I’m a fan of the Skeptic’s Dictionary, which casts a generally objective eye on all things metaphysical.
That said, I’ve never liked the entry on Tarot, which begins, “Tarot cards are used mainly in fortune telling” and continues, “Tarot cards are usually read by fortune tellers.” (Here, I’ve italicized the words mainly and usually for emphasis.)
Worse, the end of the Tarot-related entry speculates:
The need to be guided, to have assistance in making decisions, to be reassured, may have their roots in unfulfilled childhoods. For, it is in childhood that one needs guidance, assistance and direction. It is in childhood that one needs to be comforted and reassured that it is acceptable to be master of your own destiny. Perhaps the many adults seeking occult guidance represent generations of children not guided and directed but tyrannically commanded, not reassured but demeaned, not taught to be masters of their own destiny but taught to be insecure and dependent.
I thought it was surprising to find, especially in a work dedicated to skeptical thought, a passage so rife with unsupported assertions.
As a good skeptic, I became curious: what hard evidence supports either claim? I sent that question via email to Robert Todd Carroll, the dictionary’s author, saying, in part:
I’m aware of large numbers of people who use Tarot cards for aids in meditation, reflection, self-exploration, problem-solving, and even brainstorming … but, after a fair amount of research, I would only associate fortune-telling applications with bad storefront psychics … A source for [the claim that the cards are mainly used for fortune telling] would be genuinely appreciated.
… [With regard to your statement that those seeking “occult guidance” may have “unfullilled childhoods,”] how is this comment, unsupported by a reference to any research or objective data, any different from someone saying, “Nightmares and night terrors in children *may* have roots in alien abduction. *Perhaps* the many children having nightmares represent generations of abductees…”
I never received a reply … but I noticed today that the entry on Tarot has, in fact been edited: the words “mainly” and “usually” have disappeared, and all speculation about childhood trauma prompting a belief in fortune telling has been removed.
The original, unedited entry is still available through The Wayback Machine; you can compare it to the edited entry now online at www.skepdic.com.
I’m proud to have played a small role in making this change … and proud of Carroll, too, who, by eliminating the unsupported assertions in his entry, demonstrates an open mind and makes the Skeptic’s Dictionary a better tool.
AHAHAHA!! Another brilliant and ingenious post. Like, skeptics are truly wonderful b/c they preach against psuedo-science yet they:1) look ONLY at the side of the argument favourable to them2) argue ad hominem to an embrassing degree3) ingore any scientific evidence against them, thus targeting what can be held up to the public as “proof” that an entire branch of science deserves no consideration.For example, in their opinions about Argio (at http://www.skepdic.com) are they calling the entire Brazilian medical board liars????? Holy crap, that is a big call for one shitty little websight to make!! Over ten thousand articles were done on him, multiple books, and more importantly multiple scientific papers. He also operated on a notable scientific person at the time, removing a tumour from the man’s arm without anesthetics…. like, are they calling all these people liars? I would really like to know. I honestly would.I think the more likely explaination is that they ignore it, b/c after a person obtains a university degree they are in fact allowed to do that…. hmm, there’s a word for that… What is it, pseudo-science maybe?
Damnit, skeptics piss me off. It’s not b/c I have any metaphysical beliefs, it’s b/c they are so damn closed minded and pseudo scientific in their approach. This is the only branch of science that such attitudes that “sketics” have are allowed. It’s friggin’ disgusting.
I can only agree.”Skeptics” are not skeptic. A true skeptic is agnostic by definition. These skeptics are “objectivists” at best. But they are not skeptic. You can’t prove a positive in science. You may do it in math, but only because it’s all just made up.There is no “scientific proof” for a general phenomenon like faith healing just as there is no “scientific proof” that tarot cards work or don’t work. A proof is exactly what a scientist would deny. He would laugh about it, because the entire concept is laughable. It’s just that something is probable. That’s enough.A scientist must not be self-righteous.Just a thought…