Is Tarot a Science or an Art?

[Diana]

This subject has been brought up in other threads, but it has never had a thread of its own and I think it deserves one.

Please vote and post your views so we can thrash this out. :)

[contrascarpe]

I voted for Art - I feel tarot reading comes from our souls .....

[Nevada]

I answered that it's an art. I tend to be an analytical person in many ways, and in fact, I've been able to analyze tarot quite thoroughly, on a mental level. Then I sit down to do a reading. All my analysis seems to fly out the window and I just READ.

Hmm, now I'm wondering if I would read the same way without all the analysis. Has the analysis embedded concepts in my mind that reform themselves in order to filter intuitive input?

Perhaps it is both.

Diana, this is a difficult question! :D

Nevada

[Osher]

I voted both: Mostly it is intuition, but...there is also numerology aspects, which are quite scientific.

Which means a BA in Tarot, not a BSc.

[Nevada]

When someone sets out to master an art form they usually go through an analytical, technical process to learn, before they can adequately perform. The painter learns drawing and perspective, color and form, the musician plays or sings scales. The architect learns how a building is supposed to be constructed. They all study what others before them have done. There's practice of techniques, and lots of it.

The actual performance or product appears to be effortless, seamless, it flows without any appearance of technicality to it at all, except to the expert observer.

Nevada

[Dasani]

I voted both because I feel Scientifically it is an Art.

[Moonbow*]

I vote both

The science bit comes from what you learn about the elements and numbers. The Art comes from tapping your own imagination and taking in what the pictures tell you. Just like looking at a painting I guess.

M*

[RiccardoLS]

The question cannot be answered unless we define:
what is Art?
what is Science?

At least within the boundaries of the question.

R.

[Diana]

Riccardo makes a good point here.

When I made this Poll, I was thinking along these lines, according to the Webster-Merriam On-Line Dictionary:

Art: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination

Science:
a) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method,

b ) such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena (as in Natural Science)

[Jewel-ry]

To me it is both, I use my intuition, as well as 'systems of knowledge' in such things as numerology, earth science, history, psychology etc BUT I accept that not everyone uses both.

J :)

[RiccardoLS]

Thanks Diana.

Within the definitions I would say ART.

Not because Tarot does not have roots in the natural world, nor because it is not rational... but because Tarot does not come from the observation-experiment-measure-model pattern.
Aka... it does not came from the scientific method.

While I think that my conception of Tarot does fit perfectly in the definition of Art, while not described by it.

Best,

R.

[Khatruman]

I voted it as a mix of science and art, which to me makes it such a deep system.

Science deals mainly in the logical realm, where art deals mainly in the creative one. Any good study, I believe, should include elements of both.

The problem with pure art is that it can have a problem remaining grounded. The problem with pure science is that it can be too coldly analytical.

With a mix of both, it remains vibrant, intellectual, soulful, masterful!

[crystal cove]

Originally posted by RiccardoLS
Not because Tarot does not have roots in the natural world, nor because it is not rational... but because Tarot does not come from the observation-experiment-measure-model pattern.
Aka... it does not came from the scientific method.

R.

I agree with Riccardo.

But I also believe that there are scientific realms that humans haven't even begun to understand. When scientists unlock the mysteries of the brain, which they have barely begun to do, the concept of science will expand exponentially. According to my psych professor, most scientists still don't even accept psychology as "real" science yet! We have far to go.

[jmd]

I have added my vote which possibly reflects the views I expressed in the thread with that very long title, somewhat here provocatively, but jovially, shortened: Is Tarot [...] truth [...]? (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=282065#post282065).

I suppose I cannot see how it cannot be 'either', 'both' or 'neither' if the question asks more loosely about whether Tarot is a science or an art (no... I'm not a Gemini :D)

In itself, can we ask whether mathematics is science or art? In its applications, it may encompass either or both. For myself, this is similar with Tarot.

As soon as one begins to investigate Tarot, one engages in science. As soon as one begins to use the cards for readings, one engages in art.

But I'll let this post remain reasonably shorter than some of my other ones on the subject :)

[Agathe]

I also voted both and I would agree with what Jewel-ry said that we use our intuition together with our knowlegde.

[jmd]

PS... I just realised I didn't mention that I too had voted 'both'...

[Diana]

I too, voted "both". But I hesitated, because I realised that even the word Tarot needed to be defined, and this just shows how very flawed Polls can be. Riccardo not only pointed out the importance of defining Science and Art; but I realised that even the word Tarot is not defined... and it is something that us Aeclecticians do not agree on always either.

I should have made two Polls.

1) Is Tarot a Science or an Art?
2) Is reading the Tarot a Science or an Art?

Because I think there is a huge difference between "Tarot", and "reading Tarot".

And I have come to realise that this confusion between these two terms sometimes causes misunderstandings on Aeclectic. People sometimes talk at cross-puposes.

I wonder if the person who voted "Tarot is a Science" was thinking in terms of Tarot, or reading Tarot.... Would he/she like to tell us?

[Nycelle]

This could take a short while to explain:

I consider science in its purest form to be a type of art. To form a scientific hypothesis, one must survey the evidence available but also make a creative leap. The classical pre-1900 scientists were thinkers, philosophers and moralists as well as experimentors.

While Tarot is grounded in the concrete - there are standard meanings of each card, for instance - it requires a great deal of personal examination and exploration.

This reminds me of a PhD thesis in any arts-based discipline. You have the body of critical thinking on the subject. You have every book on the subject. You read deeply what is available to you, but ultimately your work is worthless unless you have a new or innovative opinion that is entirely yours.

So I feel it encompasses science and art, but primarily it is an art - the aspects of science contained within are those common with art.

[mercenary30]

I just don't see how something like tarot can come around to be as accurate and consistent as it is, so thorough and timeless, and not have a goodly amount of scientific/life study behind the design.

[smleite]

It is an art. And good science is also an art.

