Popularization has long been controversial. \n\nI have revered literate scientists whose writing built bridges across C. P. Snow's "two culture" divide. They wrote for an intelligent but inexpert public who could become informed, if not expert themselves. It was a great gift, well received and cherished by "humanists."\n\nI am, however, never quite sure about "educators" who find ways to make science "fun," but trivialize it in the process. \n\nAnd I have keenly disapproved of scientific elitists, who prefer to think of themselves as a sort of secular priesthood, glorying in their self-imposed obscurity and disdainful of anyone with primarily aesthetic, philosophical or vaguely "humanistic" interests ... except, of course, for unreconstructed logical positivists.\n\nWhat sort of endeavor is Tarot Science?\n\nIt plainly falls somewhere within the second category, but is it an attention-getter and an incentive to learn more about "real" science, or is it a momentary (and possibly lucrative) distraction?\n\nAs someone who is preternaturally suspicious about everything "spiritual," "supernatural" and or carrying the smell of the "New Age" or the "Occult," I am pleased to learn that Tarot Cards are no more infused with transcendental or magical qualities than any 52-card deck now in play in Las Vegas. At the same time, I wonder what genuine value can be won by seeking (even symbolically) to combine (or confuse) the mystical with the empirical.\n\nIn the early 1950s, computer pioneer O. K. Moore wrote persuasively about the way in which starving Indians in Quebec were able to "divine" the location of game (by burning a bone in a fire and following in the direction of the first crack); of course, their explanation had to do with the newly released "soul" of the caribou seeking the company of its herd, whereas Moore more plausibly claimed that what was really happening was that the hunters were unconsciously "randomizing" \ntheir search, thus providing a better chance of success than sticking to past (unsuccessful) practices. \n\nThat's as close as I want to come to such mythology.\n\nOf course, the sociologist C. Wright Mills, may also have had something when he explained his method of coming up with a new hypothesis. He would take drawers of file-cards (remember them?), which has been meticulously filled in with various concepts, bits of data and the like, and toss them into the air. He'd then (again randomly) pick them up until two of three of them came together to suggest a connection he hadn't considered before.\n\nMagic? Or, serendipity by the use of a "virtual" table of random numbers and the application of the laws of mathematical probability?\n\nNo contest!