Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current


May 6th, 2021 (Permalink)

Sources for Fact-Checking:
Primary, Secondary & Tertiary

If you've identified a factual claim that you want to check, how should you do it? In the previous entry*, we saw that a factual claim is checked against the facts that either show it to be true or to be false. To do this, you need to find a source or, preferably, sources of the facts. There are three kinds of source that you can use to check factual claims, categorized on the basis of how close they are to the facts:

  1. Primary Sources: These sources are primary because they are the closest to the facts. In some cases, the source closest to the facts is you and your own senses. Suppose that you feel a draft and wonder whether the window is open. Then, the factual claim that you want to check is: "The window is open." To check whether this statement is a fact, you can look at the window and see whether it's open. However, in most research, you won't be in a position to check a claim directly with your own senses. Instead, you must rely upon the reports of others who are or were in such a position, that is, eyewitness reports.

    Example: Suppose that we're dealing with a murder mystery. Then, an obvious primary source would be an eyewitness to the crime. So, if you happened to see the crime take place, your senses would be your primary source of evidence. However, if you were not yourself a witness, other witnesses would be your primary sources. In addition, any photographic or audio recording of the crime would be a primary source. Finally, any other direct evidence found at the scene of the crime, such as fingerprints or the murder weapon, would also be primary sources.

    Primary sources are the strongest type of evidence, but that doesn't mean they're infallible. Even eyewitness reports are notoriously fallible. So, just because you find a primary source does not mean that you're finished fact-checking, even if that source is your own eyesight. Whenever possible, check multiple primary sources against one another.

    Example: Suppose that you're not an eyewitness to the crime, but someone else is. Then, you're going to want to interview the eyewitness, or at least get access to a firsthand report by the witness or a recorded interview. However, don't forget that witnesses are often mistaken. If there is more than one witness then you need access to the others as well. If multiple eyewitnesses disagree with each other, then you'll know that you cannot rely solely on eyewitness evidence; in contrast, if more than one witness agrees, you'll have much stronger evidence than if you must rely on only a single one.

    One problem with some primary sources is that they may be difficult for a layman to understand, so you may need an expert witness to examine and explain it. For instance, specialized knowledge is needed to understand such primary sources as fingerprints or ballistic evidence. This is one reason why you may need the second type of source:

  2. Secondary Sources: A secondary source is one that's not itself a primary source, but based on primary sources. For this reason, secondary sources are often useful in research by pointing you to the primary sources. Another advantage that secondary sources often have over primary ones is that they may be based on more than one primary source. A single primary source may be biased or limited in its perspective, whereas a secondary one may be able to draw on multiple primary accounts.

    Example: In the case of the murder mystery, a news report on the crime would count as a secondary source, assuming that the reporter was not an eyewitness. If the journalist has done a good job, the report will be based on at least one primary source, such as an interview with an eyewitness. If more than one witness or other primary source is consulted, the stronger will be the evidence provided by the report.

    As mentioned above, one type of secondary source is the expert witness needed to interpret some primary sources of evidence. Evaluating expert sources raises special issues of its own that should be addressed in a future entry.

    Unfortunately, many news reports are not based on witnesses or other primary sources; instead, they may be based on nothing more than rumors. Sometimes journalists rely on anonymous sources, making it impossible to evaluate whether the source is firsthand, secondhand, or just rumor. In such cases, news reports should not count as secondary sources, since they're not known to be based on primary sources. For such sources we need a third category:

  3. Tertiary Sources: A tertiary source is one that's not a secondary source, but based on secondary sources. For instance, most reference works, such as encyclopedias, will rely on secondary rather than primary sources. Similarly, textbooks are usually written based on the secondary literature, rather than going back to primary sources. Primary sources come first in strength of evidence, but tertiary sources are in most cases the first ones you should consult.

    Example: If the murder mystery were important enough, it might be used as a case study in a textbook on crime, or have an entry in a reference work. Such an entry should include information on the primary sources of evidence, such as eyewitnesses, as well as secondary sources for the interpretation of technical evidence, such as the report of the medical examiner who examined the victim's body.