[HOLMES]

1. there is so much to study which are called esoteric sciences that could related to the tarot , numerology, astrology, qabbalah
2. there is so much to study that are called social sciences, like psychology and philosphy, and history of masonary if that is your inclination
3. there is real sciences such as math in it ,

it is an aethestic science, and a scientific art.

i saw the quote science is an art,
and i can see the artist who studies his craft always all the old and new techiques and even developing some of his own. such an artist would of studied so much possilby of the social studies and who knows perhaps of physics (didn't leo study anatomy to make his paintings more realistics ?) and anatomy.
but then you have the artist who cares not for techique but for passion and how it flows.. to the first artist art would be a science, for the second artist it would be perhpas just the end to the means,, or guidelines on how to apply the paint but won't let it dictate their way of doing things.

so it is with tarot readers, you got your studyer who will study astrology heck even go get an astrology degree. (i havne't done that but play with the idea but i am sure some one in this big world has done it just to understand the tarot on a deeper level ) to understand the tarot more. they studied the qabbalah, philopshy and social sciences and can see the tarot teachings in everything like events, conflicts between people , steps in goals.
the non studyer who just reads by inuition might see the tarot teachings in events , conflicts, between people, and steps in goals, and no less the wear for all the study they havne't done ,, or is it ? that is for them to decide .

all i know is for myself the symbol in the devil hands or forehead didn't appeal to me, i didn't care what they were, until i studied to learn what the astrology was for each card and i asked myself how did waite let the person who knew about astrology know that the aries was the ram was the emperor . the answer lies in the ram head on his throne and i said ohhh.

so is tarot an art or science , ? is tarot works or doens't work ? is tarot done or is it still evolving .? what is the tarot ? why is the tarot here ? where will it go ?
these are all philopshic discussions and could be discussed like two old professors in heated debate, or two friends sitting at a table having coffee.(or in my case ice tea eheh ) .

i have to wonder what did the source intend when asked the angels and the guides , give them the tarot and let them understand it slowly so it will help change the world.

[RiccardoLS]

I agree with Diane again (it sound strange, actually :) :)

Tarot and reading Tarot are very different things one from the other.
For one thing, Tarot is a "tool", "object", "cathegory of the mind", whatever...
While Reading Tarot is an "action", "knowlege", "skill", "event"... (and, by the way, it does sort of include the concept of Tarot)

It is very difficult to compare them, because they are different fields.

On the other side I think (just imho) that most of us anwered the pool, intending Reading Tarot. It is much easier to focus on the whole general process, rather than on the "object".

Anyway, when we answer the Pool, we are stating a definition of Tarot (or of reading Tarot).
If we say it is Art, we give a boundary to Tarot - another if we say Science, or both.

----
Not I'm saying something that won't get me loved. :)
I have the feeling that not many have focused on Diane definition of Science and Art, rather using their own definition.

Or maybe it's just me that fails to see how Tarot can be considered even part science under Diane definition.
(unless we take a very extreme definition of Tarot or reading Tarot).

Sorry,

Riccardo

[Orion]

I voted Tarot is an Art!!

[firemaiden]

I voted both, though I personally only use it as an Art, I know that there are many different approaches to reading.

Actually you need to define "Tarot" as well the two other terms. I assumed you meant the act of reading the cards for another.

(Of course, then you have to define "reading" too... reading how? writing a story? telling the future? giving advice?)

I think perhaps I should have voted that it's an art, instead of both.

How can it possibly be a science? I'm willing to be convinced...

[firemaiden]

I suppose there are those that think numerology is a science. I do not understand this viewpoint. (yet) It may have to do with numbers, but its basis is entirely mystical.

It's also pushing it to call psychology a science.

For those who think the label of "science" gives the tarot (or psychology) more legitmacy, I recommend reading Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, the part where he makes fun of ridiculous scientific experiements.

[Osher]

Originally posted by firemaiden
How can it possibly be a science? I'm willing to be convinced...

Science is objective, art is subjective. Numbers are objective, thoughts and feeling subjective, hence I said both.

[firemaiden]

We've had a conservation about whether the tarot is objective. It was an interesting thread. Explain to me in what way the tarot can be "objective?"

Bye the way, numbers in and of themselves are neither objective or subjective. They are just numbers. Tell me, is statistics objective??? (not!)

Anyway, what do numbers have to do with the tarot? Just cause there are numbers on the cards. So? Or because there are numerological associations. What do these associations have to do with objectivity? The way we use numbers in tarot has to do with their mythological and religious associations.

Tell me, there is the number "three" in the holy trinity. Does that make the holy trinity scientific?

[HOLMES]

psychology is a social science, which makes the results harder to see as the study is subjective rathern objective ,
it helps the people to get understand themselves better by giving them a system of understanding. (it might be out of date, like some are into transpersonal psycology and joshua david stone terms his soul psycology )

so numerology as a system of relating would be a social science based on mysticism, and mysticism or spiritualism is a science not yet proven in my view.

those who woudln't term tarot a science i would recomend reading tarot and psychology, or the deeper meanings behind the rider waite and the toth tarots.
astrolgoy is a science to those who believe and wish wash to those who do not understand it or wish to .

from what i undersand of statistics , it self can be objective by doing what it does best making things into an impartial statistics.
but it is the subjective person who takes the objective and applies them to what they wish to see,

and that brings up important point , i remember in the movie the messenger where her consciences comes and tell her you saw only what you wanted to see. (the movie was explained to us how she made signs out of wind, light in the sky..)
and so the very strong possiblity is ,
we will see only what we want to see regardless of the evidence or lack thereof before us . (some people believe that the holocraust was invented to make the nazis look back , even though the evidence exists to prove otherwise , for example )

so faith ,, does the tarot require faith to work ? will it work for someone who has no open faith ?
for me tarot is objective and i as a reader make it subjective for the cards fall where they will and it is up to me make the signs . or see the signs, or perhaps they are there but i can not on that day see past the end of my nose eheheh

[HOLMES]

yes ,

just not defined by earth bound laws,
but by universal laws that include earth bound laws but also space laws which we can not yet understand for we haven't been past our own solar system to broaden our knowledge.

one day the source will proven in more then theories but when that days comes,, what will we be like ?

[firemaiden]

Sorry, that doesn't wash: the very definition of science is that it can be proven by earth bound laws. If it cannot be proven by earth bound laws it is mysticsm or religion. The terms are mutually exclusive.

[Imagemaker]

the very definition of science is that it can be proven by earth bound laws.

Or if not proven, then at least partly explainable with defined hypotheses. In science, experiments can be duplicated, with repeating explainable results, no matter who conducts them. In many fields, there is an "art" to making things work out (medicine, psychology, education) that depends on more factors than hard science can explain.

It seems like science excludes the human factor, non-science or art includes it.

