Real World Event Discussions

The predictions thread

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:54
VIEWED: 144481
PAGE 37 of 127

SIGNYM

Friday, February 27, 2015 9:25 AM

Quote:
This thread should be preserved for predictions ... no matter how phrased, but actual predictions ... that can be traced back to specific posters (not a post that begins "Rumors say that....")-SIGNY

I disagree. All predictions come with probabilities attached

No, they don't. Neither Newton's nor Euler's nor Einstein's equations had probabilities attached. Neither did Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact, neither do the predictions on this board. I can't think of a single prediction that anyone has made here with probabilities attached.

Quote:
and those probabilities are rarely 100% - they don't even have to be more than 50%. For example I think it's possible that in the next couple of years we could see a major air disaster around the airspace of a NATO country involving a civilian airliner and a Russian military aircraft with its transponder turned off. I would put that prediction at maybe 30% - in other words I think it probably WON'T happen, but still a 30% chance of a major air disaster is significant and worth mentioning.

When you say things like "There are rumours that X..." or "I'm not sure myself but some are saying that Y..." you are effectively giving predictions with low probabilities. You are not confident that they will happen, and maybe you think that they most likely won't, but YOU obviously think there's a chance that they could be right otherwise you wouldn't be mentioning them.

When someone "predicts" an event with a low probability .... thermodynamics says that there is a chance, albeit a very low one, that a tea kettle will spontaneously boil ... they're not predicting that it WILL happen, and if the chances are less than 50% that it will happen, they are predicting the inverse: that it likely WON'T happen. Only KPO could get that backwards in order to "make a point".

Quote:
I think you're just sick of me being right about Ukraine- SIGNY
Lol, that's definitely not it.-KPO

But of course, you haven't been able to demonstrate that my predictions are wrong, either. After all, didn't I predict that Ukraine would fall apart economically, socially and politically, and that the government in Kiev would resort to heavy-handed measures?

Quote:
posting quotes of yours that I think are wrong, and that time will show are wrong. - KPO
I should adjust that. It's not about me being certain that your predictions are wrong, but being a lot more doubtful of them than you. So your prediction that Ukraine's goverment could be toppled by far right groups seems to be in the 'it could happen but most likely won't' range, i.e. a probability of something like 10-40% (judging by the wording in your post, you can correct me if I'm wrong). I on the other hand am fairly confident that this won't happen, so my confidence in this prediction is about 1%. We have a large discrepancy between our probability estimates. If in the next few years time Ukraine has a far right revolution it will be a big dent to the validity of my worldview, because it's something that I thought had almost no chance of happening. And it will be a victory for your worldview. If on the other hand Ukraine has no far right revolution, and doesn't even come close to one, that will seem to vindicate my worldview.

It already has had one far-right revolution; after all, those were the violent spearhead of the Maidan. You just didn't recognize ti for what it was.

Quote:
So no, predictions don't have to be confident - they just have to be confident compared to other people's.

You're attaching "confidence-meters" to predictions? That's not science, nor is it prediction.

Quote:
The predictions I dislike and want to ban from this thread are the predictions that are really obvious, that anyone could have made, like "The IMF will implement an austerity plan in Ukraine." Well,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KPO

Friday, February 27, 2015 6:45 PM

Quote:
No, they don't. Neither Newton's nor Euler's nor Einstein's equations had probabilities attached.

These are not predictions though, these are mathematical laws of the universe. You can use them to *make* predictions, of course, and in many cases these predictions will be 100% certain - e.g. dropping an apple and it falling. You see the '100%' and the word 'certain' in that sentence? That describes probability, dearie.

Quote:
I can't think of a single prediction that anyone has made here with probabilities attached.

So when I say "I think it's possible that in the next couple of years we could see a major air disaster..." you don't see any probability there? This was the very example I used to illustrate my point, so if you can't see probability or confidence here, then I'm not surprised you don't see it anywhere else.

A question for you. Four statements:

1. "I am absolutely convinced that 2012 will be the year of the Mayan Apocalypse and the world will end."
2. "It's not definite but I think there's a good chance we will see the end of the world in 2012."

3. "I've heard a lot about the Mayan Apocalypse, and I think it probably won't happen, but you never know."
4. "There is no chance that there will be a Mayan Apocalypse in 2012.

