The Million Dollar Challenge

[Zephyros]

True, yet in a world where one of the reasons climate change isn't dealt with because "god would not visit another flood on the world" I would prefer string theory. Of course I know there aren't just two options, but one can still be rational. When someone asked me if Tarot "worked" I told them no... because my definition of working wasn't the same as theirs.

The problem with modern ecumenicalism is that it shows a disregard for objective truths all people can subscribe to. If I can prove the theory of evolution, telling someone else that I respect his view that the world was created in six days is as absurd as it is unfair to myself, and I doubt it leads to any good.

 

[ravenest]

True, yet in a world where one of the reasons climate change isn't dealt with because "god would not visit another flood on the world" I would prefer string theory.

Certainly ... string theory wont cause the type of damage climate change could (not yet anyway)

Of course I know there aren't just two options, but one can still be rational. When someone asked me if Tarot "worked" I told them no... because my definition of working wasn't the same as theirs.

Curious ??? I would have answered from MY definition of 'working'

The problem with modern ecumenicalism is that it shows a disregard for objective truths all people can subscribe to.

what system does have that ?

If I can prove the theory of evolution, telling someone else that I respect his view that the world was created in six days is as absurd as it is unfair to myself, and I doubt it leads to any good.

But you must see the 'value; of that 7 day viewpoint in a non literalist way ... a teaching tool myth analogy, symbolism, metaphor ... yeah?

The problem is people take it literally or in a literalist way. Religious fundamentalism.

Is evolutionary theory any different ? It can be considered 'Scientism' or literalist fundamentalism.

IMO the argument doesn't hold up as you had to add "if I can prove the theory of evolution" ... it hasn't been proved yet (I know I had great trouble with that at Uni in Anthropology ... some teachers were smug and acted if it was already proven and others said that was outrageous , still a theory).

To add a 'future maybe' in the formula isn't scientific ... thats wishful thinking.

To discount the value of either ( creationist and evolution) IMO is not helpful, nor is insisting on the literalist interpretation of either. I cant insist on the literalist interpretation of both so I will settle for symbolic meaning in both ... learn more that way

 

[yogiman]

I find that you two guys are putting a thick layer of interference over my already confirmed brilliant answer to this thread.

 

[Melia]

@minotaur - you speak the absolute truth.

After all these years, I still cannot believe that people think this $1 million dollar challenge is anything but BS.

If more false claoms are exposed, maybe then people will stop looking for a supernatural savior and start dealing with the important world problems.

You have to look at the supernatural to understand why there are the world problems we currently have. The problem is a lot people look at the charlatans and think, ahh it's ALL rubbish, I knew it ... then they carry on living their lives but without any real understanding of the truth. Even so called enlightened people are not aware of the bigger truth and are themselves caught in something that is superficial.

In any case, I think people should just forget about Randi and his challenge - it's a croc.

 

[yogiman]

Most you will have seen the series -superhumans- on discovery. There is one guy who is able to "stick" to his body also nonmetal objects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpbbwmgQTkM Why isn't he a millionaire? Or this one?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePJ_cOpoppc

 

[Zephyros]

Curious ??? I would have answered from MY definition of 'working'

Oh, you know, the sort of "tall, dark, stranger sort of things, them being the main reasons I rarely read for others. I'm too much of a snob.

what system does have that ?

Not so much a system, but a norm, a norm that leads to Creationism being taught in schools as an "alternative" to Darwin. I cannot say your (metaphorically your) six-day creation myth has no basis in reality, because I must "respect your beliefs," which translates to, well, exactly what it sounds like.

But you must see the 'value; of that 7 day viewpoint in a non literalist way ... a teaching tool myth analogy, symbolism, metaphor ... yeah?

Of course, myths are my passion, and at present I am elbow deep in Genesis. However, a myth is all I see it as, perhaps even a dangerous one. Even Red Riding Hood can have some initiatory significance, but it hasn't had the impact on world culture like certain other myths have.

Is evolutionary theory any different ? It can be considered 'Scientism' or literalist fundamentalism.

IMO the argument doesn't hold up as you had to add "if I can prove the theory of evolution" ... it hasn't been proved yet (I know I had great trouble with that at Uni in Anthropology ... some teachers were smug and acted if it was already proven and others said that was outrageous , still a theory).

As you probably know, when people say "theory of evolution" they do not mean it hasn't been proven, but more in that it is a paradigm on which others can be built. Once a theory no longer works, a new one is formulated in its place (exactly like a magickal formula). Insofar as nothing is 100% proven, and can always be updated, evolution can be demonstrated, even as it happens daily. Super bacteria, immune to antibiotics, are an example of this. Religion teaches that something is right simply because it is believed to be right, and no amount of empirical experimentation will prove or disprove it. One does not "believe" in science, one merely observes phenomena and seeks to duplicate it until a theory is proven. At the end of the day, science is as simple as writing down that a train passed by your house at 50 kph, simple observation.

Do I not see the value of belief? Of course not, I write daily about these things in a Tarot forum, as well as actually divine using Tarot. However, I still see the value of tests such as the OP tells of, regardless of their dubious pedigree.

 

[ravenest]

I find that you two guys are putting a thick layer of interference over my already confirmed brilliant answer to this thread.

OHH EXCUSE ME !!! I must have missed your "already confirmed brilliant answer to this thread" what post was that in ?