[HOLMES]

but it does wash,,
one day about 5000 years or who knows 10000 or even a thousand,
(a thousand years ago we didnt' have space ships , or tarot cards, or tvs )

is it so hard to think that the holy trinity wil be proven one day ?
but then again..
perhaps it won't and everything we are about here is for naught.
but with every fibre of my being i wish it not to be . and so for me it isn't :O)

[Moongold]

Originally posted by jmd
In itself, can we ask whether mathematics is science or art? In its applications, it may encompass either or both. For myself, this is similar with Tarot.

As soon as one begins to investigate Tarot, one engages in science. As soon as one begins to use the cards for readings, one engages in art.

I agree with this comment. If you want to see a reading which demonstrates this perfectly, in my opinion, go here:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25483

[firemaiden]

I'm not saying the holy trinity isn't true.

Science only equates to proveablity by physical tests. Why would you even want to test something that is mystical? It might kill it.

If you know something with all of your fibre and being its true then. But it doesn't make it science!

[firemaiden]

P.S. What is wrong with having magic be magic????

[Diana]

Originally posted by RiccardoLS
I agree with Diane again (it sound strange, actually :) :)


Ah Riccardo! Miracles do occur! :D :D :D

Are they scientific, though....

[Moongold]

Originally posted by firemaiden
I'm not saying the holy trinity isn't true.

Science only equates to proveablity by physical tests. Why would you even want to test something that is mystical? It might kill it.



Humbly, I query your apparent definition of science! Science is seeking in a different way. I think it is entirely compatible with Tarot.

We have such limited understanding of truth and beauty. Science in its purest and most simple form is beautiful - abstractions, mathematics, design. Science also often requires the most amazing intuitive leaps and inderstanding.

In science also our human vision can be clouded perhaps more tangibly than the Tarot, but not dissimilarly. But when that purity is there .......WOW :)

[Osher]

I personally fall into the subjective camp, as I do not practise numerology or other such quantifable methods of reading Tarot. There are many people on Aeclectic who use quantifable, or objective, methods to assist them in composing an answer. The key word is composing. Composing is, by association, usually seen as subjective, creative.

Therefore, for me, and for many, Tarot is an art, a subjective form. For many others it is both subjective and objective, but with subjectivity being in the fore.

Tarot cannot be purely objective. Or rather, you can try and make it so, but the results are disappointing. I've met enough people who think that because they can follow the LWB, they can read, and therefore, Tarot can be defined by a set of words. This, as we know, is not correct. I've seen Tarot software which again use preset meanings to give results. This again is an attempt to make Tarot rational, objective, scientific. It may be even been seen as a form of control.

However, Tarot transends such reasoning. It demands acceptance of a lack of understanding, in order to give back a deeper knowledge. As I have stated before, the cards are a conduit to an answer, they are not the answer themselves.

There's a Jewish proverb/joke (we like to express ourselves in humour!): a man goes to see a Rabbi, as asks him to explain the secret of the Talmud. The Rabbi shakes his head, and says that the man will never be able to understand. The man however is quite persistant, so finally the Rabbi gives in, and says he will give the man 3 questions, and if he can get one right, he can study Talmud.

"2 men come down a chimney, one is dirty, one is clean, which one cleans himself?"
"Well, that's easy, the dirty one"
"No, the clean one, because he looks at the dirty one, and assumes he is also dirty"
"Oh!", says the man.
"Next question, 2 men come down a chimney, one is dirty, one is clean, which one cleans himself?"
"The clean one", says the man triumphantly
"No, the dirty one, why would a clean one need to clean himself?"
"Oh!", says the man.
"Final question, 2 men come down a chinmey, one is dirty, one is clean, which one cleans himself?"
The man is perplexed, then smiles, and answers "both!"
The Rabbi replies, "I'm afraid you cannot study Talmud, explain how 2 men can come down a chimney, and one remains clean?"

The point is this, there are many correct answers in Tarot. Science needs a fixed answer. As with the story, there is no single correct answer. However, science, or rather quantifable methods, can assist the reader.

[HOLMES]

it doesn't make it science,
nor social science,,
but it makes it spiritual sciience :O)

nothing is wrong with magic,

but we got two definations about the magic.
for me the feeling i am getting with magic used in this context is ..
that ignorance which makes it blissful.
example king of the hill a man did magic and hank hill kept on sitting there explaining away every trick until the magican did one that hank didn't know and he kept on bugging his wife to be told but she wouldn't .

for the unexplainable that we do not know,, it is in our very nature to search until we do know.
and so since some of us have attempted to know god/goddesss/the (i like the name the instead of it for the source eheh ) we know the magic and no longer have to explain it.

for the other kind of magic where we invoke the rules of the universe to do our will, that has already been explained and is a science in its own right. mystical science for explaining the universe as it may be..
i like lon milo explaination of it in the chicken qabbalah book. myself. (the "get a drink of water" one )

[Macavity]

The following is from an Interesting Article (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html). I think it does go some way towards refuting the oft repeated idea of "Since you can't prove I'm wrong, I might be (am indeed) right?" But then I always suspected there was something wrong with that idea... :DA lot of people might say, "Well, you can't prove metaphysical idealism is false, can you?". (These are the sort of people who think The Matrix has deep philosophical significance.) Arguments like that are pretty lame, though; they commit the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. You appeal to ignorance when your only premise in support of a claim is that you or your opponent can't show the claim is false, i.e., you are ignorant of any evidence that would disprove it. But that kind of ignorance doesn't prove anything. Think about it: I can't prove the universe didn't come into existence five minutes ago, complete with "historical" records and "memories," but the fact that I can't prove it's false doesn't make it true, or even plausible. I can't prove there isn't an invisible elephant (with no odor or any sensible properties) in my backyard. But if I seriously concluded on the basis of my ignorance of reasons for disproof that there were such an elephant, you would not say "Ms. LaFave, you are such a deep thinker"; you would say "Ms. LaFave, you are out of your mind".Macavity

[skytwig]

I voted "None of the Above"; Tarot is Tarot. :)

[lunalafey]

Originally posted by Happiness


The point is this, there are many correct answers in Tarot. Science needs a fixed answer.

Um, I do recall learning something from my science teacher and that is- there are NO absolutes in science.

I feel that everyone is a little fuzzy on what aspect of 'science' is being called upon.

when we look at the cards- we develope a hypothesis....
and educated guess on what the cards say.

