When someone makes a prediction that is very unlikely to come true, then if the prediction is fulfilled then we generally have strong reason to think that he had some prior knowledge or information which allowed him to make an accurate prediction or that he somehow influenced the events to make his prediction come true.
It has been claimed to me that the psychology of the person making the prediction plays no role in determining whether the fulfilment of the prediction is evidence that the predicter had access to information which allowed him to make an accurate prediction or influenced the events to make his prediction come true.
However, it seems to me that sometimes psychology does play role in determining whether the fulfilment of the prediction is evidence that the predicter had access to information which allowed him to make an accurate prediction or influenced the events to make his prediction come true. In particular, when we would expect the prediction to be made by the predictor despite its unlikelihood, the fulfilment of the prediction seems to offer no significant evidence in favour of the predicter having some sort of foreknowledge (be it information we couldn’t access, some other source of knowledge or the ability to influence the relevant future events).
Take the following examples:
- Suppose someone buys a lottery ticket, then predicts that he will win the lottery and late does win the lottery. I don’t think that the fulfilment of the prediction is evidence for any foreknowledge, superior information or tampering with the lottery in this case, since it is natural for anyone to predict that they will win. Perhaps they will predict it as a joke, perhaps they will predict it from wishful thinking, etc. etc.. Either way, the fulfilment of the prediction, despite the incredible unlikelihood of the prediction being fulfilled, does not seem to be significant evidence that this person somehow knew that he would win the lottery.
- Suppose a very small, weak country went to war with a very large, strong country. Suppose further that a general in the army of the small, weak country predicts that his country will win the war. If his country does somehow win the war, then regardless of the unlikelihood of this happening, I don’t think that the fulfilment of the prediction is evidence that the general somehow knew that his country would win the war. Perhaps he made the prediction out of patriotism, perhaps he made the prediction out of wishful thinking, perhaps he made the prediction to boost his troops’ morale, etc. etc.. Either way, the fulfilment of the prediction, despite the very great unlikelihood of the prediction being fulfilled, does not seem to be evidence that the general somehow knew that he would win the lottery.
So, is it in fact true that psychology of the predicter plays no role in determining whether the fulfilment of the prediction is evidence that the predicter had access to information which allowed him to make an accurate prediction or influenced the events to make his prediction come true? Or am I right in thinking that sometimes – in particular, when we would expect the prediction to be made by the predictor despite its unlikelihood - the fulfilment of the prediction seems to offer no significant evidence in favour of the predicter having some sort of foreknowledge (be it information we couldn’t access, some other source of knowledge or the ability to influence the relevant future events)?
