The lifespan of a fact:

[kwaw]

Or, don't let facts get in the way of 'truth' (id est - a good story) : or, Fact-checker v. fabulist - which reminds me a little of some of the forums periodic debates :

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/bo...t&st=cse&scp=2

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/ma...tml?ref=review

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by kwaw

Or, don't let facts get in the way of 'truth' (id est - a good story) : or, Fact-checker v. fabulist - which reminds me a little of some of the forums periodic debates :

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/bo...t&st=cse&scp=2

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/ma...tml?ref=review

Thanks for those Steve. I liked this statement in Jennifer B. McDonald's article (the first one) -

"This brings us to D’Agata’s other outrageous proposition — that one needn’t concern oneself with facts because rarely are facts reliable, and that belief alone should be considered as muscular as fact, even when the belief has been proved to be based on invention. As long as a story “is believed by somebody,” he writes, “I consider it a legitimate potential history.” Hogwash."

(my emphasis)

The point for Tarot history is that the narrative of Tarot's origin in Italy in the fourth - or third at a stretch - decade of the 15th century, as a card game, is not based on an isolated fact or two, which might be undermined by a new fact or two. It is the unanimous testimony of all the earliest evidence we have - there is no reason to think otherwise. There is nothing ambiguous about what the evidence tells us. There is more than enough evidence to base a theory on, a theory of its place of origin and the meaning of the sequence, and it is good enough to narrow down the time of its invention to within a decade (I would even say 5 years). That's pretty good for something as ephemeral as a deck of cards used to play a game over 550 years old.

Admittedly, if we didn't have the non-ephemeral examples - the luxury cards of Milan, Florence and Ferrara, etc. - we'd have a much harder time of it, relying only on documentary evidence and the few early examples of popular tarot cards, but even if there were no luxury cards, I don't think anyone would argue for a date outside of a few decades before 1440 (e.g. we can't guess the invention of Karnöffel or Poker as well as Tarot), and in any case it would still be Italy and it would still be a card game.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Michael Hurst's recent pre-Gébelin Tarot History post succinctly explains why most Tarotists - even most of those who claim to be interested in the objective history of the game - remain apologists and even advocates for the mythology -

"Another way of looking at why there is no genuine “controversy or debate” on such matters [as the origin of Tarot] is that there is no conceivable evidence, nothing imaginable, that would persuade the cultists their views are mistaken. Epistemologically, their position is not falsifiable. Rather than being a mere historical artifact, subject to scholarly study like any other, Tarot is a numinous object or fetish for the cultists, and so it must have always been. It could not have become magical in the late 18th century—if it is magical, then it must always have been magical. Their view that Tarot is something more than an artifact is a key reason for their rejection of objective definitions and factual history of Tarot."

"Lost in the Myths of Swine"
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/

(the title is a play on the "lost in the mists of time" meme, most recently demonstrated (if not quoted exactly) by the poster "TarotCard" in the "Where to Start, What to Read" thread
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=80781
(post 24), in her or his only post advertising her or his yet-to-be-written book (lost in the web of mind))

[kwaw]

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

"Lost in the Myths of Swine"
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link Ross - I hadn't seen the latest post.

[le pendu]

A thread worthy of bringing a worm out of the woodwork.

Bravo, Michael. I'm still wiping the acid off of my screen, but my belly is sore from laughing.

[gregory]

HELLO WORM !!! You have been missed. Stick around !

[The crowned one]

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

Epistemologically, their position is not falsifiable.

I think it is, but one believer at a time, as no one seems to share a set set of belief's, and nailing a single individual to a set is almost impossible. I would say "Epistemologically, their positions are not worth the effort"

Subjective can be quantified, and is used as empirical and it can be disproved, it is the belief that makes the problem.

[KariRoad]

Originally Posted by le pendu

A thread worthy of bringing a worm out of the woodwork. Bravo, Michael. I'm still wiping the acid off of my screen, but my belly is sore from laughing.

All us worms were fantastically brought out too, and with you, though my screen had to be sandblasted (and we don't want to go into particulars regarding all the sore bellies hereabouts). Would if wood would work! Welcome home!

[Teheuti]

Wonderful essays all. What seems so obvious to some, totally escapes others. Are we living on the same planet?