This is... dense. And I think in some ways it's just giving credence to things we should just discard. For example, >In 2001, he uses this method to plot a gra

This is... dense. And I think in some ways it's just giving credence to things we should just discard. For example, >In 2001, he uses this method to plot a graph and then predicts unbounded life expectancy by 2011 and then Dan cites this sentence: > In the eighteenth century, we added a few days every year to human longevity; during the nineteenth century we added a couple of weeks each year; and now we’re adding almost a half a year every year. Like, let's lay aside the predictions. Between 1980 and 2000 US life expectancy increased by 3 years. So let's just shelve the question of the predictions, this person is clearly making shit up. Whoever is making this prediction is simply not getting even the most basic facts correct. In some ways I think the approach of this article is backwards. You don't apply retrospective rigor to old predictions, you define a rigorous process for future predictions, because there's no way someone is going to luck into being rigorous, and I think most of the futurists are even aiming to be rigorous. A lot of futurists are essentially sci-fi writers. What they're doing is fundamentally entertainment rather than rigorous scientific method. So I don't see why you would set out to judge them by a rigorous scientific method. In some ways I see a parallel between this and effective alturism - EAs often think other forms of charity are misguided, but there's no point judging non-EA giving by EA standards because people just fundamentally don't agree with the core ideas of EA.