Originally posted by: Special K
Well technically, once the first "correct" prediction is made, there won't be any others after it
I see what you're saying though. If someone proclaims each year that "this year will be the end of the world", eventually someone will get it right by sheer luck.
Indeed. And I'd go the next step and say there are levels of credibility. If someone were to say, for example, that a computer error would cause the spontaneous launch of nuclear warheads around the globe, that's a very clear threat (this is where most of the paranoia from Y2K came from; we know the destructive power of atomic weapons).
The claim that there is a hidden planet which cannot be detected except by some psychic from the 1970s which is going to destroy our planet in 2012... well, there's no evidence for that. There's one man's word who used a calendar developed by people who were somehow clever enough to figure out the exact date the world would end but couldn't foresee the conquistadors or Western expansionism? All scientific data says that this mysterious planet does not exist (as opposed to, say, nuclear weapons and the computers that control their launch).
So on a scale of credibility, Y2K had like a 1.4 (out of 10). It was far-fetched, but plausible. The credibility on this is so low, it can't be measured; not by our current instruments, anyway. So let me break out my Mayan calendar and put on my vintage Mark Spitz 70s mustache... OK, here we go. The world is more likely to end following a collossal beer fart from a combined 50,000 disappointed Cubs fans when their team fails, yet again, to do anything of note in the post-season, than it is from an invisible planet.
Prove me wrong. The mustache doesn't lie.