Talk:Divination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This doesn't belong in the article, because no one takes it seriously (except possibly some young children), but I wanted to share it:

Tualha 18:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I thought critomancy (divination by barley cake) was pretty humorous, myself. The only Google search results I'm seeing are links to definitions, so I'm guessing it (and a lot of the other "mancies") belong in the Wiktionary. --Ardonik 07:38, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Commercial links

I'd like to suggest we refrain from these highly commercial sites. Does anyone know what the rule is at Wikipedia? It seems to me that a site should be removed if it is low on original content and high on commerciality. But I don't make the rules, and I don't want to be hasty. Anyone? Lectiodifficilior 04:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crab sorcerer

Anyone know the fancy name for the divination depicted in the photograph of the Cameroonian man? It's a fairly common practice in Cameroon and Nigeria, though now it's played up for tourists quite a bit. Some cultures use spiders instead of crabs, but the general practice remains the same. BrianSmithson 13:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scrying

I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing and Physiognomy are forms of Scrying, and that Scrying is in fact another word for divination, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's Not Realy That Hard

Seeing things before they happen doesn't seem to be all that hard to receive fpr m family, We Dream common things that happen in a later time or have strange dreams represnting some event soon to come, or what never was finished, like when my mom was a child, she almost fell off a steep cliff in Califonia in a bus, and many years later, she went back to California and the buss driver had a heart attack and steered off a road, on a steep cliff, but only recieved bruises to here forearms and is currently recovering and doing very well, maybe its because on my mom's side, I have Cherekee and Iroquios blood, and on my father's, i have eskiemo--Dansanman 07:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] POV

This article seems to suggest there is some scientific theory for divination, when there is none. The article needs to be rewritten from a NPOV view so that it is clear that divination is a pseudoscience. There is a complete lack of scientific criticism of divination. 59.92.62.163 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... The article seems fairly clear on that matter "Scientific research and methods have made it possible to predict future events with some success, e.g., eclipses, weather forecasts and volcanic eruptions. However, this is not divination. Strictly speaking, divination assumes the influence of some supernatural force or fate, whereas scientific predictions are made from an essentially mechanical, impersonal world-view and rely on empirical laws of nature. Thus, as an operational definition, divination would be all methods of prognostication that have not been shown to be effective using scientific research." So I'm kind of confused to why this article has a POV that seems to claim that divinitation is real scientific method and exists in the scientific world. And secondly Divination is more of a Paranormal Belief than say Pseudoscience. Yes there is a difference... It is kind of like someone believing in Vampires vs someone who has creating a machine and a scientific method to prove that vampires exist but isn't much of anything other than lots of scientific jargon and BS on a research paper.-James --208.253.80.123 20:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I made an attempt to NPOV-ify this article. It did seem to be beating around the bush in the science category. If it's bad let me know what I should correct. If it's good someone should remove the NPOV macro. --Six.oh.six 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you did a good job, so I removed the NPOV header.

[edit] POV claims again

I also think that this article seems to imply that divination works, which is disputed. For example, I think that the following sentences are fishy

  • Beyond mere explanations for anecdotal evidence, there are some serious theories of how some forms of divination might work. (POV sentece, implies that divination works)
  • One such theory is that the divination process allows messages from the subconscious mind to emerge into the conscious world. E.g., using the I Ching orcale, a person with a very good knowledge of the 64 chapters of the I Ching might subconsciously direct the division of the yarrow stalks to obtain a relevant oracle. (This OR)
  • After an I Ching hexagram has been found, some interpretation is needed to obtain an answer to the question posed, and again, this allows the subconscious to influence the outcome. This theory presupposes that the subconscious mind has relevant messages to deliver, which is certainly true in some cases, but not so in other cases.(Certainly true?? No way!!! There's no scientific evidence)Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 10:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. I, too, have reservations about the first quoted sentence.
  2. What does "This OR" above mean? Original Research
  3. I wrote most of the quoted stuff, or at least re-wrote it. I am a total disbeliever in the supernatural, but I think no-one in their right mind would deny that there have been situations in their lives where their subconscious was wiser than their conscious self. For some people, "divination" methods like I Ching seem to be a way of contacting their subconscious - but of course, then it's not really divination, which, as far as I know, does not really exist.
I'm not sure where user:Vorpal blade disagrees with me; perhaps I've just not been clear enough in what I wrote in the article. Any other views or suggestions?--Niels Ø 19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
(answered No. 2 above; carry on...) __ Just plain Bill 22:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed those 3 points. Any suggestions?Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 07:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science section

From the science section:

(Statement 1) Thus, as an operational definition, divination would be all methods of prognostication that cannot be reduced to models of predictable causal processes, and hence is completely distinct from science.
(Statement 2) Further, as divination is not falsifiable, the validity of divination cannot be determined using scientific principles.

Ad 1. A scientific prediction based on quantum mechanics is not based on a causal model, so by this operational definition, would it be divination? If I think my wife is going to like a handbag I by for her, is that divination?

