3 ms·
> tool... But without any of the science. There is no science to tarot reading. There may be a well-defined methodology, but that doesn’t make it a science bec
by kortilla 4y ago
> tool... But without any of the science.
There is no science to tarot reading. There may be a well-defined methodology, but that doesn’t make it a science because it’s not testable and doesn’t make any predictions falsifiable more so than chance.
- metadaemon 4y agoHypothetically, wouldn’t the presence/absence of statistical significance (in reference to tarot-derived predictions) count as testable?
- eimrine 4y agoI would believe in that kind of stat significance only if it has been obtained by a double-blind method. BTW I afraid that tarot predictions are too vague for being translate-able into language of strict facts (no precise dates, sometimes no precise people, and always different results after repeating the game each time).