The Take-Over of Historical Research into Tarot

Teheuti

I protest the take-over of "Historical Reserach" by those who want to make it fit their own lack of knowledge and standards of what actually consistitutes historical research. Instead, it is being taken over to serve as a soap-box for personal beliefs and philosophies about where Tarot comes from.

I appear to be the last of the historians that's left here and willing to speak up for the original intention of this section. In response to controversies in earlier forums and discussion groups, it was formed as a place where historical theories could be explored and evaluated based on empirical evidence according to standards and methodologies that are used in the academic and professional fields of history. It was meant to be separate so as not to interfere with discussions of philosophies that *may* underlie Tarot.

Theories and personal belief systems that are not subject to historical research, and psychological ponderings about archetypal symbols and unknown motivational factors in its creation could be freely discussed elsewhere on aeclectic without historians demanding evidence for how such theories are related to Tarot.

When I leave (as so many others have done), I fear that this section of the forum will be left in the hands of the equivalents of Creationists and Climate-Change-Deniers: those who insist that their beliefs and research (i.e., counting the number of generations mentioned in the Bible) should be taught AS science, but without being subject to any standards of research and evaluation.

Currently on this forum, history means anything before the present time, in a vast soup in which a focus on direct sources connected via time and place are deemed as much too limiting. (See comments on "What was Tarot before the 14th century?" - when there's not the slightest shred of evidence that Tarot existed in the 14th century - but that's seen as nitpicking on my part! - what's a century here or there?) Research refers to anything one might find anywhere that reminds one in any way of Tarot or to anything one might think up. All theories are equal (except that one's own theory is better than all the others!). To ask for empirical evidence is being impolite or even nasty.

This is why I petition that the name of this section be changed and the older, very valuable posts on Historical Research be archived, as this section is no longer held to any standards that could academically or professionally be called historical research. We fought long and hard to bring a more accurate history of Tarot to the awareness of publishers, authors and the general public. I deeply protest the idea that current attitudes here be presented to the world as the Tarot community's idea of what historical research is.

P.S. I have nothing against philosophical discussions or presentations of personal beliefs. I simply protest these being presented as 'historical research.'
 

ravenest

I think, a new thread forum should be opened here ... maybe not titled " Psychological ponderings about archetypal symbols and unknown motivational factors in tarot creation."

But something simpler.

And this thread should stay open with you as the moderator.
 

Teheuti

And this thread should stay open with you as the moderator.
Sorry, but I have too many other things to do. I can't be around all the time, so I only check in on occasion.
 

ravenest

:surprise:

Oh! It didn't seem that way ... that's one reason why I suggested it.
 

AJ

Mary, I don't even see a Historical Research moderator listed so the requests for these changes are just blowing in the wind, going completely under mod radar.


I agree, a huge gulf between honest historical research methods and pie in the sky speculations (which are often just troll work I think) exist.

I appreciate all you share here and wouldn't blame you if you packed up and left with the others. I just hope you don't.
 

Sulis

Mary, I don't even see a Historical Research moderator listed so the requests for these changes are just blowing in the wind, going completely under mod radar.

The History forum doesn't have an allocated moderator but the Global moderators; Wendywu, Alta, Grigori and myself do read all of the threads here so the threads are moderated (lightly), they're not just ignored.

The bit on the forum main page beneath the title 'Historical Research' says this:
Research, studies and theories on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards.
So that does allow the inclusion of theories as well as discussions that are purely historical.
Solandia has also stated that historical theories can also be discussed in the Talking Tarot forum but it seems that people who have theories about history generally choose to post here and once a discussion is started, it would be ruined if we started to chop it up to remove the theory.

As you know, Solandia is the person to contact with ideas and concerns about the forum.. I've let her know about this thread.

Sulis - moderator
 

Teheuti

Historical theories are fine as long as people understand that the point is to then come up with evidence to support the theory - i.e., "research."

My point is that this has become the 'go to' place for philosophy and personal beliefs, while questions about what it has to do with history or requests for empirical research are seen as harassment.
 

