'What is Tarot?' in Newspaper

mgrace

Article in Washington Post (1/7/07)

Here's the link for an article that was in last Sunday's Washington Post. (I don't know if the article will be accessible for any more than a week. [If the link goes bad, you can PM me for the text.]) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401655.html

This one is neutral-to-open about Tarot, but casts most of the readers into dubious light, in that all except the palm reader (and presumably the one she quotes in the 4th paragraph) recommended she purchase their various follow-up (healing/balancing type) services, at prices ranging from $200 to $800.
 

Nerd

Where Mabuse was seriously wrong, I think, was here:

"However, it should be noted that, there is no empirical evidence of any psychic phenomena..."

This is actually not true at all. There is a lot of empirical evidence for many phenomena that many people would call psychic. Whether the empirical evidence is "conclusive" is another question--but there is definitely empirical, even "scientific" evidence out there. It may be that it's just a grammar issue, and that Mabuse meant "no empirical evidence of any psychic phenomena _in connection with Tarot_." In this case, I would still disagree, but less strongly; I would suggest that "empirical evidence" needs to be changed to "scientific data."

This is because it's not true, as Mythos suggests, that "no scientific research done" on a question means "no empirical evidence." Scientific experiments aren't the only form of empirical evidence. "Empirical" merely means "originating in or based on observation or experience." No one ever did a controlled experiment to find out if being shot in the heart with a gun can kill a person, if eating can take away hunger, etc. Why? There is so much empirical evidence we don't need to study these questions. We can jump right to "how can we prevent a person from being killed?" and "what foods do the best job at taking away hunger?"

"Anecdotal" is not the same thing as "non-empirical," and neither is "subjective." All the data on guns killing people is essentially anecdotal, but it's well accepted. Hunger can only be experienced subjectively, but it is valid, empirical evidence of a need to eat.

I don't say all this to split hairs. I say it because a lot of the ordinary things we take for granted are not based on scientific experiments proving that they're true. But as soon as someone chooses to believe in psychic or paranormal phenomena (many of which were similarly taken for granted as true until a generation or so ago), suddenly there's a disclaimer attached and we have to say "well, no one's PROVEN this." In dealing with Tarot, which has occult overtones for many people, this even extends to something we know to be true from personal experience, like "Tarot can be therapeutic." Often, as in Mythos's post, this is choosing to play a game on someone else's terms when we don't have to, and getting into a whole apologetic discourse about proven and not proven.

So, while I think Mabuse's article is generally well balanced, I disagree on its face with the statement about "no empirical evidence." More than that, I question our culture's general pressure to make this kind of statement and wonder why Mabuse felt he had to (perhaps in order to get the article in a conservative paper which wouldn't otherwise print it?)

Any thoughts on this, Mabuse?
 

Mabuse

If there were any evidence on psi phenomena, the world media would be all over it. I've made a note in my brief bio that I am not a coservative but a skeptic. Conservatives are faith based people these days, at least in the US. They have faith in "intelligent design" a so-called "theory" based on an either/or fallacy. Conservatives are not skeptics. They encourage "leaps of faith" nowadays. They care not a rat about evidence. If I truly had a desire to pander to these right wing people, I would declare that it goes against God's will or something to that effect, something which this article does not do. The "conservatives" to which we're referring should perhaps rightly be called "theocrats" as they are joining religion with politics.
People should read Tarot if they find it relaxing or enjoyable. I don't think enjoyment of Tarot depends on any particular belief in the paranormal.
 

Nerd

Hi Mabuse,

I'm sorry I seem to have offended you. I never said you were "pandering." I am a professional full-time writer, myself, so to me writing an article the way the editor of a publication wants it written isn't "pandering," it's just good sense.

I do agree with you that belief in the paranormal is not necessary for the enjoyment of tarot. However, I respectfully disagree with your sweeping statement that "If there were any evidence on psi phenomena, the world media would be all over it." (More accurately, I disagree with your phrasing, because I believe there IS evidence, and the media ARE all over it.)

Again, I think when you say "any evidence," you really mean "scientifically accepted proofs." In the article, you were using the term "empirical" in a loose way. If I observe my dog returning to the yard, I have empirical evidence he has returned to the yard, but not scientific proof. In the same way, if I observe a ghost going up my stairs, I have empirical evidence my house is haunted. You don't have to believe me, just as you don't have to believe my dog has returned to my yard, but it's exactly the same kind of evidence for me.

In your post, you have dropped "empirical" and merely say "if there were any evidence." This goes further down the same path. Every single firsthand account of a psi phenomenon constitutes evidence, so there is a lot of evidence. Much of it, no doubt, is not very good, but evidence it is.

There is plenty of evidence for a lot of what you call "psi phenomena," and the media ARE all over it, from UFOs to ESP. The Gallup organization has collected vast amounts of empirical, firsthand evidence, to name just one. Although they usually just release poll data that tells you what people believe, they have also polled people about experiences. George Gallup, in fact, wrote a book about Near Death Experiences based on some of this data, and his conclusion was that neither "scientific" nor "paranormal" explanations were complete in accounting for the evidence. And, of course, MANY newspapers run articles on this stuff all the time--such as the article mgrace pointed to, in which the writer visits five psychics and admits to some "nerve-jangling" moments.

Have there been convincing, scientific experiments to "prove" psi phenomena? Nope. We both agree on that, and both remain skeptics. I'm just very careful in my use of language, and I won't say "no evidence" when I mean "no rigorous scientific data."

Obviously, this is all a sidelight to tarot topics, but it's important in its own right...
 

gregory

Attachments

  • Chakra And Awe - washingtonpost.pdf
    81.9 KB · Views: 147

Mabuse

"scientifically accepted proofs."

Yes! This is exactly what I meant.
 

mythos

Nerd said:
"Anecdotal" is not the same thing as "non-empirical," and neither is "subjective." All the data on guns killing people is essentially anecdotal, but it's well accepted. Hunger can only be experienced subjectively, but it is valid, empirical evidence of a need to eat.
Click to expand...

Oops! That one was mine ... and mea culpa ... I was playing loose and fancy-free with the language. This is a bad habit of mine! Loose-lipped mythos accepts slap on the wrist but can make no promises about giving up my slack verbosity. I am happy to be picked-up when I do it though :)

mythos:)
 

Fulgour

that plow won't scour

Mabuse said:
The "conservatives" to which we're referring
should perhaps rightly be called "theocrats"
as they are joining religion with politics.
Click to expand...
"Theocrats" is too nice. Let's stick with Conservatives.
They won't read a Tarot but they will promise miracles.
 
Nifty Google app for note taking Tarot for the Healing Heart by Christine Jette?