The farther a source is from the event or topic in question, the weaker it will tend to be as evidence. So, primary sources provide the strongest evidence, and tertiary ones the weakest. However, finding the primary sources can be difficult. If you can find one, start your fact-checking with a good reference work that gives an overview of the topic and includes pointers to primary or secondary sources. Good research starts with tertiary sources, but only superficial research ends there.

* Earlier entries in this series on fact-checking:

  1. Why You Need to be Able to Check Facts, 9/8/2020
  2. Fact-checking Vs. Nit-picking, 10/20/2020
  3. Four Types of Misleading Quote, 11/27/2020
  4. News Sources Vs. Familiar Quotations, 12/4/2020
  5. Rules of Thumb, 1/2/2021
  6. A Case Study, 2/4/2021
  7. Reliable Sources, 3/2/2021
  8. What is a fact?, 3/2/2021

May 2nd, 2021 (Permalink)

2020 Hindsight, Part 3

In part 1, we saw a phony Nostradamus prediction of the coronavirus epidemic1, and in part 2, we looked at some alleged Nostradamus predictions for last year that didn't come true2. This month, let's turn to a genuine quatrain by Nostradamus that has been interpreted in hindsight as predicting the epidemic of 20203. The quatrain in question is II-65, that is, the 65th poem in the second book of Nostradamus' Les Propheties. Here it is, together with the English translation quoted in the article4:

French English
Le parc enclin grande calamité.
Par l'Hesperie & Insubre fera:
Le feu en nef peste et captivité,
Mercure en l'Arc Saturne fenera.
In the feeble lists, great calamity
Through America and Lombardy.
The fire in the ship, plague and captivity;
Mercury in Sagittarius, Saturn warning.

Before considering the interpretation of the poem, let's look at the English translation by Erika Cheetham. Even if you've no knowledge of French, let alone the French of Nostradamus' time, you'll notice that the French version of the word "America"―namely, "Americh" in the Old French spelling used by Nostradamus5―does not appear in the original. Instead, "America" is Cheetham's interpretation of the word "Hesperie", which is the French version of the Latin word "Hesperia". "Hesperia" came from a Greek word meaning "western land", which was used by the Greeks as a name for Italy, which is west of Greece. The Romans used their version of the word to refer to Spain, which was to their west. So, an accurate translation of "Hesperie" would be "western land"6.

Now, America is to the west of France, but translating "Hesperie" as "America" is an interpretation masquerading as a translation. Spain, is also west of most of France as is England. Such tendentious translation is one of the ways in which Nostradamus interpreters mislead English-speaking readers, who will probably not compare the translation to the original.

Another questionable translation is "le parc enclin" as "feeble lists". The author of the article touting this quatrain as a prediction of the coronavirus epidemic thinks that "feeble lists" refers to "the sick and the dead"3. However, "parc" appears to mean much the same as "park" in English, especially one intended for hunting; and "enclin" is similar to English "inclined". Thus, Edgar Leoni translates "le parc enclin" as "the sloping park"7, and Henry Roberts as "the park inclineth"8. I suppose that Cheetham may have been using "lists" in the sense of "inclines to one side", usually used of boats, but where she got "feeble" I don't know. At any rate, I see no connection between an inclined or listing park and the epidemic.

Once you remove the questionable translations, the only things left in this quatrain that suggest the coronavirus epidemic are "peste et captivité", that is, "plague and captivity", with the captivity referring to quarantines and shutdowns. However, plagues are favorite subjects of prophecies, with Nostradamus speaking of "peste" or "pestes" in 26 quatrains, and they are frequent occurrences throughout human history. Moreover, quarantines are nothing new in the history of epidemics, though there are only two quatrains among the Les Propheties that use the word "captivité"9. What reason is there to connect this poem to this epidemic and not another?

Perhaps the astrological information in the last line of the quatrain may allow us to determine when the "peste et captivité" are supposed to take place. The article author claims: "Mercury entered Sagittarius in December 2019, which is when the first cases of coronavirus occurred, and Saturn moved into Aquarius on March 21, right as New York City was going into lockdown.3" Where did Aquarius come from?