Ad 2. Why is divination not falsifiable? If it predicts something that does not actually happen, has it not been falsified? --Niels Ø 12:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What I think is that, while individual predictions can (& are) falsified, divination itself can't be falsified becuase it offers no mechanism of any sort. It's different from Quantum Mechanics, becauase it's possible for any of the six Quantum mechanics postulates are falsified by experiments.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree much about the subject matter. What I wanted to point out is what I see as problems with the way things are phrased here. I still think statement 1 (the operational definition) unintentionally defines quantum mechanics to be divination, and I think it must be fixed (e.g. by removing statement 1; I won't miss it). As far as I understand, statement 2 is not meant to be part of the definition, so my remarks about quantum mechanics had nothing to do with statement 2, only with statement 1. As pointed out in the discussion below (2 cents), divination as susch is often unfalsifiable because of the layers of interpretation surrounding it, but I still think statement 2 needs to be amended somehow, as it is too categorical.--Niels Ø 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I last visited it, the Science section has deteriorated even further, with insertion of material the relevance of which (if any) is not explained. As it stands, this section is an absurdity, and the article is better off without it, so I hereby remove it. It is not merely confusing, it is quite clearly confused. I still hope someone can produce and insert a version that actually contributes to the article, perhaps merely by pruning the following. Here's the version I've removed:

== Divination and science ==
{{confusing|December 2006}}
Science has made it possible to predict future events with some success, including eclipses, weather forecasts and volcanic eruptions. Science operates by objective results obtained from analysis of observable, repeatable phenomena. Divination, on the other hand, is rooted in religious or other belief systems that assume some supernatural cause or link with observable events. In so far as such supernatural causes are erratic and cannot be duplicated, quantified, or modelled, or if they are just imaginary, then they can not be studied by scientific method.
The scientific method relies on repeated and systematic observations and experiments, which lead to hypotheses that are testable by other parties in an attempt to falsify them; falsified. In this way a theory is built, which is a model of the phenomena, and often allows predictions for similar future events. A scientific theory can be held to be 'valuable' because of its ability to make useful if/then statements which then turn out to be valid. (see Karl Popper). "If a rat drowns in water because it is an air-breathing mammal, then a mouse, also being an air-breathing mammal, should similarly drown in water" might be an example. Divination practices are not the outcome of the application of the scientific method, and therefore are often considered superstition or at best pseudo-science.
Examples of divination can be found in a multitude of sources. In the following examples, a few details of Islamic and Arab history are cited: While but a lad in Syria, heir to the Umayyad caliphate, Abd al-Rahman the 1st was forseen to be not just a caliph, but caliph of the western end of the Islamic empire. "A physiognomist cited evidence (to) certain signs in the (boy's) face and neck" . [1]
Indeed Abd al-Rahman the 1st became the emir of the far-flung western Islamic province of Spain (al-Andalus). His son, and successor Hisham also gave much credence in divination. In one case, Hisham used an astrologer (and diviner) to try and learn what his future would be. Hisham asked the astologer, "I doubt not thou hast already divined the reason of thy being sent for; I need not, therefore, give thee any further explanation. Tell me now, with God's permission, what thy science discloses to thee respecting my future destiny". After a few days had passed the astrologer cautiously explained to the emir that his reign (Hisham's) would be glorious in accomplishments, but short-lived. And so it was to pass. [2]
A final example of divination in Islamic history is eloquently recounted by W. Montgomery Watt. He tells the story of the life of the Prophet Muhammad. One day, when he was but a child, the Prophet Muhammad (who was not then a prophet) was traveling amid a caravan through the Syrian desert on the way back to Mecca. The caravan stopped by the isolated residence of a Christian monk named Bahira, who was also considered to be a bit of mystic. When Bahira gazed upon the boy he saw "a mark between his shoulders which he recognized as the seal of prophethood." [3]
One does not need to know how or why a practice, such as divination, works, as long as one has faith that it works sometimes. However diviners do not systematically assess their results or try to falsify their hypotheses. Indeed diviners are discouraged to repeat queries. The taboo is that repetition may be an attempt to divine a more favorable answer, or that repetition adversely agitates the method or the operants. Without repetition of the divination, it is much harder to design experiments that will have meaningful statistically significant results that could falsify a hypothesis about the divination method.

--Niels Ø (noe) 13:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I originally put in the science part. I wanted to make the point that you can make predictions based on scientific theory, and wanted to distinguish that from pseudo-science (especially astrology) and magic. But people have been adding qualifiers and insertions that make the current text dubious, so I understand your action. But I think now the NPOV of the article has been seriously damaged because there is no skeptical discussion of all the claims on the page anymore. And BTW quantum mechanics is as causal and deterministic as it gets, but applied to the statistics of observations and not to individual observations. And of course the predictive powers of any method are falsifiable, disregarding any theory that would explain them. Tom Peters 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 cents

I have encountered a number of people who have been trying to argue that divination is not prediction. I think they mean prediction to be 'prediction from causes', but this doesn't make much sense to me since an act of divination can result in a prediction, and it has traditionally been defined as a means of foretelling the future (prediction). However, many forms of divination use symbols. A symbol can be interpreted in more than one way, so if someone makes an erroneous predictive statement of a particularly outcome from symbols, they may argue that they misread multifaceted symbols. Their is a strong unfalsifiable element to divination if you look at it from the methods and intentions of the diviner rather than from the actual predictive statement. If you do I-Ching on yourself, you may not be predicting something for your self, but looking at a current issue from another interpretive angle (the subconscious is only one theoretical explanation, but the whole process of divination comes down to interpretation). All these scientific caveats are only meaningful in the cases when divination is used for concrete predictions, and the diviner expresses certainty of a prediction that does not have more than one interpretation. This reminds me, should oracles (Pythia, Delphi) be distinguished from divination since they are by nature ambiguous? Zeusnoos 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well observed! I completely agree with what you say.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another divination method of automatic sand writing?

In eastern occult, pseudo taoists have been using this method

[edit] Dalai Lama

In a documentary about Tibetan oracles by David Cherniack it is shown how the Dalai Lama uses common sense, personal opinions, oracles and divination for dicision making purposes. Could something be added to this page? Wiki-uk 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Divination & Arab History

I tried to give some better examples of divination than previously existed. I came across some interesting accounts of divination in studying Arab history, so I added them to the text. Overall, the divination paragraph still needs help; but hopefully with some help it will be a good page of information. - paulHX400W

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/v/Talk%7EDivination_d773.html"