Editing Postdiction (section)

==Postdiction in different contexts==

===Skepticism===
In [[skepticism]], postdiction is also referred to as '''post-shadowing''', '''retroactive clairvoyance''', or '''prediction after the fact''', and is an effect of [[hindsight bias]] that explains claimed predictions of significant events, such as plane crashes and natural disasters. Accusations of postdiction might be applicable if the prediction were:

;Vague: The prediction makes a non-specific claim. For example, it predicts a "disaster" of some kind, but not ''what'' it is. Such a prediction can be massaged to fit any number of events. Likewise, a prediction that does not state dates or places, or allows itself a large ''window'' of possible dates, can be made to fit many possibilities. A prophecy attributed to [[Saint Malachy]] (but widely regarded as a 16th-century [[forgery]]) claims to predict the [[Prophecy of the Popes|succession of Popes]] by describing each one briefly. However, each description is sufficiently vague that it can be massaged to fit after the fact.
;Open ended: The prediction has a very long cut-off date or none at all, and therefore runs indefinitely.  Many of [[Nostradamus]]' quatrains are open-ended and have been postdicted over the centuries to fit various contemporary events.
;Recycled: The prediction is reused again and again in order to match the most recent event. Nostradamus' quatrains have been recycled numerous times.
;Catch-all: The prediction covers more than one possible outcome. For example, the [[Delphic Oracle|Delphic Oracle's]] answer as to whether [[Croesus]] should attack the Persians: ''If you attack, you will destroy a mighty empire''. Croesus attacked, destroying his own empire.
;Shotgunning: The prediction is in fact many predictions, designed to cover a range of events and claim credit even if only one of them happens. For example, claiming that a particular date is "unlucky" and then citing a dozen or so things that might happen on it. See [[Confirmation bias|selective thinking]].
;Statistically likely: The prediction makes a claim for something that happens with enough frequency that a high hit rate is virtually assured. For example, predicting terrorism on any day of the year, or particularly around national holidays, anniversaries (or similar events), or religious festivals.
;Unfalsifiable: The prediction makes a claim that is impossible to verify or [[falsifiability|falsify]]. For example, a belief arose amongst a few in 2003 that a [[Planet X]] would pass the Earth in May of that year. When it singularly failed to appear, some claimed it was shrouded so that only an "educated eye" could see it and various other excuses, while discounting the most obvious reason—that Planet X does not exist at all in the form predicted.
;Unavailable until after the fact: A prediction cannot be verified if there is no public record of when it was made. A famous example was the psychic Tamara Rand, who predicted that [[Ronald Reagan]] was in danger of someone with the initials [[John Hinckley, Jr.|"J.H."]]. The video interview in which this prediction was made was shot the day ''after'' the assassination attempt.
;Counting the hits and not the misses: The prediction may be part of a series, but is singled out because it can be favourably interpreted, even if the series itself follows the laws of probability. For example, the prediction might correctly state movement on the stock market when previous or subsequent predictions have been wrong.
;Allegory: The postdiction resorts to tenuous [[Allegory|allegorical]] explanations to turn literal misses into hits. For example, the postdiction might explain that a famous person has suffered a "spiritual" death to explain why they are still walking around despite a prediction that says otherwise.
;[[Moving the goalposts]]: The event must be "shoehorned" to fit the prediction because it differs in some significant way. For example, the prediction predicts an earthquake on one day, when in fact it happens on a different day. Nostradamus' supporters occasionally use this technique, like the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11 terrorist attacks]] on the 45th parallel<ref>{{Cite web |last=Adachi |first=Goro |date=March 11, 2002 |title=Rex Deux |url=http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/rex-deux.htm |access-date=2023-12-27 |website=www.goroadachi.com}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Engle |first=Tim |last2=Ridder |first2=Knight |date=2004-01-09 |title=Happy birthday, Nostradamus: He knew we'd say that |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-01-09-0401090246-story.html |access-date=2023-12-27 |website=Chicago Tribune}}</ref> (actually around 40 degrees latitude).<ref name=":0" />

These types are not exclusive, so a prediction could be vague, statistically likely and open-ended at the same time.