The last word of the poem, "fenera", seems to be obscure, making it unclear what it is that Saturn is supposed to be doing. Cheetham translates it as "warning", but her translations are often doubtful, as we've seen. Leoni translates the phrase as "Saturn will fade"7, and Roberts as "Saturn shall wither"8. They seem to be taking "fenera" as a form of the Old French word "fener" which literally meant "to make hay", but in the phrase "se fener" meant "to fade, wither, wax deadish, or decay"10. I don't know how Cheetham got "warning" out of this, nor what Aquarius has to do with it.

The article's author relies on Cheetham's translation of the poem, but makes no mention of what Cheetham herself writes about the last line: "According to Wöllner the next date for this configuration is 7th December 2044, the last being 1839"11. I don't know enough astrology to confirm or deny this, and I'm not sufficiently interested to learn it, so I'll just have to take the mysterious Wöllner's word for it.

In any case, it appears that either the plague predicted in the poem happened in 1839, or it won't happen until another 23 years have gone by. I may not be around on 12/7/2044, but if I am I'll add an update.


  1. 2020 Hindsight, 3/10/2021.
  2. 2020 Hindsight, Part 2, 4/2/2021.
  3. Rae Alexandra, "Perhaps Nostradamus Predicted Coronavirus After All…", KQED, 4/6/2020. Thanks to KQED, a public television station, for wasting our tax money on this junk.
  4. Nostradamus, The Prophecies of Nostradamus, translated, edited & introduced by Erika Cheetham (1981).
  5. Nostradamus uses this word only once in Les Propheties, see: X-66.
  6. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, edited by Ivor H. Evans (Centenary Edition, Revised, 1981).
  7. Edgar Leoni, Nostradamus and His Prophecies (1982).
  8. Nostradamus, The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus, translated, edited & interpreted by Henry C. Roberts (New Revised Edition, 1982).
  9. I used the following online edition to check the frequency of these words: Nostradamus, The Compleat Works of Nostradamus, accessed: 5/2/2021.
  10. See: Randle Cotgrave, A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues (1611), under "Fener".
  11. Op. cit. I don't know who Wöllner is, and that name is not in the book's index.

Previous Month | Top of Page

If you’d like to learn more about manipulating cards in a casino, check out blackjack guide which includes extensive information on how to count cards.

If you are a player looking for new Canadian online casinos to play at, check out - the most authoritative guide to new casinos in Canada. Only safe and licensed operators.

Casino Bonuses are not easy to find on the internet. There are simply too many and their terms and conditions makes them difficult to compare. You can find the best bonuses at casinopilot.

Most online slot players have heard of the gamblers fallacy but we would suggest you simply do your homework before you play in order limit your risk. Sites like SlotsOnlineCanada are the go-to Canadian online slots portal on everything from new slot bonuses, slot game reviews and up-to-date news on the iGaming industry.

You will never be able to dispel the truth and reasoning behind the gamblers fallacy, however if you read these winning insights on pokies you may find that you gain a slight upper hand.

Don’t waste your time looking for worthy new online casinos, as already did all the hard work for you. Check out top lists with latest casinos on the market and register an account today.

If you want to play casino for free, you should check out for a complete list of casinos.

You can find the best casinos at as this website update online casinos and compare them on daily basis.

April 29th, 2021 (Permalink)

Fact-Checking1: What is a fact?

The English word "fact" is ambiguous, having at least the two following meanings2:

  1. Situations or States-of-Affairs: According to philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell: "If I look up a railway timetable and find that there is a train to Edinburgh at 10 A.M., then, if the timetable is correct, there is an actual train, which is a 'fact'".3 So, the fact in question is the situation or state-of-affairs that there is a train to Edinburgh at 10 in the morning. I'll continue to use the word "fact" for this sense.
  2. True Statements or Claims: In another sense of "fact", the statement in the timetable is a fact if it is true, that is, it "states a fact", meaning that there is a "fact" in the previous sense that makes the claim true. In Russell's example, the claim in the railway guide is a "fact" if there is a state-of-affairs that makes it true, that is, there is indeed an actual train to Edinburgh at ten in the morning. So, a "fact" in this sense is a true claim about the world4.