One can say- "he's studied tarot for so long, he's got it down to a science."
to me this means that he has researched and come to understand tarot that is second nature.

another way to think of this-
A laywer, a doctor........science? the doctor comes from a scientific background, he has learned as much as he can about medicine- and continues to learn. The way he uses this knowledge turn into an art.
There is no natural background to government & law, yet it's called political science, but to practice law is an art as well.

so are we looking at the NOUN science or the ADJECTIVE science?

science, n knowledge reduced to a system; the facts pertaining to any department of the mind or matter in thier due connections

sounds like tarot

i did not vote-

[Diana]

Originally posted by Happiness
The point is this, there are many correct answers in Tarot.


You made a very important statement here, Happiness, one which I think many people would have made.

Are there really many correct answers? (I don't need a response though. Not all questions require responses... or do they?)

[fairyhedgehog]

Originally posted by firemaiden
Sorry, that doesn't wash: the very definition of science is that it can be proven by earth bound laws. If it cannot be proven by earth bound laws it is mysticsm or religion. The terms are mutually exclusive.
More importantly, it is falsifiable. In other words, to be science you have to be able to test it, and you have to have a situation where the theory could be shown to be wrong if it is.

[Aoife]

Doesn't science rely on empirical evidence?

And doesn't science seek to establish laws?

Yes, Aoife... you point is??
Grrr... dunno... *scowl*.... okay, okay... so I flunked physics.... but I still want to know....

Where's the empirical evidence?
What laws apply to Tarot?

[Diana]

Originally posted by Aoife
And doesn't science seek to establish laws?


I don't think Science establishes laws. I think it shows us the laws that exist.

What does Tarot show us? Perhaps... the laws of the universe?

If only we knew the etymology of the word Tarot, and what the word exactly means. This would give us a lot of answers to many of our questions. But we do not know, for the origins of the word are lost in the mists of time.

[HOLMES]

you start,
what laws dont' apply to the tarot,?
while i think on what you asked,

i think emperical research would back up tarot if a opened minded sciencetist would geninuiely test the tarot , so i am going to touch that one,

[cartarum]

i said science. it is an art, if you would call dentistry or chiropracty
an art.
it all comes down to science.
a question asked is provided with a scientific "narrow things down" reply
tarot, the world, all break down to math veiwed by a scientific eye.
those of us that cant think like that are under a veil, so we dont see whats happening. read cards and you do, but only for a short while. when you run out of ideas, your left in the middle of a complex move, and cant get out; trap snare

[firemaiden]

I'd still like to know what math has to do with it.

The definition that some are using of science seems to be more like a synonym of "discipline" -- what does the scientific method of inquiry have to do with tarot? nothing.

[Osher]

Originally posted by Diana
You made a very important statement here, Happiness, one which I think many people would have made.

Are there really many correct answers? (I don't need a response though. Not all questions require responses... or do they?)

Hmm, correct, please submit limitless for many. There are a limitless number of correct answers, as each answer has a gem within itself.

For example, the future is that a couple will get back together again, but will then split up permanently. One reader sees the couple reforming. The other sees a more distant time, and sees them finding other people.

They are both correct...and yet, they are both wrong.

However, I think that has been said by a few people here is quite correct, and pertinent too, namely, that we have not defined what is meant by science. Some of us are using different definitions to others.

Maybe the real question is: Can Tarot ever be quantified, each meaning identified, and more importantly, why a reader will use that specific meaning, but not another.

For example, the 'stock' meaning of the 6 Swords is travel overwater, but I also see it as meaning (using the TotOP) advancing to the goal, but with caution (just one alternative). Why would I feel one meaning of the myriad, why would I assign a whole new meaning to a card? Or, where does this feeling come from?

Maybe one science will discover the existance of brainwaves, and realise that when I read, I am actually mindreading. In which case, Tarot might be, well, you can guess the next...

[Alta]

Originally posted by firemaiden
what does the scientific method of inquiry have to do with tarot? nothing. Well, be fair now. There is more to science than the 'scientific method of inquiry'. More physicists have discovered God in mathematics than most would imagine. Mathematics redefines time and space and takes the mind far past our mundane surface world.
The scientific method simply is a barrier against trickery, charlatanism and self-delusion. It is not the whole of science.

[Alta]

Originally posted by fairyhedgehog
In other words, to be science you have to be able to test it, and you have to have a situation where the theory could be shown to be wrong if it is. um, no. Science allows for and in fact encourages hypotheses. Some of these are unverifiable with anything we curently have. Some are intrinsically unprovable and only exist in the realm of pure mathematics. Which may or may not have a physical reality. Scientists take delight in playing with ideas and concepts and the underpinnings of the universe itself. It is a disservice the science to say that it deals only in concrete facts and provable ideas. Far from it, it soars.

[Alta]

Originally posted by Happiness
Science is objective, art is subjective. Numbers are objective, thoughts and feeling subjective, hence I said both. What about modern light theory? The nature of light changes by being observed. In fact at the quantum level actual particle effects change depending on whether or not they are observed. And how objective is that! That is the very definition of subjective. Ever read about Schrodinger's cat?

[Alta]

And guess what. I voted Tarot is science.
But science is not this boring pedestrian earth-bound load of leaden facts that it is being depicted as. Please, read a little science before you denounce it.

[Diana]

Woke up with this thread on my mind.

My conclusion so far, and which Marion's posts that I hadn't seen before coming to it, reinforce:

1) Tarot is a Science because it reveals the laws that govern the universe.

2) Reading the tarot is an art which uses the Science of Tarot.

My poll is confusing and was useful to start a discussion, but the statistics are unusable because I may not be the only one who would have voted differently after the discussion.

[Diana]

Originally posted by Happiness
For example, the 'stock' meaning of the 6 Swords is travel overwater

Hmmm.... Pamela Colman Smith's beautiful cards, with the help of Mr. Stuart Kaplan and USGames, has certainly influenced people's views of Tarot. (I wonder how much money the RWS rakes in for him every year.)

[cheekyminx]

Originally posted by Diana


1) Tarot is a Science because it reveals the laws that govern the universe.

2) Reading the tarot is an art which uses the Science of Tarot.

I agree! I believe tarot is both art & science.

[DesertHowler]

Originally posted by skytwig
I voted "None of the Above"; Tarot is Tarot. :)

I voted "None of the Above" too.

I see science and art both as cultural. I see tarot as beyond culture.

DesertHowler

[cheekyminx]

interesting comments skytwig & DesertHowler. When I come to think of it tarot is a mystery. No one really knows where it all began or who invented it. Everyone has their theory, but is there 100% proof?
Tarot is art though, look at most of those wonderful decks. The people who designed these decks are "artists" in thier own way aren't they? So they are creating art.

Tarot is science? I can think of two other words that start with s. Supernatural & spiritual.

