RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

RationalWiki talk:Predictions

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

The formatting is in trouble[edit]

I can't figure out when in the fossil record it happened, but the results section somehow ended up inside the active predictions table. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be the edit in question. And that mysterious assassination prediction used to be less mysterious, apparently. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, patched in the fix. Thanks for finding it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Who downvoted the DeVos item?[edit]

I kinda wanted to pull it for having no end date, thus basically being inevitable in that "A celebrity will die" way, but someone downvoted it, like it's got any chance at all of being wrong. I'm baffled. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that people are not thinking. Any prediction without an end date is pretty meaningless.
While on the subject of meaningless predictions, the prediction "The USA will break up Yugoslavia-style within the next 150-200 years." is pretty pointless too. It might as well have an end date of "sometime after we are all dead". I would suggest that predictions should have a forward limit of, say, 15 years.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A wiki can outlive its users. It's still making a testable prediction. The Mars One item is similarly far-reaching, for example. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure. It might. At least there will be nobody around to say it was the wrong call.
And potentially the list might fill up with 200 year plus predictions which will never be purged. In any event, I'm wondering about putting in my predictions about the second coming of Jesus in 2198; a Martian invasion in 2651 and the end of the world on the 28th of September 2930. :-) --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I see your point. Maybe we should create RW:Long-term Predictions? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
That might be a better solution. In actual fact it might be interesting to see how the voting goes. Sea level rise - how much by when? Human-like artificial intelligence? Full brain transplants? Collapse of western civilisation? First colony on Mars? FTL drives?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Remind me...[edit]

...to sort out this mess tonight. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore[edit]

This is not a long-term prediction so it does not belong on the page, but (despite there being several credible allegations of sexual misconduct against him) I think Roy Moore is going to win the special election on December 12. In fact, I'll be genuinely shocked if it ends up being close, but I hope I'm wrong. CowHouse (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Marijuana prediction[edit]

Prediction: "Marijuana will be legalised for medicinal form in the US nearly nationwide by 2018."

According to Wikipedia,Wikipedia's W.svg Cannabis is:

  • Legal in 9 states,
  • Legalised in medicinal form in 22 states, and another 16 states have only legalised CBD oil,
  • Illegal in 3 states.

That makes a total of 31 out of 50 states where marijuana is legalised for medicinal form if you exclude the "CBD oil only" states. The prediction uses weasel words ("nearly nationwide") but I do not think 31 states is sufficient to rate this prediction as true. However, it would be rated true if the "CBD oil only" states are counted. Should this prediction be rated true or false?

On an unrelated note, the Keith Olbermann prediction expired a long time ago, but I don't know if it's correct. CowHouse (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it counts, because it's still a federal crime. Technically, it's illegal nationwide. Maybe chalk this prediction up as neither? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
On the one hand, majority of states. On the other, yeah, still federally criminal. I'd lean toward the 'no' side of 'neither' Onychoprion (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)