How would one prove Tarot Card Readings have validity?

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: BStoltman

I have used Tarot for over thirty years now.

Tarot popularity is huge. I have watched them go from something Bohemian to widespread use through all society all over the world. What started with 1920s fads and fashions for occultism among the aristocracy has trickled down big time. The origin is fascinating, too.

I think the gain in popularity has arisen at the same time as patriarchal religion in the West is decreasing in practice. I use them because I don't want to be alone in my decision making and value the interaction of my consciousness with the random image. I am always looking for an edge and thirty years means they have enhanced my skills of survival. That speaks for itself.

There will never be any way of proving their power. That is because it is a subjective experience, either first or second hand communicated. I think they are very "quantum". They amaze me to this day. I still have good and bad days with them, where sometimes they work much better than others. Right now I am particularly fond of them as I am finding life to be a real trial. More than anything it is soul company on a level that fellow humans can not provide.

The great psychologist and author Jung legitimizes the Tarot as I see it in terms of archetypal reflection of one's will on all levels. He was quite the psycho analytical genius of the modern age and I go along with much of what he observed in terms of archetypal manifestations in the human experience.

However, they are beyond science to me. They are a morning ritual I do with a coffee. I reference an archetype for the day and as a reflection of my daily experience. It keeps me psychically aware, gives me an imaginative edge.

It is strange, but I do find it so helpful. I don't think I am being evil doing this. It is not even divination as such. It is more a psycho analytical experience for me; a quantum experience. They are totally subjective and work in the realm of myth, imagination and self reflection. Self reflection and consciousness are vital components of true civility. On that level anything that encourages the interaction of self with self to reflect on behavior on a constant daily basis is encouraging a conscious mind. The Tarot, I Ching, all manner of reflective tools do go some way to putting a little thought into action so we might make a few less mistakes having considered our actions before we actually act; they are a buffer against haste in decision making.

Has anyone seen the recent movie "Personal Shopper"? At the end of the movie Kristen Stewart''s character asks "Is there anybody there...Or is it just me?" Interesting question to ask of the universe and the question that manifests a need for spirituality and religion. Communism even could not wipe out our need for spirituality. It is the obvious conclusion to draw that there is a real human need for spirituality. If there is a need for it on such a basic universal level in our collective experience then it is obvious that spirituality exists in nature and evolution.

Excellent post ~!!!

a reply to: Woodcarver

Well monopoly can tell you one thing about the economy. Even if money is evenly distributed at first by the end of the game or over time the money flows into a pereto distribution creating a pocket of one rich guy. Over a global or national level that is the 1 percent.

On the topic of Tarot Cards there is nothing magical about them so there is nothing to prove. They're meaningful in that they are archetypes or character types, some sort of type. I was in Tarot for a bit then I just read the Tarot story of The Fool's Journey and that's all I needed and could ever learn about the Tarot. The archetypal story is more meaningful than each archetype individually. In regards to an earlier comment references Jung and self awareness tools I'd suggest just learning psychology, observing your thoughts and behaviors and introspecting. The downside of doing Tarot everyday or horoscopes is that regardless of whether you believe in it or not the message is going to occupy your mind for that time being and we always self reference when we read so it's meaning is a double sided effort. A) it's a conceptual form of character/behaviorism B) You will associate a past event or quality about yourself with that type not even because you want to but because it's impossible not to. Also if there is a card or archetype you like above the others that will tell you something about yourself in terms of what your ideals are. All in all divination can come from reading a good book. Magic is but mystery and mystery is hidden knowledge. Know thyself.

Great comments and ideas guys, It does appear to be a difficult thing to prove, but many great thoughts in general.

originally posted by: BStoltman
This question came about from this video I watched, which this Arcanum guy, had a Tarot Reading done live, and wanted to see if they have validity. It was an interesting video, however I guess as I thought about it, What would it take to prove something like this. Especially since they vary so much from person to person. Does anyone have an idea of how one would go about proving something like that?

Here is a study done on Tarot cards:

archived.parapsych.org/papers/48.pdf

Basically you create a hypothesis to test, develop test methods being careful to minimize bias and have controls, conduct the experiment and calculate the statistics to compare with the hypothesis.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

The cards repeatedly comming up with the correct answer, even when the "tester" is changed..

