## Summary A tactic utilizing [[Hedgery]] and [[Distributed Rhetoric]] whereby an inordinate number of vague predictions about the future are made over an extended period of time, in order for the predictor to later stake a reputation by recalling the few that happened to be true, or at least can be portrayed as such. This term is derived from the classic but apocryphal technique of checking if pasta is done cooking by throwing it at the wall and seeing if it sticks, and the name of Nostradamus, a famous purveyor of predictive vagaries. One who uses this tactic can themselves be called a Pastadamus. Because of the [[Distributed Rhetoric|distributed nature]] of these predictions, as they are made throughout what can be decades-long careers, it becomes effectively impossible to wholly debunk a Pastadamus without meticulously cataloging their statements over a long time horizon. Many of these would-be oracles only rise to prominence later in their career, at which point it is barely ever feasible for such research to be performed. Not only are these predictions numerous and varied, they are [[Hedgery|overwhelmingly unspecific.]] This allows them to be amended later to better match events that have transpired, regardless of whether said events were ever envisioned as part of the prediction. This vagueness is often layered with deniability tactics such as [[Just Asking Questions]] and [[Schrödinger's Expert]] to make dismissing the importance of a prediction much easier if it does not come to pass. An ideal prediction is entirely [[Unfalsifiability|unfalsifiable,]] but such a prediction must walk a delicate line, as an audience is more likely to pick up on a claim's unfalsifiability than its plain vagueness. Putting all of these elements together, a Pastadamus can ironically gain more recognition and success the more and weaker predictions they make. The ambiguity of claims makes them easier to warp to fit reality; the numerosity of claims makes it more likely that one may come true; the diffusion of claims makes the body of claims harder to systematically debunk. Significant interplay exists between these factors, of course, but the overall effect is that a greater number of predictions will turn out to be "true," and those which are definitively false will be swiftly forgotten. It should be noted that, even if a series of predictions turns out to be correct, this does not in fact prove the general reliability of their author. Predictions should only be taken seriously in retrospect if they are specific, bounded by a time frame, limited in number, and based on demonstrable insight about a given topic, rather than simple guesswork. Furthermore, to believe that someone can be considered a universal oracle (that is, the very *concept* of a Nostradamus) by virtue of a handful of correct predictions is to buy into [[Lateral Credentialism]] or [[Unqualifications]]. Even those who build their predictions on genuine foundations of understanding *cannot* be assumed to have such understanding of other subjects, and thus cannot be trusted to give reliable predictions without establishing subject matter credentials. Though the human tendency to ignore this conundrum is by no means solely useful to a Pastadamus, it plays a key role in their prestige. ## Examples > This section is a work in progress.