Neither sense of "fact" is what fact-checkers check; in other words, "fact-checkers" don't really check facts. Rather, fact-checkers check claims to see whether they are true or false by checking them against the facts in sense 1. If a claim checks out as true, then it is a "fact" in sense 2.

A typical fact-checking task involves either reading or listening to a bunch of sentences, then checking what you read or hear. However, not all of the sentences will be claims that should be checked, so the fact-checker's first task is to select the claims from those sentences.

First, not all sentences are true or false, so not all are claims. For instance, questions and orders are sentences, but not claims. Consider the following sentences:

  1. "The door is locked." This sentence is true or false, so it's a claim.
  2. "Is the door locked?" This sentence is neither true nor false. It's a question, not a claim.
  3. "Lock the door!" This sentence is neither true nor false. It's a command, not a claim.

Second, not all claims state a situation or state-of-affairs that could be checked, but if a claim does state such a state-of-affairs, I'll call it a "factual claim". A factual claim states that a situation or state-of-affairs holds; if that situation is a fact, then the claim is true. So, if it is a fact that the door is locked, then the claim "The door is locked" is a true factual claim.

Suppose, however, that it is not the case that the door is locked; then, the factual claim "The door is locked" is false. So, "factual claim" shouldn't be confused with "true statement", as there are both true factual claims and false ones. So, by calling a claim "factual" I do not mean to suggest that it necessarily states a fact and is, thus, true. In fact, for every true factual claim there is a false one, namely, its negation. The negation of a factual claim is also a factual claim, and it can be checked in exactly the same way as the affirmative claim. So, "The door is unlocked" is just as much a factual claim as "The door is locked", and the same fact makes one true and the other false.

There are two important classes of claims that are not factual ones: opinions and value judgments. I expect to have more to say about these non-factual claims in later entries, but for now suffice it to say that they are true or false, but not factual. Thus, opinions and value judgments are not the sort of claim that fact-checkers should check.

Another type of statement that is not factual is one such as: "There is a china teapot in an orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars"5. This is clearly a claim, since it is either true or false that there is such a teapot. Admittedly, it is extremely unlikely that there is such an object, but it's not logically impossible, so it could be true.

While it may be possible at some point in the distant future to test whether there really is such a teapot, it's currently impossible to check. Since there's no point in wasting time trying to check an uncheckable claim, it's not a factual claim that should concern fact-checkers. Sometimes it may turn out that a factual claim cannot be checked, but we must at least have some idea about how to go about it, and it must be practical to do so, before even attempting it. The difference between a factual claim and an uncheckable claim is not black or white, but a scale with factual claims at one end, uncheckable claims at the other, and a gray area in between.

To sum up: what fact-checkers check are factual claims, which may be true or false, in order to find out which one they are. To do this, one comparesthe factual claim with the relevant states-of-affairs in the real world―that is, the facts―to see whether the claim states a fact.

In the next entry in this series, we'll start looking at how to check factual claims against the facts.


  1. For earlier entries in this series on fact-checking, see:
    1. Why You Need to be Able to Check Facts, 9/8/2020
    2. Fact-checking Vs. Nit-picking, 10/20/2020
    3. Four Types of Misleading Quote, 11/27/2020
    4. News Sources Vs. Familiar Quotations, 12/4/2020
    5. Rules of Thumb, 1/2/2021
    6. A Case Study, 2/4/2021
    7. Reliable Sources, 3/2/2021
  2. See: Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy (1981), under "fact". Angeles gives six different meanings of "fact", the first two and last of which relate to the first meaning given, above, and the third corresponds to the second meaning.
  3. Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (1948), p. 143; cited in Russell's Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morals, edited with an introduction by Lester E. Denonn (1952), under "fact". Russell goes on to write: "The statement in the timetable is itself a 'fact,' whether true or false, but it only states a fact if it is true, i.e., if there really is a train"; emphasis in the original. This is somewhat confusing, but the sentence in the timetable is itself a fact if there really is such a sentence.
  4. Monroe C. Beardsley uses "fact" in this sense, see his: Thinking Straight: A Guide for Readers & Writers (1950), p. 5. In an earlier weblog entry, I also used "fact" in this sense, see: Fact Vs. Opinion, 6/22/2018.
  5. This is an example, famous among philosophers, of a practically unfalsifiable claim created by Bertrand Russell in: "Is There a God?", 1952.

