Douglas Adams on Divination (no, really)

"I know that astrology isn't a science," said Gail. "Of course it isn't. It's just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis or—what's that strange thing you British play?"

"Er, cricket? Self-loathing?"

"Parliamentary democracy. The rules just kind of got there. They don't make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. But when you start to exercise those rules, all sorts of processes start to happen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about people. In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing their indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people."
—Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

I read this, and all my philosophical misgivings about the Tarot vanished. Discuss.

Mr. Sluagh said:

"I know that astrology isn't a science," said Gail. "Of course it isn't. It's just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis or—what's that strange thing you British play?
.............
So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people."
—Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

I read this, and all my philosophical misgivings about the Tarot vanished. Discuss.

Click to expand...

Wise words from Adams.
But I have a doubt: isn't science "just an arbitrary set of rules"?
The rules of astrology are possibly thinner than the rules of astronomy, but I think in the end they are both arbitrary. You can choose which set of rules you prefer, or you can use any set (astrology, astronomy, tarot, science) by just using the tool that seems to be more promising as a solution to a specific problem.

Marco

DoctorArcanus said:

Wise words from Adams.
But I have a doubt: isn't science "just an arbitrary set of rules"?
The rules of astrology are possibly thinner than the rules of astronomy, but I think in the end they are both arbitrary. You can choose which set of rules you prefer, or you can use any set (astrology, astronomy, tarot, science) by just using the tool that seems to be more promising as a solution to a specific problem.

Marco

Click to expand...

Religion and mysticism start with an obsrvation, explain it with an assumption, then try to prove that the assumption is true. Science starts with an observation, explains it with a theory, then tries to find out whether the theory is true through further observation.

Obviously, there's overlay between the two and exceptions to the rule in both, but there is a difference.

Ahh ... the late, great Douglas Adams. Is there any subject he couldn't comment on?

I just dug out my battered copy of "Mostly Harmless". Time for a re-read. But I agree. You can use almost anything for divination: Tarot cards, playing cards, tea leaves, sticks, coins, scrying mirrors ... it's not what these "magical" devices tell us, it's how we take what is (when you REALLY look at it) an arbitrarily assigned definition of the objects and their setting, and how we think it applies to the present or future situation.

QofP

Mr. Sluagh said:

Religion and mysticism start with an obsrvation, explain it with an assumption, then try to prove that the assumption is true. Science starts with an observation, explains it with a theory, then tries to find out whether the theory is true through further observation.

Obviously, there's overlay between the two and exceptions to the rule in both, but there is a difference.

Click to expand...

Actually, any 'scientific' testing is aimed at 'proving' the null hypothesis, that is, that it the theory is 'not' true. One can't 'prove' scientific theory true, only that it is not true. When the null hypothesis is found to be false, one is only adding further weight to the theory ... it does not equate with 'proof'.

Gosh, I knew that all that philosopy of science I studied would come in handy one day

mythos

I just found this thread, and really liked the Douglas Adams quote.

So I resurrected it

Great. Now I'm going to have to re-read the entire Hitchhiker trilogy. All six books (...and Another Thing, written by Eoin Colfer, was remarkably true to the spirit of the original trilogy. He doesn't quite have Adams' writing style, but the humor is rather, um, Adamsesque.)

Asbestos Mango said:

Great. Now I'm going to have to re-read the entire Hitchhiker trilogy. All six books (...and Another Thing, written by Eoin Colfer, was remarkably true to the spirit of the original trilogy. He doesn't quite have Adams' writing style, but the humor is rather, um, Adamsesque.)

Click to expand...

Yes, I thought the same when I found this. I love his take on things and this struck me as very tarot-y, or at least my experience of it.

I think I'm the only person in the world who doesn't get Douglas Adams. I read his books when I was a teen and thought they were only ok. After I got older, I thought maybe I'd been too young to really appreciate his dry humor, so I reread Hitchhiker's Guide...and was underwhelmed. I guess I'm just not that subtle.

The quote above is great though.

Mr. Sluagh said:

I read this, and all my philosophical misgivings about the Tarot vanished. Discuss.

Click to expand...

<grin> Tnhere's not much to discuss.

Ditto, Terry Pratchett. You can read his books a number of ways.

As fantasy.

As comedy.

As a study of human psychology.

As cleverly disguised wisdom-teachings hiding under a veneer of fantasy and comedy.

I still want that Cripple Mr Onion / Tarot deck based on artwork by Paul Kidby and Josh Kirby.