But we are open to our own opinions. That's what makes this world so colourful, and what gets the world into trouble.

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Diana
1) Tarot is a Science because it reveals the laws that govern the universe.

2) Reading the tarot is an art which uses the Science of Tarot.

Okay, in what way does tarot reveal the laws that govern the universe?

[Major Tom]

In his book The Tarot, Paul Foster Case quotes Eliphas Levi as saying, "As an erudite Kabalistic book, all combinations of which reveal the harmonies preexisting between signs, letters and numbers, the practical value of the Tarot is truly and above all marvelous. A prisoner devoid of all books, had he only a Tarot of which he knew how to make use, could in a few years acquire a universal science, and converse with an unequalled doctrine and inexhaustible eloquence."

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Diana
Science:
a) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method,

b ) such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena (as in Natural Science)


Perhaps it would be useful to remind people that science concerns the natural world, while metaphysics -- meta-physics is a word which means "beyond the natural world".

I agree that tarot is a "discipline" and a body of ideas, just as the Kaballah is a body of ideas.

But what differentiates a "discipline" of study from a "science" is the focus of science on the natural world, and its reliance on testing and experiments to establish "how" things work.

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Major Tom
In his book The Tarot, Paul Foster Case quotes Eliphas Levi as saying, "As an erudite Kabalistic book, all combinations of which reveal the harmonies preexisting between signs, letters and numbers, the practical value of the Tarot is truly and above all marvelous. A prisoner devoid of all books, had he only a Tarot of which he knew how to make use, could in a few years acquire a universal science, and converse with an unequalled doctrine and inexhaustible eloquence."

So I guess we can put Paul and Eliphas down for votes on "both"

But first I need to have a word with them about their definition of science.

[Macavity]

Perhaps we should send students to prison for a few years with a Deck of cards (http://www.vlyrics.com/w/winkmartindale7684/adeckofcards274894.html)? Don't tell the U.K. government! :D But I think Levi and co. allow themselves the "getout clause" that the poor prisoner may still NOT be able to converse with the likes of Hawking... but that (unsurprisingly) it then becomes his own fault? })

The quest for definitions put me in mind of a (long!) past Telecom TV commercial. Character actress Maureen Lipman portrays an Archetypal "Jewish Grandmother" on the phone to her grandson re. appalling exam results. After the intitial shock (He only got one pass) She says: "Wait... You got an "ology"? Then you're a SCIENTIST! :laugh:

Macavity

P.S. I finally decided to vote... adding to the minority of discerning "neithers" :)

[jmd]

...errr, why would it be Hawking's own fault?

Surely he too has access to a Tarot deck!?! ;)

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Macavity
Perhaps we should send students to prison for a few years with a Deck of cards (http://www.vlyrics.com/w/winkmartindale7684/adeckofcards274894.html)? Don't tell the U.K. government! :D But I think Levi and co. allow themselves the "getout clause" that the poor prisoner may still NOT be able to converse with the likes of Hawking... but that (unsurprisingly) it then becomes his own fault? })

ROFLMAO!!!! I can't wait to (have someone else) try this experiment. Wait, isn't that what Timothy Leary did?

Ah, the wonderful world of wacked out wankers on acid...

[lunalafey]

Originally posted by Diana


1) Tarot is a Science because it reveals the laws that govern the universe.

2) Reading the tarot is an art which uses the Science of Tarot.

My poll is confusing and was useful to start a discussion, but the statistics are unusable because I may not be the only one who would have voted differently after the discussion.


DING! DING! DING!
you got it

that's why I did not vote.

[Bean Feasa]

I voted for Tarot as an art. To me an art allows for subjectivity, for a wide range of interpretations, for personal styles etc., which imho science (especially Science!) has no room for.

And I vote that our next poll should be whether tarot reading is an art or a craft })

[RiccardoLS]

Originally posted by Diana
1) Tarot is a Science because it reveals the laws that govern the universe.

I would also quote Marion that says that there is more to Science then the "scientific method".
But we have given a definition of Science that included the scientific method.

Again, we have given a definiton of science that is not: "the study of the laws governing the universe".

Sorry Diana, and Marion... to use You as example.
I don't want to discuss the opinions, but the formal way in which the problem has been given.
We don't like that definiton of Science and Art? Let's give another. But IF we give a definition that should set the criteria we use to express our opinion.

Vote "yes, Tarot is science" should mean - under the premises given - yes, Tarot does follows the scientific method, etc... ---> Tarot may be described under the definition of Science given.

To say... I think Tarot is science because Science is more is changing the question... and this should be done (as we are many) carefully and with great care, so that science and Art mean roughly the same for everyone.
This only would allow us to compare our opinion in a "poll".

We ALL agree that Tarot or reading Tarot is a combination of subjectivity and objectivity, of knowledge and Intuition, etc... but that was not the question, wasn't it?

Riccardo

[Moongold]

Yes ...I have been puzzling over the use of polls this way.
Why not start these debates with an argument or a statement and proceed from there.

Something like:

If science is methodical enquiry, distinguished by brilliant leaps of intuition, why can we not describe Tarot as scientific?

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Moongold
If science is methodical enquiry, distinguished by brilliant leaps of intuition, why can we not describe Tarot as scientific?


Okay, Moongold, I get the leaps of intuition (but which are always later proven using the scientific method of inquiry) :laugh: -- however, in what way does Tarot use "methodical inquiry?"

[Diana]

Originally posted by Moongold
Yes ...I have been puzzling over the use of polls this way.
Why not start these debates with an argument or a statement and proceed from there.

Something like:

If science is methodical enquiry, distinguished by brilliant leaps of intuition, why can we not describe Tarot as scientific?

Because I'm the one who started this thread, and I don't talk like that. I wouldn't even know how to word a sentence like that. I'm way too stupid to find such big words and put them together into such an intellectual sentence.

Polls are fun! :D

[full deck]

The question is a bit confusing when one checks the definition of science:

Science \Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis,
p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. {Conscience}, {Conscious},
{Nice}.]
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained
truth of facts.

If we conceive God's sight or science, before the
creation, to be extended to all and every part of
the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his
science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity
on anything to come to pass. --Hammond.

Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental
philosophy. --Coleridge.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been
systematized and formulated with reference to the
discovery of general truths or the operation of general
laws; knowledge classified and made available in work,
life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or
philosophical knowledge.

3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical
world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and
forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living
tissues, etc.; -- called also {natural science}, and
{physical science}.