Poll Watch
April 27th, 2020 (Permalink)

What Biased Last Year's Polls?

The polls leading up to last year's election did about as good a job of predicting the electoral results as Nostradamus, which led some to declare political polling as "dead" as he is. As I mentioned soon after the election1, there was bound to be some subsequent examination of the polling leading up to the voting, given the widespread consternation over the underestimation of support for Republican candidates. Now, a group of Democratic pollsters have banded together to try to figure out what went wrong2.

The fundamental problem facing all survey research is getting a sample that is representative of the population. If such a sample is, indeed, representative of the population, then we are justified in generalizing from the part to the whole. In contrast, generalizing from an unrepresentative, or biased, sample is likely to lead to false conclusions.

The Democratic pollsters have put out a press release3 discussing some possible biases that may explain last year's polling failures:

  1. Turnout Error: People who don't vote are not going to affect the outcome of an election, so pollsters try to poll only those who are most likely to vote, that is, "likely voters". However, different pollsters may come up with different definitions of "likely voter", and who is likely to vote may change from election to election. Here's what the pollsters had to say about the possible effect of this error on last year's polls:
    Turnout is one of the hardest things for pollsters to account for. Simply asking people whether they will vote is unreliable, because people tend to overreport their likelihood of voting as it's socially desirable to do so. Instead, campaign pollsters use detailed databases of historical voting records for millions of individual voters to build a universe of what we believe will be the most likely electorate. This approach gets pollsters close to the mark most of the time but depends on the elections of the future looking like the elections of the past―and they often don't….

    Now that we have had time to review the voter files from 2020, we found our models consistently overestimated Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout in a specific way. Among low propensity voters―people who we expect to vote rarely―the Republican share of the electorate exceeded expectations at four times the rate of the Democratic share. This turnout error meant, at least in some places, we again underestimated relative turnout among rural and white non-college voters, who are overrepresented among low propensity Republicans. …

    Unfortunately, turnout error does not explain the entirety of the error in 2020. … Some other source of error is in play.

    Here are some other possible sources of bias:

  2. Refusers: Some people don't answer the phone when a pollster calls, or refuse to take a poll when asked. The problem faced by pollsters is whether those who so refuse differ from the voting population in any other way relevant to the election. For instance, if Trump-voters were more suspicious of polls than Biden-voters, and thus more likely to refuse to answer, that might skew the poll results in Biden's favor.
  3. Last-Minute Deciders: Some voters make up their minds on who to vote for in the last few days before the election, at a time when they cannot be polled. If those late-deciders tended to decide in one direction much more than in the other, then the polls could end up biased. The pollsters say:
    This one was a popular theory after 2016, because exit polls and callback surveys suggested late-deciding voters broke overwhelmingly for Trump. In 2020, however, polls were incredibly stable, with hardly any undecided voters throughout the race, so this probably did not play a major role, at least at the presidential level.
  4. A COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Bias: More people were staying at home last year than usual due to the coronavirus epidemic, and thus some were available to answer the phone that otherwise might not have been. Did these new stay-at-homes change the composition of the samples in a way that might have biased the polls? Were Biden-voters more likely to stay home than Trump-voters?

Except for the last one, each of these sources of bias is possible in all political polling, so unless the supposed COVID-19 bias was the most important one, or the pollsters can figure out how to compensate for the others, we can expect future polls to be similarly biased.


  1. Post Mortem, 11/11/2020.
  2. Steven Shepard, "Dem pollsters acknowledge 'major errors' in 2020 polling", Politico, 4/13/2021. The American Association for Public Opinion Research also has a task force studying the performance of the general election polls, and we should hear its results later this year; see: "AAPOR Convenes Task Force to Formally Examine Polling Performance During 2020 Presidential Election", American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2/13/2020.
  3. ALG Research, Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, GBAO Strategies, Global Strategy Group & Normington Petts, "Revisiting Polling for 2021 and Beyond", Democracy Docket, 4/13/2021. All subsequent quotes are from this release.