Is there any difference between 1) and 2), and between 3) and 4)? Are the people making these predictions just as crazy or level headed as each other?

Quote:
if the chances are less than 50% that it will happen, they are predicting the inverse: that it likely WON'T happen. Only KPO could get that backwards in order to "make a point".

Well you've understood one thing, at least. Why you're repeating my own point back to me and telling me I said the opposite, I'm not sure.

Quote:
But of course, you haven't been able to demonstrate that my predictions are wrong, either. After all, didn't I predict that Ukraine would fall apart economically, socially and politically, and that the government in Kiev would resort to heavy-handed measures?

Yawn. I've taken apart your predictions once before, there's no need to do it again (although maybe I should post it to this thread). As I say, you've done so much boasting on the strength of a very mixed set of predictions, that I've taken to recording your predictions on Ukraine more closely, to see if you are really the oracle you think you are.

I guess you feel victimised because I'm quoting your low-probability/low-confidence predictions - things you think could happen but probably won't. The reason why I'm doing it is because a lot of them to me sound like statement 3) above. YOU think the Mayan apocalypse could happen, but probably won't - whereas I think it's foolish to even entertain the idea. Time may or may not vindicate our differing levels of confidence, and the worldviews they come from. The fact is, Signy, that if Kiev's government IS toppled by fascists*, YOU will remind us all how YOU said it could happen, and YOU will boast about your awesome insights into the situation that allowed you to foresee it. You will say something like, "Some of us saw that this might happen, when people like kpo doubted..." And this is all fine. But it has to work both ways. If after 5 years there isn't the slightest hint of a far-right revolution... well, you look a little bit silly for entertaining the notion. It's time to start holding the Signy worldview truly to account.

*It occurs to me that a 'fascist revolution in Ukraine' wan't the best prediction for me to use as an example and to talk about at length, as you will characterise ANY revolution in Kiev as a 'fascist' revolution - as you did for the Maidan revolution. So in a sense all you're predicting is that there will be a protest movement that leads to Poroshenko's demise... which I hav

SIGNYM

Friday, February 27, 2015 7:48 PM

Quote:
No, they don't. Neither Newton's nor Euler's nor Einstein's equations had probabilities attached.- SIGNY
These are not predictions though, these are mathematical laws of the universe.-KPO

People often misperceive that their view of the universe IS "the universe", but in reality the universe doesn't have "laws" and it doesn't have anyone enforcing them: You won't get a speeding ticket if you manage to go faster than light.

As far at what the equations are, they ARE predictions: where are Mars and Jupiter going to be in relation to the earth in 220 days? How much energy is theoretically possible to extract from how much mass?

Quote:
You can use them to *make* predictions, of course, and in many cases these predictions will be 100% certain - e.g. dropping an apple and it falling. You see the '100%' and the word 'certain' in that sentence? That describes probability, dearie.

Actually, nothing is 100% certain, except the universe. If a small black hole goes shooting by at the time you drop an apple, it may take the apple with it.

Quote:
I can't think of a single prediction that anyone has made here with probabilities attached.-SIGNY
So when I say "I think it's possible that in the next couple of years we could see a major air disaster..." you don't see any probability there?

First of all, when you say something is "possible", it's not a prediction... it's an idea of a possibility.

It's possible that falling apple will be taken by a stray black hole.
It's possible that a tea kettle will spontaneously boil.
It's possible that Obama will stop droning Muslims before he leaves office.

Am I, any any sense, "predicting" the future? Or am I simply discussing potentialities? The difference between a prediction and an idea is that predictor thinks s/he has enough information to state what WILL happen, not what MIGHT happen. There are an uncountable number of events that MIGHT happen. Talking about them is not predicting, although it may help sharpen our knowledge so that we might make a prediction.

Quote:
This was the very example I used to illustrate my point, so if you can't see probability or confidence here, then I'm not surprised you don't see it anywhere else.-KPO

I could see it in your example, to illustrate a point, I just can't ever recall anybody else doing it spontaneously. Generally, it seems that if posters are certain enough to make an actual prediction - a statement which specifically says what will happen in the future- they don't shade their predictions with equivocation.

