191–200 of 231 posts
So, if I randomly generate headlines of varying rabid mania, I am not liable for defamation because I know they are random rubbish, but I still get the ad revenue ? Isn't this the business model for all current online news sources .. It does feel however it ought to be illegal - much like pissing in the drinking water.
[deleted]
If something is not illegal but clearly bad, it's a lesson that we should change the law. It absolutely should not be legal to lob a completely baseless murder accusation at someone with no evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claiming your opinion is fact does not make it fact. Plenty of people would claim it’s a fact that humans have rights.
I think that the difference between fact and opinion is the strength of your defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sense I get from the person, what the cards say, and what my own predispositions say, all have a bearing on what I say during a reading. As for justifying the part determined by the cards, I can offer two: -they might simply be a way of limiting what I can say since I'm not going to tell someone something completely counter to the traditional meaning. That limitation might force me to be more creative than if I w…
Could you summarize a theory or two about the mechanism by which the question asked could affect what cards are drawn?
I don't subscribe to the simulation hypothesis myself in a literal way, but I'm working on something like the above theory using the language of QBism. If you're familiar with the quantum eraser, it's a variation on the double slit experiment where the photon is split into two entangled photons, and the observation of one is made after the other has already impacted the photosensitive screen. My interpretation of the results is that reality is quite dependent on perspective, and facts determined in the future at larger scales can affect the paths taken to them in the present. How that could affect a card shuffle isn't obvious, hence why I'm agnostic on that question. But it certainly suggests a mechanism for precognition as it's tested in the lab [1] and it's possible that only certain cards are 'significant' when viewed from the final result, which might tilt the odds of how a shuffle turns out as some biologists believe happens in adaptive mutation[2].
If you're interested in this line of inquiry I've got an essay series up on the subject and would welcome feedback [3].
[1]Radin, Dean I. "Electrodermal presentiments of future emotions." Journal of Scientific Exploration 18.2 (2004): 253-273.
[2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03032...
[3]https://github.com/temporalholonics/holistic-temporality-and...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have very limited experience of Tarot readings, and I have never been to a professional reader. But I have been trained to read them by somebody who has produced their own deck, so they are quite into it. My limited understanding is that one can ”read” them so that the subject is questioning the cards and the person doing the reading is kind of guiding the process. This works, because we repeat patterns in our life…
Thanks for the honest reply. So why not do psychotherapy then? I know there are arguments against psychotherapy, but surely all of it doubly applies to Tarot reading -- which is way less regulated, with far less oversight and peer review (I mean it in the broadest possible sense, of course I don't expect a peer reviewed article on "Nature")?
I have done psychotheraphy though and it was not very useful beyond having somebody listen to you attentively.
In my very limited experience Tarot was more useful and cheaper — hence poor man’s psychotheraphy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're exclusively talking about US defamation law on this story.
Who defines what we’re exclusively allowed to talk about when a story comes up? I missed that one in the HN guidelines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have very limited experience of Tarot readings, and I have never been to a professional reader. But I have been trained to read them by somebody who has produced their own deck, so they are quite into it. My limited understanding is that one can ”read” them so that the subject is questioning the cards and the person doing the reading is kind of guiding the process. This works, because we repeat patterns in our life…
Thanks for the honest reply. So why not do psychotherapy then? I know there are arguments against psychotherapy, but surely all of it doubly applies to Tarot reading -- which is way less regulated, with far less oversight and peer review (I mean it in the broadest possible sense, of course I don't expect a peer reviewed article on "Nature")?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sense I get from the person, what the cards say, and what my own predispositions say, all have a bearing on what I say during a reading. As for justifying the part determined by the cards, I can offer two: -they might simply be a way of limiting what I can say since I'm not going to tell someone something completely counter to the traditional meaning. That limitation might force me to be more creative than if I w…
> before running an experiment No such experiment is possible, because the cards don't have single meanings. Any completely random set of results will look meaningful to a tarot card reader, because that's the whole point of the reading. Can you imagine an experiment that would allow for a negative result?
But I get the wider point; meaning and facts aren't exactly the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cue the GTA rant "Chakra Attack", complete with the side-rant about coconut-water. I'm personally convinced that a lot of wisdom that's considered mystical and fringey is actually wise, and would be taken seriously under a different name. For all the woo surrounding something like feng shui, for example, nobody complains when their apartment is organized so that they can accomplish their daily tasks efficiently--then…
Feng Shui is trivially debunked by the fact not two "specialists" will tell you the same thing about how to arrange your apartment; they will in fact often tell you contradictory things. If Feng Shui proponents are going to then argue "well, it's just common sense and/or the opinion of the practitioner", then that's just called "interior design" and there's no need to dress it as mystical oriental teachings. How you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the honest reply. So why not do psychotherapy then? I know there are arguments against psychotherapy, but surely all of it doubly applies to Tarot reading -- which is way less regulated, with far less oversight and peer review (I mean it in the broadest possible sense, of course I don't expect a peer reviewed article on "Nature")?
As for the peer review —- after the replication crisis of psychology, I don’t put too much value in scientific process in that or related fields. When we live in scientific ”wild west”, one has to try to find the truth oneself, being both open-minded and critical. That is why I tried Tarot when a friend suggested it, and then learned what I wrote above. And I was very critical of the whole idea of Tarot, because I be…
I thought I had preempted this in my comment: whatever criticism of psychology and therapy there is, it applies tenfold to fringe stuff like Tarot.
There may be a crisis of replication in psychology, but there is simply no replication or oversight or peer review at all with Tarot and occultism in general.
This is what strikes me as very odd about people's beliefs in occult and fringe stuff: their standards of proof are completely imbalanced against science. "Nobody has proof vaccines work", "doctors are spreading falsehoods", etc, and yet -- "the friend of my cousin is a Tarot reader, you wouldn't believe how accurate he is!". Say what? What happened with the skepticism about medicine and science, did it fly out the window the minute a psychic friend of my aunt's grocer said I should try Bach's Flowers?