April 14th, 2021 (Permalink)

New Book

Quote: "When you think of someone with excellent judgment, what traits come to mind? Maybe you think of things like intelligence, cleverness, courage, or patience. Those are all admirable virtues, but there's one trait that belongs at the top of the list that is so overlooked, it doesn't even have an official name. So I've given it one. I call it scout mindset: the motivation to see things as they are, not as you wish they were. Scout mindset is what allows you to recognize when you are wrong, to seek out your blind spots, to test your assumptions and change course."1

Title: The Scout Mindset

Comment: The title of this new book comes from a distinction that its author makes between two different "mindsets"2:

The Soldier Mindset The Scout Mindset
Reasoning is like defensive combat. Reasoning is like mapmaking.
Decide what to believe by asking either "Can I believe this?" or "Must I believe this?" depending on your motives. Decide what to believe by asking, "Is this true?"
Finding out you're wrong means suffering a defeat. Finding out you're wrong means revising your map.
Seek out evidence to fortify and defend your beliefs. Seek out evidence that will make your map more accurate.
Related concepts: Directionally motivated reasoning, rationalizing, denial, self-deception, wishful thinking Related concepts: Accuracy motivated reasoning, truth-seeking, discovery, objectivity, intellectual honesty

I haven't heard or used this "soldier vs. scout" analogy before, but I've been making similar points about reasoning since the beginning of this website. In particular, I've discussed the dangers of thinking of argumentation or debate as a type of conflict, as in the "soldier mindset" that reasoning is defensive combat3―it's not just defensive, though, since some reasoning is offensive4.

Another way to express this "soldier vs. scout mindset" analogy is that argumentation needn't be a zero-sum game―that is, a game in which one side wins at the expense of the other―but can be win-win. The "soldier mindset" thinks that to win is to defeat the enemy, and doesn't realize that it may be better to "lose". Finding out that you're wrong about something―that is, "losing" an argument―means finding out that your map is wrong and needs revising, which is important to know.

So, I agree with the points it's used to make, but I'm not too happy with the analogy itself, for several reasons. First, it wasn't immediately obvious to me, and needed explaining, what the difference between a soldier and scout was supposed to be, and how that relates to the issue of reasoning. More importantly, it's based on the usual conflict metaphor for argumentation, which I think is itself part of the problem. If you think of argumentation as competitive, you'll adopt the "soldier mindset"; whereas, if you think of it as co-operative, you can at least be more open to the "scout mindset".

In addition, a scout is a type of soldier, if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think that actual soldiers are more likely to exhibit their namesake mindset than any other group―such as lawyers or politicians, say. The characteristics of the mindset―rationalizing, denial, self-deception, wishful thinking―are terrible traits for soldiers to have. If you're a soldier, the "soldier mindset" could get you killed.

Now, I doubt that the author intended to suggest that real-life soldiers suffer from the mindset named for them more than other people. Rather, the underlying point is the distinction between reasoning as conflict and as co-operation. So, there's a lot wrong with the "soldier" versus "scout" analogy, but I don't have a better one to offer in its place.

Subtitle: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't

Comment: This is a rather black-or-white subtitle, which may be the fault of the publisher rather than the author. I would include black-or-white thinking as one of the characteristics of the "soldier mindset", that is, thinking that everyone is either an ally or an enemy to be treated accordingly. The alternative "scout mindset" is that you may be able to learn more from your supposed "enemy" than from your alleged "friends", and those "enemies" may tell you the truth when your "friends" won't.

As a subtitle, I would have preferred: "Why Some People See Things More Clearly Than Others Do". The subtitle connects with another problem of the soldier vs. scout dichotomy, namely, that it suggests that everyone falls into one of these two and only two categories. Probably no one is all one or the other, but we're all some mixture of the two, with some leaning in one direction and some in the other. What's needed is not a dichotomy, but a continuum from the "soldier" on one end to the "scout" at the other.