That is the definition of a scientific study..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ColdWisdom

The cards repeatedly comming up with the correct answer, even when the "tester" is changed..

That is the definition of a scientific study..

But Tarot is so nuanced and subjective. You may get two correct answers from two different readers with different cards but they may also be two correct answers.

It's like going to two therapists. One might tell you some things you needed to hear and the next might also do that but with different angles.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The cards repeatedly comming up with the correct answer, even when the "tester" is changed..

That is the definition of a scientific study..

Thank you for demonstrating to me and to the rest of the participants in this thread that you have no working knowledge of the scientific method.

You make it so easy.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The cards repeatedly comming up with the correct answer, even when the "tester" is changed..

That is the definition of a scientific study..

Thank you for demonstrating to me and to the rest of the participants in this thread that you have no working knowledge of the scientific method.

You make it so easy.

Why be an ass to him? He's talking about switching out factors while maintaining a control. How is that a demonstration of having "no working knowledge of the scientific method"?

Such an emotionally-charged response to such a emotionally-neutral post.

a reply to: BStoltman

"Validity" is subjective and filtered through a lens of confirmation bias, varying interpretations, and positional meanings.

A good comparison is Nostradumus. To some he was this great seer of antichrists to come, to others he was a satirist and critic of The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the inquisition.

a reply to: Abysha

There is nothing empirical to be derived from that, for what he described relies heavily on subjective observation and in fact does not have an objective control.

But that's the whole point and the key to understanding Tarot, at least in chaos magick.

I will direct you back to my first post in this thread:

In the morning, try drawing three cards from your deck and lay them face down without looking at them. When you get home that evening, turn them over and see if they corroborate any experiences you had that day.

The point of this is to demonstrate that there is no objective validity to Tarot. You create the validity by observing the cards and projecting your observations into the real world, but the validity itself is subjective.

There is no way to measure the validity of Tarot scientifically because the effectiveness of Tarot, that which would need to be tested, is inherently subjective.

He does this a lot, so sorry if I lashed out.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Abysha

There is nothing empirical to be derived from that, for what he described relies heavily on subjective observation and in fact does not have an objective control.

But that's the whole point and the key to understanding Tarot, at least in chaos magick.

I will direct you back to my first post in this thread:

In the morning, try drawing three cards from your deck and lay them face down without looking at them. When you get home that evening, turn them over and see if they corroborate any experiences you had that day.

The point of this is to demonstrate that there is no objective validity to Tarot. You create the validity by observing the cards and projecting your observations into the real world, but the validity itself is subjective.

There is no way to measure the validity of Tarot scientifically because the effectiveness of Tarot, that which would need to be tested, is inherently subjective.

He does this a lot, so sorry if I lashed out.

Thanks for explaining your response. I've been doing Tarot for years (paid rent with it for a couple of them). But "woo" or not, there's value in putting it through the rigors of science, even if the parameters aren't set up to handle something like divination.

Someday, there will be a more inclusive method for things like this and it's nice to have historical precedents for it both pre and post.

a reply to: Abysha

Someday, there will be a more inclusive method for things like this and it's nice to have historical precedents for it both pre and post.

I look forward to that day with eager anticipation.

a reply to: Abysha

It isn't he was just "trolling"..

Or whatever you wanna call it when you have no counterpoint , but don't agree with some one.

People who are proponents of such things don't like when people point out they are easy to prove/disprove.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

The control in the experiment is that you already know the out come.. the person is about to be executed..

The fact that whatever cards signal "long life and prosperity " never come up and the death cards only come up. Is your mathematical anomaly that proves its validity..



You know the correct answer, so you have the control.


He only part that is subjective is validating your psychics...so if the tarot community cannot provide a handful of legit readers .. then that sounds like a personal problem.. not a problem with the experiment.


The whole point of any experiment is finding a mathematical anomaly that only proves your point, and never disproves it.


Such as ..

Is 2+2 =4??

If any way you add it up it always equals 4.. then you know you are correct..

If the readers only ever come up with death cards, then you know they are correctly predicting their fate.

a reply to: Abysha

Oh they are perfectly able to deal with it..

It is called the placebo effect and the mathematical probability you will get lucky..