Sherryl

Do tarot history forums have a natural life cycle? When I discovered the Yahoo group TarotL back about 2002, it was a privilege to read lengthy, well-researched articles freely offered by well-known tarot historians. (I still cherish my printouts.) Over the years, the forum devolved into a free-for-all rife with crackpot theories that couldn't be discussed rationally since they functioned more like religious beliefs than as evidence-based theories. The serious historians left the forum, and it was shut down a few years ago. Perhaps this forum will suffer the same fate. No worries. I'm sure those of us who are devoted to evidence-based history will flock together again on some other forum.
 

ravenest

Historical theories are fine as long as people understand that the point is to then come up with evidence to support the theory - i.e., "research."

Teheuti ... I realise you are frustrated but you are still doing this 'thing' ...

Clearly above Sulis, a Moderator has explained (yet again it is explained) that;

" The bit on the forum main page beneath the title 'Historical Research' says this:

Research, studies and theories on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards.

So that does allow the inclusion of theories as well as discussions that are purely historical. "

I urge you to read her post carefully ... the words that are chosen and used are used for a specific meaning, not a random one.

It is my understanding that those words mean someone is able to post on a theory or about one as long as it is about the development of Tarot and playing cards.

Yet you go on to define it in the terms you want to see , not what the terms ARE :

" Historical theories are fine as long as people understand that the point is to then come up with evidence to support the theory - i.e., "research." "

You added the word 'Historical' before theory ... you added that, not Sulis nor the Forum guidelines.

Also, your; " My point is that this has become the 'go to' place for philosophy and personal beliefs, while questions about what it has to do with history or requests for empirical research are seen as harassment. "

Could be counterpointed by; " We are allowed to go to this place for 'theory' and you are allowed to go to this place for 'historical theory', if you are insisting people that post 'theory' do it in a context of 'historical theory' then they may be the ones that feel harassed by you.

Perhaps that is why it is seen as harassment ... you are the one that is insisting it MUST be historical theory and still dropping that word in front of the definition , even after Sulis explained it quiet clearly.

I think it would be better for everyone if you stayed and continued making your own interesting posts and research and interacted with other scholars who do the same and let the other people have their right of expression here.

It shouldn't be a threat or a frustration to you as you could post back to them like this;

"Well, that is an interesting/confused/imaginative/highly original/ whatever theory but it isn't history and does not have the validity of that." ... and leave it at that. Without insisting that it has to be historical to be allowed to be here.

I am just trying to clear up the problem and confusion and I hope you stay on ... and I hope this also clears up where you (and certain others) have accused others of being some sort of trouble makers or trolls when , if you look carefully at the guidelines ... and at the fact that Mods haven't censored people or moved threads or cuy them off ...we were acting within the guidelines.

There is nothing from stopping any one to continue posting their historical theories and research here. If someone then questions them or you ... because your work is historical you will be able to PROVE your case.
 

SarahJoy

Look, I'm a very new member of Aeclectic, and I've opted not to comment on this very thing in recent active threads -- because I'm new, and because it would be off-topic. Frankly, the "Tarot Symbols Origin" thread has been a train wreck since the beginning, but to have said so in the thread would have been off-topic. This thread, however, seems to be the appropriate place to discuss it.

The way I see it, there seem to be three groups posting in this section, in recent months:
1) Historical research
2) Historical speculation
3) Crackpots
I'm going to continue to ignore the crackpots. I find the thoughtful speculations proposed by some members to be interesting, and enjoy reading how they arrived at their ideas.

That said, I don't think this is the correct section of the Aeclectic Forum to post concepts and ideas. It's titled "Historical Research". There's a note on "Historical Method & Evaluation" stickied at the top of the section. If it isn't formal academic research, it shouldn't be here.

I understand Teheuti's frustration. Speculation is not research. I also understand why members like ravenest and closrapexa would be frustrated to see crackpot ideas get an implied pass, while their own thoughtful speculation is what finally brings this issue to a head.

What would y'all think about creating a sub-section titled, "Historical Speculation", tucked in Historical Research? I understand it's Solandia's preference that speculation be discussed in "Talking Tarot", but as that isn't happening . . . this might be a solution to satisfy all parties with a minimum of fuss.


eta: I specifically do not use the word theory, because it is an awkward murky word; it's various meanings are too often in conflict.