Author: Julia Galef

Comment: This appears to be her first book. I don't know much about her, though I have seen a few short videos that she's done related to the topics discussed in the book. The book's "About the Author" note mentions that she's a podcast host, but doesn't say anything about her background or education. The videos that I saw were fine, but a book is an entirely different proposition.

Date: 2021

The Blurbs: The book is positively blurbed by Annie Duke5 and Philip Tetlock6, among others, which is encouraging.

Disclaimer: This is a new book―in fact, it appears to have been released just yesterday―and I haven't read it yet, so can't review or recommend it. However, it looks interesting to me and may interest Fallacy Files readers.7


  1. "Introduction"; paragraphing suppressed.
  2. You can see a graphic of this table on the Amazon page for the new book.
  3. See, for instance: Rule of Argumentation 2: Be ready to be wrong!, 1/26/2019
  4. I don't mean "offensive" in the sense of offending others, but in the sense of aiming to refute their views rather than just defending your own. As the saying goes, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
  5. For Duke, see: New Book: Thinking in Bets, 3/30/2019
  6. For Tetlock, see: Check it Out, 3/26/2009
  7. Revised to fix some awkward writing, 4/18/2021.

April 5th, 2021 (Permalink)

A Chinese Family Problem

One unfortunate effect of the one-child policy in China was to produce an imbalance of men to women, because so many couples wanted a boy more than a girl. As a result, after several years of the policy there were more young men in China than young women, meaning that many young Chinese men would have to live without a wife.

In order to correct this imbalance, a government bureaucrat in the same agency that had devised the one-child policy proposed a solution. The policy would be revised to say that couples could have as many girls as they wished, but must stop having children after one boy.

"Clearly," argued the bureaucrat, "this revised policy will correct the imbalance between the sexes. There will be families of one boy, one girl and a boy, two girls and a boy, three girls and a boy, and so on. Since Chinese parents want most of all to have a boy, they will keep having babies until they get one, thus producing more girls than boys. In just a few years, the imbalance will disappear!"

Assuming that the Chinese people obey the new policy as written, will it redress the imbalance in a few years?

April 2nd, 2021 (Permalink)

2020 Hindsight, Part 2

Last month, we looked at a "prediction" of the coronavirus epidemic attributed to Nostradamus, which turned out to be a retrodiction created after the epidemic had got underway1. This month, let's look at some predictions of the events of last year attributed to Nostradamus that were published before the year started. How accurate were such predictions, and did the famed seer foresee the most important event of the year, namely, the coronavirus epidemic?

On the last day of 2019, the British tabloid newspaper Express published an article with the five top predictions for 2020 from the website2. Here they are in the order given by the article:

  1. Trump wins re-election: I suppose that some of Trump's supporters, and perhaps even the man himself, would claim that he really did win so that the prediction came true. Had Trump read and believed this when he claimed that he won? Of the five prognostications, this is the only one for which the newspaper article supplies a quatrain:
    The exiles because of anger and intestine hatred
    Will bring a great conspiracy to bear against the King
    Secretly they will place enemies as a threat,
    And his own old ones against them sedition.3

    This is a loose translation of Nostradamus' quatrain I-13:

    Les exilés par ire, haine intestine,
    Feront au Roi grand conjuration:
    Secret mettront ennemis par la mine,
    Et ses vieux siens contre eux sédition.4

    Of course, this quatrain doesn't predict anything about Trump or anyone else being re-elected. Instead, it predicts a plot against some unnamed King. Maybe Trump would have liked to be king, but he was only president. Nostradamus lived during the time period when there were still kings with real power, so there's no reason to think that he was using the word figuratively. Other than that, there's no indication of when the prediction is supposed to come true, nor any details that apply to Trump rather than some real king. Now, if it had predicted a conspiracy against the "great orange man", I would be impressed.

    Furthermore, at the time that this article was published, there was already a conspiracy aimed at impeaching Trump and removing him from the presidency that had been going on since before his election. So, even assuming that "the King" refers to Trump and not Elvis Presley, this is not a prediction, but an attempt to apply the quatrain to an event that was ongoing.

