|
In response to
"They should shut the fuck up until they work out some new models or whatever they need to be even slightly more accurate. "
by
Krusty
|
Again, I do think that stating a prediction that involves human behavior does inherently set up the conditions for it to be wrong.
Posted by
Dano (aka dano)
Jan 5 '24, 08:19
|
An extremely basic example... I see you driving 30 mph towards a wall that you can not see. I predict based on your velocity and the location of the invisible wall that you will run into the wall. Based on everything I observe, this is a very good prediction.
If I state my prediction and on top of that give the data I used to make that prediction you can now take action. You slow down and change your direction to avoid the wall. You in fact don't run into a wall and my prediction was wrong.
Obviously things like economics have a lot more complexity, but people can literally "change the future" through their actions, policies, etc.
Of course they can also ignore predictions. You can say, you're crazy, there's no wall there and keep driving and crash. For example with climate change there is significant resistance to the prediction. On the other hand, if we took significant action based on what is known it's possible that the dire predictions may not come true.
At that point the deniers would point and say, See! you were wrong!
|
Responses:
|