Smoke and Mirrors

This week’s Improbable Research column in the Guardian has a piece on Barbara Tedlock, distinguished professor of anthropology at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Apparently she’s just published a study on a "theory of practice for divination".

 

I got two sentences into the piece before I went: "hang on a minute…".

 

Sentence 1: How do diviners divine? A reasonable question, I think. What is the process that they follow? How do they interpret their data, whether it be twitching of a rod, the pattern of cracks or the state of a dog’s intestines? From aeromancy (divination by wind) to zygomancy (divination by weights), the trappings of diviners are many and various.

 

Sentence 2: How do they achieve such dependable results? Er, excuse me? Did you say dependable? I puzzled over this for a moment, and then realised that what must be meant is that one can depend on the results being governed by the laws of probability, i.e. we know from scientific testing that the results are the same as for random chance. Phew, what a relief, I thought for a moment there that professor Tedlock was implying that divination actually worked. Silly me…

 

Er, but what’s this: These practices are so prevalent we must assume they work, Tedlock says. Er no, that’s about as valid as the old joke: eat shit, nine billion flies can’t be wrong.

 

And this: Given that scientists are now imagining gravity-bent light "and other strange concepts that defy common-sense reality", Tedlock says, "why should we not approach divination with the same conceptual openness?" Careful, professor Tedlock, too much of an open mind can make your brain fall out.