In both cases we are getting predictions or retrodictions about times other than the present. ❋ Michael Ruse (2011)
Moreover, for the purpose of making predictions (as opposed to retrodictions), one could take the some of the values of known and well-measured SM couplings as given, and throw away all of the vacua which disagree with those. ❋ Sean (2007)
If the emperical basis of ID is to be no more than post hoc retrodictions that "ID explains that very well", then ID ought to be confined to the forums that already teach the theories of Aquinas, Locke and Hume. ❋ Unknown (2005)
In proxy climatology, in contrast, reconstructions are time-localized empirical correlations that are being used to make scientifically unjustifiable retrodictions and to power entirely invalid claims of causality. ❋ Unknown (2006)
* I know some of the various retrodictions of string theory, and it is a fine point to argue how much evidence for string theory there is. ❋ Cjohnson (2005)
Some conclusions (some retrodictions) heavily depend on the history and the priors, others don't, depending on the context. ❋ Unknown (2010)
European land bird species to projections of potential future geographical range change (CLIM) and retrodictions of climate suitability trend (CST) for observed recent climate (1980-2002), both derived from climatic envelope models fitted to the observed European geographical range of each species in the 1980s. ❋ Unknown (2009)
We take these findings to indicate that retrodictions and projections based upon these climatic envelope models are useful in predicting observed changes in bird populations. ❋ Unknown (2009)
This result parallels that of a similar study of recent population trends of rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom, which found that interspecific variation in observed population trends was correlated with retrodictions of CST using climatic data and the same climatic envelope models as those used in the present study (22). ❋ Unknown (2009)
The models are driven by natural forces like solar variations or volcanic eruptions, and their retrodictions of what should have happened between 1900 and 2000 are compared to what actually happened. ❋ Unknown (2009)
It’s perfectly valid to suggest models with lots of independence assumptions—independence makes a model simpler, and it’s always good to start simple—but probability calculations and any other predictions/retrodictions based on such models are useless until they’ve been tested. ❋ Unknown (2006)
"predict" the probability that my brain is a normal brain without making any observations simply because the "prediction" of the Boltzmann/normal character of our brains is actually a retrodiction and retrodictions always heavily depend on priors (assumptions about the past): and there are no canonical, universal priors in Nature. ❋ Unknown (2010)
In this logical framework of inference, which is the only rationally justifiable way to make similar retrodictions about the Universe around us, it was trivial to show that my brain, and therefore all brains on Earth, are almost certainly (mostly): -) normal, non-Boltzmann brains. ❋ Unknown (2010)