4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge
considered as a distinct field of investigation or object
of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or
of mind.

Note: The ancients reckoned seven sciences, namely, grammar,
rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and
astronomy; -- the first three being included in the
Trivium, the remaining four in the Quadrivium.

5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of
knowledge of laws and principles.

Note: Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a
knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained,
accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes,
or laws. Pure science is the knowledge of these powers,
causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all
applications. Both these terms have a similar and
special signification when applied to the science of
quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact
science is knowledge so systematized that prediction
and verification, by measurement, experiment,
observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and
physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

Thus one could argue that Tarot is a science in nature but definitely not an exact science, as per say one of fast rules with results that are subject to measurement.

What I find interesting is that from what I read of Physics and mathematics nowadays, it is becoming more and more difficult to exactly "prove" a proof, simply because of our science is leading us into greater uncertainties such as that of quantum entanglement or of certain mathematical proofs that contain so much data that they can not be physically verifed unless one were to spend *years* simply attempting to examine the data. Computers are not trusted simply because with complex equations, even computers are prone to certain subtle errors that, though small, can be amplified within a mathematical context to the point of being significant. Nowadays, one speaks only of degrees of "rigor" within the mathematical community, wherein, when a paper is sent into to a journal for review, the reviewers may only look over the formulai to see if the the method looks right, simply because to *prove* it is a labour of Hercules. Perhaps we can say with greater certitude just what we don't know and why. Considering such, it is amusing to consider even the seemingly aleatoric nature of Tarot is perhaps as effective at explaining certain things as is our more exact sciences, for the time being.

I only wonder if physics will ever be revealed as employing the principles of a grand Tarot of sorts . . .

[Osher]

It's peculiar, we are discussing if Tarot is an art or a science, but really we are discussing what is science. We accept that Tarot is not definable as a series of meanings which are randomly acknowledged. Therefore, we accept that Tarot is rather a mysterious force, of which we have some knowledge.

However, what we don't know is this: what is science?

Different people give different definitions of science. According to those different definitions the answers differ.

That then brings us to a different argument: what is a word. To my mind a word is a shorthand for a definition, for example the word ruler means a device which is straight, often with inch markings, usually metal, wooden or plastic. We all know what a ruler is, yet, any fixed, formal definition of a ruler would have to allow a degree of flexibility. To compensate, we all have our definitions of a ruler. To one person a book with inches down one side is a ruler, to another it is just a book with inches down one side.

The same applies to the word science in this instance. In other words (excuse the pun), we all have our own answers, because we all have our definitions.

Yet, often words will have a commonality. If someone said maths, we might all have different definitions, but generally we all understand the core.

Therefore, in order to answer the question, we need to define the question. It was once said, and it is quite true, that often in defining a question you answer a question. Also, defining a question can stop a argument. I remember once a heated debate, which seemed to be mad, until I realised the other person had a different understanding of a key word.

Now, can we agree on defintions of the words art and science?

[Osher]

Originally posted by Moongold
If science is methodical enquiry, distinguished by brilliant leaps of intuition, why can we not describe Tarot as scientific?

Tarot is not methodical enquiry. If it was we would test every possible meaning for a card, find out which one fitted best, and then move on.

Linear progression in other words. Tarot is more a case of unsequenced parralel advancement.

A chemist would test one combination, then another, then another, but occasionally jump a few steps. It is a slow accumulation of knowledge. It is normally sequential.

[Moongold]

Okay Diana. :D :D. It's late at night here and I've been writing a paper. That explains the formality.

Somewhere further up you or someone else said the framing of the question was problematic. How would you do it again, if you wanted to?

Let the disciple seize hold of the serpent of wisdom, and having with firmness grasped it, let him follow it into the deepest centre of the Hall of Wisdom.

..The Old Commentary.

I don't mind if the serpent of wisdom is called art or science or if tarot is called art or science. I'm enjoying the ride :).

[Moongold]

Hey Happiness ......
'
I posted a rhetorical question to demonstrate a different way of commencing a debate :)

[Osher]

Originally posted by Moongold
Hey Happiness ......
'
I posted a rhetorical question to demonstrate a different way of commencing a debate :)

Oh I know, but it seemed like too good a question to mearly disgard like some rotten turnip fallen from the farmers cart.

[Moongold]

Originally posted by firemaiden
Okay, Moongold, I get the leaps of intuition (but which are always later proven using the scientific method of inquiry) :laugh: -- however, in what way does Tarot use "methodical inquiry?"

firemaiden - As explained to Happiness this particular question was rhetoric and intended to demonstrate a different way of starting a debate than the polls.

But it's still a good question. Have you read Khatruman's reading about the Cosmic Joke in Your readings? The thought he put into the question and how to frame it to get to the crux of the issue was really profound. Scientists and social scientists could equate this with research design and then the method could include the spread and the choice of instrument (deck). And also, the decisions to read intuitively rather than by book meanings could also be seen as anothe aspect of method.

There are so many parallels between science and art as well as differences.

I think the Tarot is big enough and wonderful enough to survive being being regarded as either science, art or both. We will all use what gifts we have, what education we have and what works for us to use the tarot.

There are lots of parallels. Gardening has aspects of art and science. Cooking does too. Also photography.

[Moongold]

Originally posted by Happiness
Oh I know, but it seemed like too good a question to mearly disgard like some rotten turnip fallen from the farmers cart.

What !? Are you calling my rhetoric a rotten turnip? :D

[Osher]

Originally posted by Moongold
What !? Are you calling my rhetoric a rotten turnip? :D

No, that would be Baldrick

[Macavity]

Quantum mechanical uncertainty, quantum entanglement, computer rounding errors... are all known phenomena and understood. Idem inherent "uncertainty" which is also understood and quantifiable, within (obvious) limits. None are synonymous with scientists "Not knowing what they are talking about" in some fundamental way! Nor IMO is this an obvious route for a... metaphysician(?) to step in and explain everything! :D

But I do wonder if these questions are not precisely in fields metaphysics(?), religion or philosophy? I fail to see the attraction of involving science at all! (Particularly when the opinion scientists should "get back to their test tubes" is not uncommon? j/k })) So why DO Taroists want to be termed scientists? That many use scientific method is great! But IMO it then becomes a prerequisite that Tarot must be able to satisfy ALL requirements of science in some quantifiable, absolute sense. And is that (at all) desirable? ;)

Whereas I feel the pursuit of the intriguing is... well intriguing. Why (poor old) science?

