Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D
Posted: 26 Dec 2016, 04:38
The reason why other decks are relevant is that you give reasons for thinking that the PMB is made to be tacked on a wall. You say that the cards are too thick to be shuffled and played a trick-taking game with, and does not show enough wear in the right places. Well, if other decks done around the same time or earlier were used to play trick-taking games with despite being the same thickness and with the same wear and tack holes as well, that goes against your argument. You can't just say, "I'm not talking about those." If you give a reason for why some inference is true, as an instance of a general principle, the general principle has to be defensible in other cases as well, or else you have to give defensible reason why not, also defensible either by evidence or inference from something else. Otherwise it's not genuine reasoning, but an article of faith, like the virgin birth (for which counterexamples are irrelevant). Science and reasoning depend on general principles (e.g. the CY is based on alchemy, and Filippo Filippo engaged in alchemy--defensible in other cards and cases). If it's an article of faith, just say so, and we'll leave you alone. I for one am interested in what Mr. or Ms. Variantventures has to say, especially about the CY, BB, and d'Este. If his refutations in relation to other decks would apply just as well to those three and the PMB, then I'm interested in what he has to say even about decks I've never heard of.
On the other hand, I wouldn't defend the proposition "no luxury decks were ever used in actual trick-taking game-playing". Such a view is needlessly extreme, relative to questioning Adrian's view, which we absolutely must keep in mind as relating to the purpose of the PMB only. It is a matter of "in general" for a particular deck and maybe luxury decks as a whole (depending on wear, etc.), and the reasonableness of the concomitant co-existence of less expensive, more ephemeral decks with large cards (but significantly fewer layers) for the same consumers, if the amount of wear relative to the number of games played would require that.
On the other hand, I wouldn't defend the proposition "no luxury decks were ever used in actual trick-taking game-playing". Such a view is needlessly extreme, relative to questioning Adrian's view, which we absolutely must keep in mind as relating to the purpose of the PMB only. It is a matter of "in general" for a particular deck and maybe luxury decks as a whole (depending on wear, etc.), and the reasonableness of the concomitant co-existence of less expensive, more ephemeral decks with large cards (but significantly fewer layers) for the same consumers, if the amount of wear relative to the number of games played would require that.