Such as with a coin flip.

You have a 50/50 cance of getting it correct..

So if some one can consistently prove a much greater accuracy rating than that, no matter how big the sample size. Then you know some thing weird is going on.

Pedoctions and such are purposely vague to allow the "victim" to read into it what they Will.



If there were legit results to be had, EVERYONE USES TAROT!!!

Every major corporation, every state, every politician every EVERYONE!!!

You know why?? Because the ones who didn't would lose and all the people in charfe would be tarot advocates.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Abysha

Oh they are perfectly able to deal with it..

It is called the placebo effect and the mathematical probability you will get lucky..

Such as with a coin flip.

You have a 50/50 cance of getting it correct..

So if some one can consistently prove a much greater accuracy rating than that, no matter how big the sample size. Then you know some thing weird is going on.

Pedoctions and such are purposely vague to allow the "victim" to read into it what they Will.



If there were legit results to be had, EVERYONE USES TAROT!!!

Every major corporation, every state, every politician every EVERYONE!!!

You know why?? Because the ones who didn't would lose and all the people in charfe would be tarot advocates.

I can tell you that, towards the end, the majority of my clientele were about high stakes business matters by venture capitalists and investors.

Other than that, I can't argue one way or the other. I can explain why it works from a psychic, mystical, or psychological standpoint. You don't have to believe in the mystical or spiritual aspects of it to find value.

A lot of great information, and I greatly appreciate it. But if we could get past the personal biases, and find something people agree on would make this discussion far more interesting.

Lets get past all the mindless arguing, and get down to a honest discussion of what it would take to prove such a phenomena as tarot card readings. What would the test exactly be when using the scientific method, or if for some reason such a test has never worked, is there a test or thought process that would work better?

originally posted by: BStoltman
Lets get past all the mindless arguing, and get down to a honest discussion of what it would take to prove such a phenomena as tarot card readings. What would the test exactly be when using the scientific method, or if for some reason such a test has never worked, is there a test or thought process that would work better?

I already posted one Tarot card experiment. Here is another by Susan Blackmore in 1983 when I think she was working on her PhD in parapsychology:

Divination with Tarot Cards: An Empirical Study

She did a lot of research in parapsychology which made her increasingly skeptical as the research did not support psi or when it did flaws in the research were found. It's hard to create studies completely free of bias in this field but I think it can be done if the experiment is planned carefully enough.

Speaking of bias it's worth noting the huge bias in the title of your thread, "How would one prove Tarot Card Readings have validity?"

A scientific test will have no such bias and will be designed to test whether or not tarot card readings have validity.

A practice that steeped in mysticism that will eventually be a children's game...

It really is about being a fool against the World. So generic and bland, you could almost say it universal.

Tarot cards are no better for use as a divination tool than any other medium (tea leaves, sand, bonfire ashes, a plucked handful of feathers). It's about what they inspires in the viewer. A person who preoccupied with a certain issue will make a connection with that to the images, but due to the elaborate nature of the spread, will be forced to confront aspects of said issue which they might otherwise overlook and perhaps gain some insight into themselves and their feelings. People who do readings for others are not psychic in anyway, but are skilled in covertly leading the person the reading is for to draw their own conclusions.

The modern tarot deck is exactly that, modern. The only cards of real importance are the Majors, while traditionally the rest of the cards were simply numbered cards and used for gaming. The Major cards current form was created as a means of spreading Gnostic teachings to an illiterate populace. They originated in Russia, most likely rising to popularity during the Bogomil heresy, and became widespread throughout France and Spain during the Cathar movement. They were modified to better represent middle age social castes, but the fundamental imagery goes back much further than that. Some people will say that it is Catholic in origin because the cards depict the Hallows (Cup of Christ, Lance of Loginius, The Platter of John the Baptist... and uhh, I can't remember what the Sword is), however, these four artefacts predate The Birth of Christ, the oldest depictions being found in China (although I can't remember the dates of the top of my head). I'm not suggesting that these artefacts are real things or that these legends were somehow passed from China to the Middle East - it simply goes to show that separate people came to the same conclusions about basic philosophical and cultural ideas because some things are inherently common to the human condition. And that is why they are still relevant today, not just as a divination tool, but as a life guide if you understand the message they contain.