Quote:
A question for you. Four statements:

1. "I am absolutely convinced that 2012 will be the year of the Mayan Apocalypse and the world will end."
2. "It's not definite but I think there's a good chance we will see the end of the world in 2012."
3. "I've heard a lot about the Mayan Apocalypse, and I think it probably won't happen, but you never know."
4. "There is no chance that there will be a Mayan Apocalypse in 2012.

Is there any difference between 1) and 2), and between 3) and 4)? Are the people making these predictions just as crazy or level headed as each other?

First of all, most people making predictions don't generally shade their prediction as an "opinion", so statements #1 is mis-phrased: people who are convinced the world is going to end say "The world is going to end", not "I am absolutely convinced that..."

And you're conflating being "crazy" versus "level headed" with the question about "predictions" versus "discussion". What does being crazy or level-headed have to do with predicting?

A scientist who has an idea about something has to make a PREDICTION in order to find out whether his/her idea is correct. It can be on the order of som

KPO

Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:27 AM

A very simple question for you Signy. A simple answer would be appreciated, but I won't hold my breath...

Is this a prediction:

"Russia will almost certainly need an IMF bailout in 2015."

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 2, 2015 12:55 PM

Quote:
Is this a prediction: "Russia will almost certainly need an IMF bailout in 2015." -KPO

Oh, the answer is "no".

The reason is because if the event DOESN'T happen, you can always say... well, there was a chance it wouldn't happen, that was just one of the possibilities. So what kind of "prediction" is that?

In science, you have to be definitive about your hypothesis, and if it takes the form of a prediction you have to be definitive about that too. If your prediction doesn't work out, then you have to figure out why.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

KPO

Tuesday, March 3, 2015 3:41 AM

You are lumping real world predictions in with scientific hypothesis testing, which convinces me that you don't understand the point of either.

Quote:
if the event DOESN'T happen, you can always say... well, there was a chance it wouldn't happen

You need to ask yourself Signy, in the real world with all its randomness, chaos, and uncontrolled variables, is there ANYTHING of real significance - wars, future presidents, climate etc. - that you can predict with 100% certainty? I notice that when you presented your famous Ukraine predictions, you did so with the introductory sentence 'plausible future news'. The word 'plausible' is not a substitute for 'certain'. You were attaching probability to your predictions - effectively saying "These things aren't certain, but I can see them happening". So were these 'predictions' of yours predictions or not?

For my part I'm quite happy that if someone predicts something and says, "I'm confident that..." or "I think there's a good chance that..." etc., that it counts as a prediction, and belongs in this thread. Some predictions will be more confident than others, but that's why I always make sure to be faithful to the original wording - even with people who I'm trying to catch out, like you Signy.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Tuesday, March 3, 2015 3:51 AM

Signy on the killing of Nemtsov:

Signy - "You're right. It's probably a false flag. Just like MH17. It will be used to gin up more sanctions against Russia, or build up support for some US-sponsored "color revolution", or some combination. That, or it was a nutcase Putin supporter."

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 4, 2015 4:47 PM

KPO on the nature of predictions-

Anything goes, as long as I don't like it!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 4, 2015 4:55 PM

Quote:
You need to ask yourself Signy, in the real world with all its randomness, chaos, and uncontrolled variables, is there ANYTHING of real significance - wars, future presidents, climate etc. - that you can predict with 100% certainty?

Just because you don't know with 100% certainty what the future will bring doesn't mean that you can shade your predictions about it. AFA my predictions about Ukraine, I made them very, very specific, and I wrote them as news articles, not as guesses. It's too bad I preceded it with "plausible" because I was sure of them as I was of the 2008 collapse, and of Bush II's invasion or Iraq, which I saw as a foregone conclusion several months before the fact, when Bush was still moving the goalposts and pretending like there was anything Saddam could do to stop it. Sometimes, you just know, yanno?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

KPO

Wednesday, March 4, 2015 10:30 PM

Quote:
AFA my predictions about Ukraine, I made them very, very specific, and I wrote them as news articles, not as guesses. It's too bad I preceded it with "plausible" because I was sure of them

Uh-huh... You were sure that Russia would send in troops to eastern Ukraine 'to protect Russian citizens'? That Russia would restrict sales of natural gas to Europe in response to Western sanctions, that Kiev would delay its national elections, that far-right Svoboda would gain control of Ukrainian internal security...? You were 'sure' about a lot of things that didn't happen Sig.

It's not personal. It's just war.