Macavity

P.S. As Fr. Jack Hacket might have observed: "It's an Ecumenical matter"! :laugh:

[firemaiden]

I agree with what Macavity, Full Deck, and Riccardo have written before.

But, hmmmmmmmm, moongold, no offense, but I disagree with the idea that Khatruman's essay consituted a methodical inquiry. He wrote an beautifully thought out essay, which the cards provided inspiration for, or helped in brainstorming. The cards are wonderful for inspiring ideas and creativity.

But I don't see this as being related to "methodical inquiry."

Perhaps whether or not we view a question and answer session with the tarot as a "methodical inquiry" boils down to whether we think a spread of cards is a) an answer provided by the universe free of charge, like a 1-800 telephone call to the great librarian in the sky, or b) a group of painted pieces of cardboard, upon which which are invited to mediate, and find our own answers.

[Diana]

Originally posted by firemaiden
Perhaps whether or not we view a question and answer session with the tarot as a "methodical inquiry" boils down to whether we think a spread of cards is a) an answer provided by the universe free of charge, like a 1-800 telephone call to the great librarian in the sky, or b) a group of painted pieces of cardboard, upon which which are invited to mediate, and find our own answers.

c) Tarot is a group of painted pieces of cardboard, upon which we are invited to meditate and find our own answers, and in order to do this we can make use of the great librarian in the sky. Because the gods help those who help themselves.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

[DewDrop]

Originally posted by Moongold


Let the disciple seize hold of the serpent of wisdom, and having with firmness grasped it, let him follow it into the deepest centre of the Hall of Wisdom.

..The Old Commentary.

I don't mind if the serpent of wisdom is called art or science or if tarot is called art or science. I'm enjoying the ride :).

Thats right! Let us all enjoy the Ride, see the beauty in the Art and learn in the deepest centres, with an eye to the Science.

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Diana
c) Tarot is a group of painted pieces of cardboard, upon which we are invited to meditate and find our own answers, and in order to do this we can make use of the great librarian in the sky. Because the gods help those who help themselves.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.



(((((((Diana)))))) I deliberately left out c so I could hear you say this so beautifully. :D :D :D

[Tsuzuki]

Tarot is a technology, the science of which is yet to be concretely formulated.

[WalesWoman]

Maybe I'm simply feeling a bit contrare today, but I voted neither. So in some ways, both science and art are involved but I don't think of Tarot as either. A reading can be accurate, but that doesn't prove anything scientifically as far as I know.

Science is pretty much proving a hypothesis that can be repeated to get the same results...if that was the case, I think that everytime you asked the same question, shuffled exactly the same way and all that, all the cards would have to come up the same way everytime anyone asked. That hasn't happened as far as I know.
I think you can approach Tarot in a scientific manner and study every part of it you can think of, but that doesn't make it a science.

The creative process of Tarot is an art, but reading it...oh maybe. Everyone has their own style, incorporating what they have learned and draw on their experiences, what they feel and have their own ways of expressing it.

Actually, it doesn't matter to me what it is or why or how or anything...it works and just IS.

[Majik]

I’m a average Intelligent person & have developed my intuition, as I progress in my studies of divination, little experience in Tarot reading for others, but I’m very Persistent.

Thank you for the ?
Majik

[tmgrl2]

Both...is how I voted...

What we may now perceive to be "art" in Tarot, may one day be perceived as "science."

I often think that we apply the term "science" to something we can explain in measurable terms or in terms that can somehow be quantified.

Maybe one day we will truly understand the nature of time/space and of dimensions and of many other things we don't yet "understand."

I always picture a person from 200 years ago stepping into our current year....and

seeing

TV....I-Pods....computers....telephones...in vitro babies....

autos....planes....rockets.....

Were we to go back in time to 200 years ago and tell people about these things to come in the future, they would laugh at us...

(Well not all of the....we had our people like Jules Verne and DaVinci....and scientists who "saw" things as possible ...who somehow, could envision possibilities where others saw impossibilities.

So...Tarot...I say, either or both...but I voted both....

terri

[rainwolf]

At first i said science, but then i think that sometimes the images say something completely different than the original meaning, which provides another interpretation. Therefore i think it is both, because i like looking at it structured while also being creative with the structure.

[psychic sue]

I voted science and art, because although I believe it is our intuition we use when reading, I have no doubt that intuition will one day be explained by the scientists.

Everything on this planet is incredibly constructed - think of the PHI number. To me, science and art are linked - we just don't understand that link yet.

[SunChariot]

Everything on this planet is incredibly constructed - think of the PHI number. To me, science and art are linked - we just don't understand that link yet.

I really like that answer. And would have to agree with it. :-)

To that I would add my opinion that reading itself is an art. But the reason it works can often be scientifically explained. Such as synchronicity which is a scientific concept invented by a psychologist. So I voted for both.

Bar

[jmd]

I'm not sure who first coined the term 'synchronique', but it predates Jung to at least De Saussure, who used in in opposition to 'diachronique' as he applied it in linguistics and what came to eventually develop as semiology.

[Fulgour]

synchronic

1833 shortening of synchronical (1652),
from L.L. synchronus "simultaneous" (see synchronous).
Linguistic sense is first recorded 1922,
probably a borrowing from Fr. synchronique (de Saussure, 1913).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=53
Online Etymology Dictionary

[NightWing]

Synchronicity is a THEORY; yet to be confirmed by any proof obtained by scientific method and repeatable experiment.

I voted for ART. When one is creating, reading, or collecting Tarot, it involves Art. If one was scientifically studying Tarot, that is another thing, but I'd bet that very few here (or elsewhere) do that.

I suppose my approach is rather narrow, but that doesn't seem to affect my enjoyment of Tarot one bit! })

[SunChariot]

Synchronicity is a THEORY; yet to be confirmed by any proof obtained by scientific method and repeatable experiment.

I voted for ART. When one is creating, reading, or collecting Tarot, it involves Art. If one was scientifically studying Tarot, that is another thing, but I'd bet that very few here (or elsewhere) do that.

I suppose my approach is rather narrow, but that doesn't seem to affect my enjoyment of Tarot one bit! })

Well in the end that is what matters, how much we enjoy it. :-) The rest is just academic. Although academic issues are fun too. :-) No, I don't imagine many of us here do study it scientifically, and I know if it were not enjoyable none of us would be here to have this discussion. :-) Why would we spend our time doing something we did not enjoy.

