will be a statistically significant difference between the cards dealt for each position in the spread and what would be expected to have occurred by chance.  Since there are 78 cards in the deck, by my calculations each card would be expected by chance to appear 6.41 times per 100 readings and to appear in a particular position in the spread 1.28 times per 100 readings.  If tarot is purely a chance phenomenon, the results should increasingly approach these two figures the more times the cards are dealt.  As an experimental control, my computer will pick cards using a random number generator.

You'd prolly have to do a hell of a lot of retrials to be able to get somehting you can properly work with (as in, more than just the first 100), but it would be an interesting exercise to say the least.  Even if it didn't statistcially seem to be random, though, you woudln't necessariuly prove anything- it could be chalked up to improper shuffling/irregular cards, etc.  If you do it, I'd rather like to know what conlcusions you draw.