Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1. What is historical prediction?
Historical Prediction is the ability “to predict” as to declare or indicate in advance, especially, foretell historically significant events on the basis of observation, experience, and scientific reason. A historically significant event is one where the quality of life is significantly effected.
The machinery of historical prediction includes the physical, the relationship, and the evolutionary dynamics of the activities of homo Sapiens. A detailed discussion of these will be found in the articles in the Journal section of this website.
A critical characteristic of a historical forecast is the assignment of multiple potential outcomes, each with an probability of occurrence. Each potential outcome is a specific and measurable characteristic of society.
Question 2. Can we (you) really predict the future?
Of course we can. We do it every day. We even behave in such as manner as to make much of our behavior very predictable. There are some physical systems that can be predicted very accurately. The important question is not can we predict, rather what is the accuracy or reliability of our predictions?
There are some systems that are only predictable in a statistical sense; the roll of the dice, the spin of the roulette wheel, etc. But, it is a useful prediction to know that in the flip of a coin, heads will occur 50% of the time.
Systems can enter a formal mathematical state called chaotic. When this happens the predictability drops dramatically. But knowing, this is the case can be useful.
Question 3. Do you have a hidden agenda? Promoting what you think society should look like in the future?
No. Our only agenda as such is to improve our collective understanding of the consequences of the decisions we make. The decisions we each individually and collectively make. In order to push a specific political, religious, or ideological agenda we would need a much larger funding base than which we operate from.
Our approach is to gain the improved understanding of consequences through a rigorous scientific analysis.
In order to maintain an unbiased analysis we must, as much as possible, as a research institute, maintain an independence from promoting a specific future.
Question 4. Is this an an attempt to implement something like Asimov’s psychohistory from his “Foundation Trilogy?”
No. In the Foundation books psychohistory is a psychological analysis of very large scale group behavior. There are people who analyze history from a psychological perspective. And they do call them selves psychohistorians. We are not them. We do not believe analyzing history from a psychological perspective yields a prediction capability. It is possible that forecasting psychological trends may become a part of this project but at the present it is not.
Question 5. Isn’t the naming of Star Bright Speakers as Speakers straight out of the Second Foundation of the Foundation Trilogy.
Asimov does indeed name the head of the Second Foundation as First Speaker. We actually were thinking of Orson Scott Card’s “Ender’s Game,” when Ender writes the book “Who Speaks for the Dead.” Of course, Ender is their Speaker. Even then, there is no special implied meaning. We just like calling those who speak for us and the Star Bright Community “Speakers.” And maybe we will have a First Speaker, which only confers the right to speak first.
Question 6. Isn’t this whole thing a bit like tilting at windmills?
Actually, this not a frequently asked question. It has been asked only once. We think people are afraid to express this reaction. Yes, there is a windmill tilting risk. The same could have been said about civil rights, or the drive to eliminate polio, or the thought that one could create a hospital that treats children with serious medical problems and never charged for doing so. And, there are a whole list of things like roadside clean up and recycling. So there are times that tilting at windmills pays off. Still the concern is valid and those of us who work for a better world must remember to seek the wisdom to know the difference between that which we can change and that which we cannot not change, yet.