Skip to main content

Women of Science Tarot - Massive Science **

The Tarot is a fascinating and often beautiful thing. A variant of the traditional card pack dating back to the fifteenth century, the four suits have an extra face card, while there's effectively a fifth suit of 21 permanent trumps and a joker or fool. There are a number of ways to play Tarot, but primarily it's a game similar to whist. A couple of hundred years ago it began to be used for cartomancy (fortune telling with cards) and this use has come to dominate popular knowledge of the card pack, including the renaming of the suits and trumps plus fool to be the minor and major arcana.

The somewhat bizarre attempt to use the Tarot to educate in this popular science pack replaces the major arcana with 'powerful ideas in science' and the minor arcana with 'important women in science.' The suits (in many traditional packs swords, batons, cups and coins) become 'nano, micro, macro and astro' to divide up the fields in which those women worked.

The cards themselves are really just an ordinary Tarot pack - despite the claim for the major arcana to be ideas in science, the pack itself just has a conventional set of Tarot trump cards, while the minor arcana cards have a picture and name, but give no information about the women featured. The cards themselves are a good size (Tarot cards are often larger than a traditional card pack) and are reasonably well illustrated, though they could have done with more colour. The only information, though, is in a pocket-sized guide. This starts with instructions on 'how to play'. Sadly these don't describe how to play the genuinely entertaining Tarot games, just how to use some of the approaches to woo-based 'readings'.

The guide then goes on to give one-page descriptions (and these are distinctly small pages) of each card. For the major arcana, we get very woffly and highly political interpretations attempting to link the traditional Tarot trumps' images to aspects of science - so, for example, 'the devil' represents corruption in the form of 'ownership, patents and corporate greed'. These cards aren't really about science at all.

The minor arcana definitions at least give us pocket bios of some great women in science, though the choices can be odd and some of the historical detail is dubious - for example the authors wheel out the old chestnut that Ada, Countess of Lovelace 'went on to write the first computer program', which isn't historically correct. The information provided is often so shallow as to be totally useless. For example, when describing the towering mathematical genius Emmy Noether, there is no mention of either symmetry or conservation laws, which are at the heart of her greatest achievement. Inevitably with such a list it's also easy to argue that there are some surprising omissions - to include Ursula K. LeGuin (great science fiction writer though she was) as a woman of science but not Jocelyn Bell Burnell, for example, seems shortsighted at best.

In the end, it's difficult to see what this pack of cards is for. A decent book on these individuals would have given room for far more information and insight than a flimsy pamphlet. The Tarot pack itself adds nothing to our understanding.

Cards:    
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more