POLL: New Forum Section?

Would you like a new forum section for historical speculations?

  • Yes, a 6th section for speculation in history and philosophy

    Votes: 47 64.4%
  • No. Historical Research should relax its standards and welcome all ideas.

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • No. Keep standards in His Res; speculation can be addressed in Talking Tarot

    Votes: 12 16.4%
  • I either don't know or don't care.

    Votes: 11 15.1%

  • Total voters
    73

Melanchollic

I voted for

No. Keep standards in His Res; speculation can be addressed in Talking Tarot,

though I'd actually like to see much stricter standards. (There has been a bit too much 'Pink Slime' on the lunch plates 'round here recently. ;) )

I think a "speculation" section would work better under the general "Tarot" umbrella, separate from the rather general "Talking Tarot" section... but definitely not under the "Tarot History & Iconography" umbrella, nor as a sub-section of the "Historical Research" section. Speculation is not research!!
 

Titadrupah

I voted for

No. Keep standards in His Res; speculation can be addressed in Talking Tarot,

though I'd actually like to see much stricter standards. (There has been a bit too much 'Pink Slime' on the lunch plates 'round here recently. ;) )

I think a "speculation" section would work better under the general "Tarot" umbrella, separate from the rather general "Talking Tarot" section... but definitely not under the "Tarot History & Iconography" umbrella, nor as a sub-section of the "Historical Research" section. Speculation is not research!!

However, if your research takes months or years, in the meantime you'll be hungry for speculative sandwiches.
 

Yygdrasilian

Mark Twain = Samuel Clemens

τὸ θεοφιλές

Not so very long ago I initiated a post entitled “The Hallowed Profane” as an earnest attempt to create a place in Aeclectic where members could speculate on “weird, but ‘true’ enigmas surrounding these ubiquitous cards.”

As some of you may recall, that particular thread became more of a heated argument over the right to argue ‘facts of history that can never be proven’ than an actual discussion of said enigmas. Thus, the Sandbox. To be honest, I’ve been loathe to contribute as the implication is pretty obvious and seemed a mockery of my initial intent.

"History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes"
 

KariRoad

Hello, Teheuti

I voted an affirmative, and would like to add please, this POLL might also be posted in other, more active areas of the Aeclectic Community. Based simply on Posts and Views, it may be that some people might feel reluctant to "browse" some forum areas.

All are welcome, and so may be enthusiastically Welcomed.

The more the merrier!

:) KariRoad
 

Teheuti

I voted an affirmative, and would like to add please, this POLL might also be posted in other, more active areas of the Aeclectic Community.
I thought about that, but didn't want to be invasive. Plus, without familiarity with the debate or with Historical Research I'm not sure if this poll would make much sense.

I'd rather leave that decision up to the moderators - if they think it would be appropriate to post it elsewhere.
 

Huck

I thought about that, but didn't want to be invasive. Plus, without familiarity with the debate or with Historical Research I'm not sure if this poll would make much sense.

I'd rather leave that decision up to the moderators - if they think it would be appropriate to post it elsewhere.

Maybe, one should first request the opinions in the other historical forums.
Possibly one might think about an improvement of the poll first. Perhaps things are clearer, if there is some agreement on some or one name, or the selection of the name might be connected to the poll.
 

Huck

I voted for

No. Keep standards in His Res; speculation can be addressed in Talking Tarot,

though I'd actually like to see much stricter standards. (There has been a bit too much 'Pink Slime' on the lunch plates 'round here recently. ;) )

I think a "speculation" section would work better under the general "Tarot" umbrella, separate from the rather general "Talking Tarot" section... but definitely not under the "Tarot History & Iconography" umbrella, nor as a sub-section of the "Historical Research" section. Speculation is not research!!

Well,
... a greater group of persons wishes to come a little bit closer to history. I personally enjoy this. That's good.
Tarot history research needs urgently some more public. As the new friends of Tarot history have a lot of revolutionary ideas, it might be okay, if they take their place not directly in the Historical Research forum, but have their place in the neighborhood. Perhaps they occasionally have the idea to request the existence of better information in given questions.

Speculation is - my humble opinion - a necessary tool inside Historical Research. It's not necessary, if there are enough common sources to clear a question. But it's very often, that information consists only of fragments and additionally the possibly spurious hints are often full of contradiction. Naturally you need some "speculation" to get any clue, how research might proceed in such a given situation.
Well ... one shouldn't forget, that one only speculates. Speculation leads only to possibilities and new research ideas, they are not facts. But without speculation ... this wouldn't really work in practice.
... :) ... Good researchers need a 6th and 7th sense to get results. In my opinion they don't need a title or something like this, which in fact is only idle nonsense. But they need some mental discipline to keep their own speculations and facts at different sides. ... and a good memory is very helpful ... :) .. and ALSO a neutral view on the own results. And occasionally the flexibility to abandon a loved theory, if the research has the result, that it is nonsense.
 

Richard

But it may lead to springboards for something new, serious and important.
Yes, indeed! Einstein's daydreams/conjectures about things like elevators being accelerated in outer space led to the Theory of Relativity, a new model of mass, space, and gravitation which he published as a scientific paper before there was empirical evidence that it was indeed more accurate than the Newtonian theory. This was in the realm of hard, exact science, which history is not.
 

gregory

Well,
... a greater group of persons wishes to come a little bit closer to history. I personally enjoy this. That's good.
Tarot history research needs urgently some more public. As the new friends of Tarot history have a lot of revolutionary ideas, it might be okay, if they take their place not directly in the Historical Research forum, but have their place in the neighborhood. Perhaps they occasionally have the idea to request the existence of better information in given questions.
We (if there is a "we here") are not NEW friends of tarot history; we have visited the forum a lot, but have learned not to post in it, as we get blasted. Maybe we have better information; you will never know, as we have also learned that if you don't happen to agree with it - you includes several people who do this ! - we will be told that "we have already established that" ...

This sounds rather "superior" to me. Sorry Huck - but it does. I am still wondering about your post to me the other day !

Huck said:
Well, just for the communicative 10% ... I never asked you, but what's your interest in Historical Research ?
What did you think it was ? What is anyone's interest in anything ? I was actually rather offended. Why SHOULDN'T I - or anyone else - be interested in the history of something we all here value ?.