Checking predictions: the standard

Spectacular predictions are what astrology is publicly known for — and the field where the work is least clean. The standard is simple, and it can be applied to any forecast, including one’s own.

The four conditions

A testable prediction needs:

An event described unambiguously. “Unrest in the south” is not one. “The incumbent’s resignation” is.
A period of time. With a beginning and an end. Without one a prediction cannot fail, and what cannot fail says nothing.
A wording documented beforehand. Published, dated, unaltered.
A visible derivation. Which positions does it follow from? Without that, there is no telling afterwards whether the technique worked or whether someone guessed.

Why most forecasts fail on this

Because they are matched to the event after it has happened. An interpretation laid over a known course of events in hindsight always convinces — and proves nothing.

Then there is the sheer number of them. Anyone who makes fifty predictions a year scores a few hits, no matter how they were arrived at. It only becomes interesting when the other forty-five are counted as well — and that is exactly what regularly fails to happen.

The tradition was stricter here

This is the uncomfortable historical observation: older mundane astrology worked more rigorously than most of what appears today.

The reason is banal. Anyone working for a prince had to say in spring what the year would bring, in writing, with a name beneath it. In December it was checked. That expectation kept the technique honest — and today it is missing entirely.

What these pages do

There is no prediction on these pages. Not out of caution, but because one that meets the four conditions takes work, and one that does not meet them is worthless.

Anyone who reads astrological predictions can apply the standard for themselves: is there an event, a period of time, a date of publication, a reason given? If one of these is missing, the forecast cannot be refuted — and so it cannot be confirmed either.