[jumptothemoonyea]

I read somewhere (do not remember where), that there are three main ways to describe all/any life phenomenas:

art
science
philosophy

artist sees and describes the world through his intuition
scientist - through logic and reason
philosopher - combines these two to make whole picture

Tarot I think is a higher level of the above - it includes all them and transcends them.

[SunChariot]

I read somewhere (do not remember where), that there are three main ways to describe all/any life phenomenas:

art
science
philosophy

artist sees and describes the world through his intuition
scientist - through logic and reason
philosopher - combines these two to make whole picture

Tarot I think is a higher level of the above - it includes all them and transcends them.

I really like that a lot. Thanks for posting it. I would say as well that if anything Tarot has changed my personal philosophy and they way I view the world. Although I think part of the difference between decks is that they each have somewhat of a different philosophy to them. :-)

Bar

[bibi]

At its root I think it's more of an art, because you're tuning into your creativity and after all, tarot is symbolism, i.e pictoral, same as your memories and dreams.

I think, as with anything, when you "study" to enhance your knowledge it becomes a science, but the basis and the process of connecting up and allowing yourself the "freedom" of interpretation and soaking up the symbolism is a freeing experience and therefore art-based.

Ultimately though I think it can also depend on the individual. Some people are more scientific by nature and yet can read the cards due to awareness of meanings and the intelligence to make relevant connections.

I guess you can be an artist by copying photographs or you can paint freely and yet you can achieve equally powerful results with either method. We need both types in the world to make a balanced environment where we can learn from eachother.

[Adjustment]

I think tarot is an art. :D

[ElfantPup]

I vote that Tarot is an art.
Biology, Chemistry and Physics are sciences because their laws exist whether or not we know or understand them. If there were no people, the laws of physics would apply to the universe just the same.

I'm not sure how to look at Tarot exactly. At its most scientific it looks to me like an instrument, a man-made tool -- like a scale, a scalpel, a beaker or a telescope. Though these tools help us understand the sciences, they themselves are artistic creations.

I got the impression, reading through all the above replies, that in trying to decide what Tarot is, some people are thinking of Tarot not as the cards themselves, but as a force that is out there in the universe and comes through the cards. If that's the case, then I have no idea what Tarot is! But if we're talking about the cards themselves, or even the process of reading them, then Tarot is definitely art (that may or may not serve a scientific purpose).

[Fudugazi]

Everything on this planet is incredibly constructed - think of the PHI number. To me, science and art are linked - we just don't understand that link yet.

Well said, though we do in some cases - there has been some amazing studies in explaining the brain which have delved into creativity, intuition, etc. We might not have the whole picture (scientifically) but we are beginning to see that there are links that can be observed.

But that is the case for almost everything. We might think the cosmos belongs solely to astronomers nowadays - but the old cosmologies can still give us some food for thought (see anything Fulgour writes), and of course, stars will always inspire poets...

I'd like to see a spaceflight that would take on board not only scientists and test pilots, but poets, composers, visual artists (and I want to be on board!!!) A year after their return there would be a great Festival of Science and Art in Space.

[light2000]

I voted for both, mostly is an art but if we add astrology and psycology is a science too.

[Emeraldgirl]

I voted both. There is art in that the cards themselves are art and the reading and realating to clients is an art. Trying to understand how and why is kind of a science to me.

[Bashert Zein]

I'd consider it prescience ;)

[mythos]

I can't remember when, and what I voted ... I imagine that it would have been both ... but the Question comes to mind: Does it really matter whether tarot is science, art, both, neither, all of the above, something as yet unconsidered, except insofar as such questions create opportunities for people to clarify their own current ideas, engage in discussion, be exposed to alternative viewpoints and so on?

mythos:)

[jmd]

To assist failing voting memories, the software italicises the option selected :)

[thinbuddha]

To me, it is pretty clear and obvious that tarot is not a science. Where is the double blind study? Who has (scientifically) verified that a tarot reading has any truth to the physical world?

Obviously, I'm in the minority in thinking that, but honestly, I think that calling it a science is wishful thinking. Why would you even want/need for it to be accepted as a part of science anyway?

[Sulis]

I voted for Art - thinbuddha said it all :)

Sulis xx

[jmd]

Why assume that science is restricted to those areas that can have 'double-blind' studies?

Why assume that science is restricted to the physical realms?

Studies on science in the works of Feyerabend, Kuhn, Lakatos and others would certainly put at question too strict an answer to these questions.

Also, can there not be spiritual sciences?

In any case, what this points to is certainly various ways in which we also seem to understand the terms 'science' and 'art'.

[thinbuddha]

Why assume that science is restricted to those areas that can have 'double-blind' studies?

Why assume that science is restricted to the physical realms?

<snip>

In any case, what this points to is certainly various ways in which we also seem to understand the terms 'science' and 'art'.

I think to include something that hasn't been tested within the definition of "science" would be to radically alter the word. What makes something a science is that results can be tested and that results can be repeated by others using the same methods. That seems to require some way to measure what is happening. I don't think that anyone has come up with an anequate way to measure the results of tarot.

All this does nothing to make science any better (except in the eyes of some). But since science is the most widely accepted belief system we have, everyone seems to want to be able to refer to their belief as a science.

Why is this desireable? Why would you want to claim something that is spiritual or artistic as part of something that ignores the spiritual and artistic realms because they are difficult or impossible to measure?

-tb

[jmd]

I personally certainly would not want to suggest in the least that the methodologies applied to the physical and quantitative sciences be applied to Tarot - that is not in the least what I understand by the term 'science' in any case.

To use modern physicalist sciences as a foundation for one's belief, or to seek to reduce other sciences to its methodologies and assumptions is what I (with others) tend to refer to as scientism - something quite distinct from science, and not something I personally value.

In post 70 or 71 above is an explanation of the various senses in which the term is at times used.

Basically, the distinction that I see in 'science' and 'art' is that the first refers to conceptual knowledge and its acquisition, whereas the latter refers to the creative act.

[mythos]

To assist failing voting memories, the software italicises the option selected :)

I'd forgotten that too ... jeepers ... and yes, I voted for both!

mythos:)

[catlin]

I also voted for both because I think tarot is a wonderful blend of art and science. You have art in the act of reading and of course in the pictures on the card but science can be found in the structure of tarot.

[jojojo]

As a Biomedical Scientist myslef I had to vote for tarot as an art.

Science can be explained.

Tarot cannot - that is its mystery, how does it work, why does it work....nobody knows but it just does.