    A test of such a vaguely-written prophecy is how it was interpreted prior to the supposed event that fulfilled it. In this case, an early Nostradamus interpreter named Étienne Jaubert5, interpreted it as referring to the conspiracy of Amboise, which occurred in 15606. While Nostradamus lived until 1566, this quatrain is the thirteenth in the first book of "centuries"―collections of a hundred quatrains―so it was probably printed in the first edition of 1555, five years prior to the conspiracy.

    Another interpreter, Henry C. Roberts, wrote the following about this quatrain: "The progress of the Italian conspiracy is indicated―the rise of a fifth column rife with internal dissensions, culminating with a plot against King Victor Emmanuel.7" This is itself ambiguous since there were three kings of that name, but given that Roberts interpreted the two previous quatrains to be about the rise of fascism in Italy, he may have been referring to the third one8.

    In any case, the poem is so vaguely worded that it can be interpreted to apply to almost any plot against a king, but not to the re-election of President Trump.

  2. Earthquakes: There are earthquakes every year somewhere, but the website made a surprisingly precise claim:
    The prophet announced the occurrence of a strong earthquake in the future that will lead to the sinking of the entire state of California under the ocean's water. Nostradamus foretold a great earthquake in 2020, in America. In the New World (the West Lands), California seems to be the logical guess. This will happen next time Mercury is retrograde in Cancer (between June 18 and July 12).2

    Though its politicians seem intent on destroying it, the last I heard California was still there. How the website interpreters came up with such a precise prediction, I've no idea. Usually, Nostradamus had more sense than to make falsifiable prophecies. Fortunately for Californians, the Nostradamus interpreters were wrong again.

  3. The United Kingdom will gain a king. The last I checked, it still has a queen.
  4. Major war: Whatever you can say against 2020, you can't say this.
  5. Kim Jong-Un gone: Unfortunately, the dictator is still dictating.

So, that's zero for five, and no mention of an epidemic. Of course, these predictions are only Nostradamus as interpreted by his modern followers. This is convenient for him, since he's never to blame for a failed prediction; instead, it's the fault of whoever misinterpreted his vague and ambiguous doggerel.


  1. 2020 Hindsight, 3/10/2021.
  2. Ciaran McGrath, "Trump re-elected, Kim Jong-Un out―& King William? Nostradamus predictions 2020 Revealed", Express, 12/31/2019. Unsurprisingly, the website is no longer available, but you can see the Wayback Machine's cache of its main page here: "Nostradamus Predictions for 2020", Internet Archive, 12/8/2019.
  3. This is Edgar Leoni's translation, see: Nostradamus and His Prophecies (1982), p. 135.
  4. See: Leoni, op. cit., p. 134.
  5. For Jaubert, see: Leoni, op. cit., pp. 62-63. Leoni finds this interpretation credible, but adds: "The wording, however, is sufficiently general that the quatrain may fit other palace plots of history as well. (p. 572)" The aptly-named Erika Cheetham also adopted Jaubert's interpretation, see: The Prophecies of Nostradamus, translated, edited & introduced by Erika Cheetham (1981). She translated the quatrain as follows:
    Through anger and internal hatreds,
    The exiles will hatch a great plot against the king.
    Secretly they will place enemies as a threat,
    And his own old (adherents) will find sedition against them.
  6. Editors, "Conspiracy of Amboise", Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed: 3/12/2021.
  7. The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus, translated, edited, and interpreted by Henry C. Roberts (New Revised Edition, 1982).
  8. Editors, "Victor Emmanuel III", Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed: 3/12/2021.

Previous Entry | Top of Page

Superb online gambling Australia at Casinonic! Register and claim bonuses now!

If you're looking for an extensive review of the best sports betting games in the Philippines today, check out complete with thorough game reviews, attractive bonus offers, and responsive customer support.

Get the top-notch online casino entertainment available in the Philippines when you visit

Online cricket betting is the most played sports betting game in India. If you want to play and win awesome offers on cricket games just check out


Read and write reviews of Casino Gods at TheCasinoDB.

A great German Casino for new players.