Educational

Author Topic: Help me to prove the validity of tarot  (Read 1658 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Blasted

  • Guest
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2008, 12:22:46 PM »
^: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.

Offline Lucifer

  • Seraphic Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 25050
  • Karma: 1544
  • Gender: Female
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2008, 12:23:03 PM »
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.  :laugh:

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.  :laugh:

:-*

Offline Peter

  • Amazing Cyber-Human Hybrid
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 11846
  • Karma: 1115
  • Gender: Male
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2008, 12:23:24 PM »
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.
Quote
14:10 - Moarskrillex42: She said something about knowing why I wanted to move to Glasgow when she came in. She plopped down on my bed and told me to go ahead and open it for her.

14:11 - Peter5930: So, she thought I was your lover and that I was sending you a box full of sex toys, and that you wanted to move to Glasgow to be with me?

thepeaguy

  • Guest
Subjective reality!
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2008, 12:37:17 PM »

 :pwned:

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


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. :P)
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 12:41:48 PM by thepeaguy »

Offline Peter

  • Amazing Cyber-Human Hybrid
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 11846
  • Karma: 1115
  • Gender: Male
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2008, 12:45:38 PM »
^: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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
14:10 - Moarskrillex42: She said something about knowing why I wanted to move to Glasgow when she came in. She plopped down on my bed and told me to go ahead and open it for her.

14:11 - Peter5930: So, she thought I was your lover and that I was sending you a box full of sex toys, and that you wanted to move to Glasgow to be with me?

Offline choccybiccy

  • Frequent Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
  • Karma: 36
  • Gender: Female
Re: Subjective reality!
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2008, 01:26:09 PM »

 :pwned:

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


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. :P)

 :thumbup: That's more like it and funny too. But you should try, you might like. ;D   Subjective reality for the win!!
Womma entity

Offline driftingblizzard

  • Nuclear Prince of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1561
  • Karma: 250
  • Gender: Male
  • I have Aspergers, what's your excuse?
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2008, 01:32:32 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 01:35:05 PM by driftingblizzard »
Feeling neutral is very normal.

Offline ALLDAYGLOWRANDY

  • Ginger Snap
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
  • Karma: 97
  • Gender: Male
  • hyper Spoiled pric
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2008, 01:35:17 PM »
Yes I am open to such things as tarrot cards, but I will not jump to conclusions.
famous piligram John Alden is my direct descendent. physically fit!, wanna hit me yet?, warnning, you may have to acutually walk first! Persuasive creates his own luck has ability & drive to succeed   drink "Diet Dr. Maina" :) "62" orgasms at 1 time Fuck you faggot ass! not wishing Metabolic profile ( insulin metabolism etc) is almost perfect with no psychic meds, so go fuck yourself! semiautonomic controll over tear glands ambedexterous

Offline Lucifer

  • Seraphic Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 25050
  • Karma: 1544
  • Gender: Female
Re: Subjective reality!
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2008, 02:30:38 PM »

 :pwned:

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


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. :P)

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

Blasted

  • Guest
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2008, 02:36:28 PM »
 :yawn:

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.

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16678
  • Karma: 1433
  • aka Daria
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2008, 05:52:55 PM »
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.  :laugh:

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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 05:55:59 PM by Pyraxis »
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.

Offline Lucifer

  • Seraphic Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 25050
  • Karma: 1544
  • Gender: Female
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2008, 03:14:30 AM »
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.  :laugh:

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.  :laugh:

Offline choccybiccy

  • Frequent Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
  • Karma: 36
  • Gender: Female
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2008, 06:05:25 AM »
 :lol: me too  :plus:
Womma entity

Offline Lucifer

  • Seraphic Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 25050
  • Karma: 1544
  • Gender: Female
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2008, 09:23:27 AM »
;)

:-*

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: Help me to prove the validity of tarot
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2008, 12:00:30 PM »
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.
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.