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:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more