 

[ravenest]

Oh, you know, the sort of "tall, dark, stranger sort of things, them being the main reasons I rarely read for others. I'm too much of a snob.



Not so much a system, but a norm, a norm that leads to Creationism being taught in schools as an "alternative" to Darwin. I cannot say your (metaphorically your) six-day creation myth has no basis in reality, because I must "respect your beliefs," which translates to, well, exactly what it sounds like.



Of course, myths are my passion, and at present I am elbow deep in Genesis. However, a myth is all I see it as, perhaps even a dangerous one. Even Red Riding Hood can have some initiatory significance, but it hasn't had the impact on world culture like certain other myths have.



As you probably know, when people say "theory of evolution" they do not mean it hasn't been proven, but more in that it is a paradigm on which others can be built. Once a theory no longer works, a new one is formulated in its place (exactly like a magickal formula). Insofar as nothing is 100% proven, and can always be updated, evolution can be demonstrated, even as it happens daily. Super bacteria, immune to antibiotics, are an example of this. Religion teaches that something is right simply because it is believed to be right, and no amount of empirical experimentation will prove or disprove it. One does not "believe" in science, one merely observes phenomena and seeks to duplicate it until a theory is proven. At the end of the day, science is as simple as writing down that a train passed by your house at 50 kph, simple observation.

Do I not see the value of belief? Of course not, I write daily about these things in a Tarot forum, as well as actually divine using Tarot. However, I still see the value of tests such as the OP tells of, regardless of their dubious pedigree.

Ahhh I think I see the communication glitch here

I am seeing creationist theory as an idea about how life was created (not bacterial immunity this decade) and how evolutionary theory (in some views) purportedly explains the origins of life . The evolutionists in explaining how life evolved also use a quantum jump filled in by a future maybe as well ... that's why I say it is not science. However I BELIEVE species evolve within form but not that the theory can be extended to explain a scientific counter to the creationist theory ... on this level it is 'scientism' or 'fundamentalist science'.

 

[trzes]

Are statistical tests of divination really unfair?

I can’t judge that Mr. Randi and his credibility, but would like to discuss the general problem of empirically testing tarot divination.

But it remains, for me simply a vehicle for symbolic language. [...]

There is nothing magical about it. You can find systems of symbolic language throughout history and in various cultures. Symbolic language enables us to think differently and to see the world differently. That might seem magical to some but it isn't really . [...]

I can make predictions and analyses on the basis of knowledge and the balance of probabilities that might seem amazing to someone coming from a different level of knowledge. In reality, there is nothing special about it. Or sometimes I might use my psychic gifts to do that but the practice of these gifts can be quite inconsistent and I would not insist that anyone believe.

This pretty much matches my own belief. But Most people here who believe in divination also use the images of tarot. They distinguish decks that “speak” to them and those that don’t. They have mostly a more or less intuitive approach through the symbols and images of the tarot. Otherwise we all could as well use blank cards that only show a number between 1 and 78 each.

Scientists and so-called skeptics wouldn't deny this part either, as long as they are bothered to think a bit closer. That’s because there is a long line of experiments and research about how human beings process information and how the human mind works in very general terms. Our mind works with associations and references. And the best things to remember are often images. It is no surprise at all, that symbolic languages and images have an impact on what we think and how we perceive things. The brain is an associative network, not a linear computer program.

The dissent between scientists/"skeptics" and many tarot people though is about the divination bit that in most cases comes with tarot. If you are looking for empirical evidence for divination in tarot or the lack of it, then you will have to make a distinction between divination (things that come from "outside") and everything else that has an impact when using tarot. And there are even more things to exclude in order to make a claim about divination only.

1. Randomness: Do the cards come up in random order? Well, they normally don't. You have to shuffle VERY well to make sure that there is nothing left of a previous order. And when you have already used your deck for a long time, then you may unconsciously remember the tiny wears, tears and scratches on the card backs and therefore chose those cards that you unconsciously find are the best fit. A fair test won't allow you to bring your own cards because otherwise it would interfere with the divination that is allegedly making the choice of cards non-random.

2. Reality check: How far away is the future for example? Whatever you predict will be more likely to happen, the longer you wait. So any claim about the future has to be made within a clearly defined range of time. Most tarot readers are unwilling to do that, but otherwise the test would be biased in favor of divination since very often a reading will be credited as “accurate” before it has to stand the test of reality/time.

3. Self-deception: On top of that there often is self-deception at work when querents want to believe something and make the answers fit. When I very occasional read for others then my querents normally suggest most of the answers themselves, directly or indirectly. I only reflect that in nicer words and get the credits for what the querents already had in their own mind. That’s fine by me but has nothing to do with accuracy and even less with divination.

All this makes it tricky to find an unbiased test. A lot of inconvenience is necessary to exclude everything that we don’t want to measure. And if you feel that you couldn’t read properly under these circumstances then maybe this is precisely because the non-divinational aspect of you reading tarot is more important than you have thought.

 

[ravenest]

As far as 'science' goes it seems that the cat can be BOTH alive and dead (potentially) at the same time in Schrodinger's box for a valid scientific observation but a Tarot prediction must be EITHER true or false before the event occurs to be a valid scientific observation.

Tarot predicts potentials ( like Erwin's pussy-cat ... whom I always felt sorry for ) not actualities