Debunking Tarot

As a former skeptic myself, I love hearing accounts of skeptical efforts to debunk Tarot. I'm intrigued by the mental gymnastics involved in claiming, on the one hand, to be all about objectivity ... while clinging to, on the other hand, a metric ton of assumptions, judgments, and preconceptions about Tarot.

When Blogger "Debunkette," for example, sets out to debunk Tarot, she begins with the assumption that Tarot readers are nothing more than cold readers -- charlatans who pretend to be psychic by "reading" personal appearance (clothing choice, hairstyle, jewelry) and drawing information from open-ended questions. With that preconception in place, she decides to visit a Tarot reader.

(Editor's Note: For a rude and irreverent take on cold readings, take a look at this fluffy, over-the-top post from a blog called Violent Acres.)

To prevent the "cold reading" she expects, she refuses to interact with the Tarot card reader at all. As a result: "The Tarot card reader seemed perplexed by the cards in front of her and added more pregnant pauses hoping that I would break the silence."

At its very best, a Tarot card reading is a conversation -- a discussion about options, ideas, directions, and possibilities. Instead of embracing that process and evaluating it, our "Debunkette" decides up front that the whole thing will be a cold reading scam ... holds the reader and the reading process at arm's length ... creates a situation that can't possibility generate anything other than generalities ... and then smugly confirms that she got exactly the "sweeping generalities" that she expected to receive.

(More mental gymnastics: after all her efforts to render the reading process mute, she admits her reading "provided a great amount of hope and comfort." But since she's decided in advance that all Tarot readers are quacks, she goes so far as to convince herself that these good feelings are, in fact, part of the reader's efforts to manipulate her into coming back for more!)

Yeah, that's objectivity in action.

I find myself having more respect for this young lady, who at least constructs an experiment to test her friend's claim of psychic ability -- though, in the end, a test of whether or not a woman can sense the suit of a Tarot card has nothing, really, to do with Tarot card reading. (Actually, I kind of liked her first idea: before allowing a Tarot card reader to tell her anything about her present or future, she went to a psychic fair and insisted the readers begin by telling her something concrete from her past.)

Meanwhile, the tables are turning. Even as we speak, there is a growing movement afoot that is skeptical about ... well, the skeptics. Skepticism, they say, has become a religion, with a great deal in common with fundamentalist Christianity. Instead of leading to objectivity, skepticism is leading True Believers into the same kind of dogmatism employed by members of the rabid religious right.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: healthy skepticism is fine by me. Tarot works whether you believe in it or not. To discover this first hand, all anyone has to do is bring a real question, an open mind, and a deck of 78 cards to the table.

Comments

[Janet Boyer]

I wonder what these skeptics would say about those of us who do email readings almost exclusively--many times, without any personal information provided to us--and have many satisfied clients!

[Evangelios]

I agree with you Janet Boyer. Thats is how I do all my work, through email and the results are great. But when reading Live with the person in front of me I try and make it a more Open conversation so me and the client and "Solve the Puzzle" together. Its makes it more intreasting and the results are great.

[Janet Boyer]

If I read in person, Evangelios, I would approach the reading as you do. :o)

I really like Mary K. Greer's R.I.T.E. approach (which she explains in her book 21 Ways to Read a Tarot Card).

[bssc]

Robert Anton Wilson was one of the first to call CSICOP and their ilk fundamentalist materialists. They would throw out facts that didn't support their position, ready the Wikipedia article about them and why Dennis Rawlins resigned after their investigation of the Mars Effect.

The same thing seems to be happening here. By putting so many restrictions on a Tarot Reading and then expecting it to be completely accurate, she was dooming it to failure, in her eyes, and justifying her position.

[mw]

Of course, if one were interested in "finding out if something is so" then one must also included the sad fact that "science" is a "philosophy" also...and as such the "debunking process" would need to be debunked.

"Science" is USEFUL but not a real thing. It's a CONCEPT.
But, alas, concepts do not exist in the "real world" of "things 'out there'". You cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste "science" because it only exists in the 'mind of men', etc..

[a a]

how sad that so many willingly abandon their powes of reason.