===Cognitive science===
In [[cognitive science]], postdiction is the justification process that allows a reader to make sense of a concept in a given context.<ref>Upal, M. A. (2005). Role of context in memorability of intuitive and counterintuitive concepts. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.). Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2224–2229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</ref>  The term was coined by psychologist [[Walter Kintsch]] in 1980<ref>Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why would anyone read a story anyway.
Poetics, 9, 89–98.</ref> and refined by cognitive scientist [[Afzal Upal]] in 2005. Heath & Heath used Upal's definition without explicitly citing him in their 2007 book ''[[Made to Stick]]''. Concepts that can be justified in a given context are called [[postdictable]].

===Neuroscience===
In [[neuroscience]], postdiction indicates that the brain collects up information after an event before it retrospectively decides what happened at the time of the event ([[David Eagleman|Eagleman]] and Sejnowski, 2000<ref name="Eagleman_Sejnowski_2000">{{cite journal |vauthors=Eagleman DM, Sejnowski, TJ | title=Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness | journal=Science | volume=287 | issue=5460 | pages=2036–8 | year=2000 | pmid=10720334 | doi=10.1126/science.287.5460.2036| bibcode=2000Sci...287.2036E }}<!--|doi-access=registration--></ref>). Postdiction is a particular interpretation of experimental results showing [[Visual temporal integration|temporal integration of information]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kinsbourne|first1=Marcel|last2=Dennett|first2=Daniel C.|date=June 1992|title=Time and the observer: The where and when of consciousness in the brain|journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences|language=en|volume=15|issue=2|pages=183–201|doi=10.1017/S0140525X00068229|s2cid=15053574 |issn=1469-1825}}</ref> and it has been largely debated.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sampath|first1=Vanitha|last2=Bedell|first2=Harold E.|last3=Ogmen|first3=Haluk|last4=Patel|first4=Saumil S.|date=2000-11-10|title=Flash-Lag Effect: Differential Latency, Not Postdiction|journal=Science|language=en|volume=290|issue=5494|pages=1051|doi=10.1126/science.290.5494.1051a|issn=0036-8075|pmid=11184992|doi-access=free|citeseerx=10.1.1.299.7320}}</ref> 

The duration of the window of temporal integration of sensory information ranges between tens to hundreds of milliseconds. Its duration significantly varies across tasks, so there may be several postdictive windows of integration, and they are consistent across subjects.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Melcher|first1=David|last2=Wutz|first2=Andreas|last3=Drewes|first3=Jan|last4=Fairhall|first4=Scott|date=2014-03-21|title=The Role of Temporal Integration Windows in Visual Perception|journal=Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences|series=International Conference on Timing and Time Perception, 31 March – 3 April 2014, Corfu, Greece|volume=126|pages=92–93|doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.323|issn=1877-0428|doi-access=free}}</ref> The duration of the postdictive windows of integration is supposedly hardwired in our brain, but it could be extended by training subjects to systematic delays between causally bounded events.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Stetson|first1=Chess|last2=Cui|first2=Xu|last3=Montague|first3=P. Read|last4=Eagleman|first4=David M.|date=2006-09-07|title=Motor-Sensory Recalibration Leads to an Illusory Reversal of Action and Sensation|journal=Neuron|volume=51|issue=5|pages=651–659|doi=10.1016/j.neuron.2006.08.006|pmid=16950162|s2cid=8179689|issn=0896-6273|doi-access=free}}</ref> The postdictive window is believed to be triggered by highly salient sensory events acting as ''resets'', such as abrupt stimuli onset<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Landau|first1=Ayelet Nina|last2=Fries|first2=Pascal|date=2012-06-05|title=Attention Samples Stimuli Rhythmically|journal=Current Biology|volume=22|issue=11|pages=1000–1004|doi=10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.054|pmid=22633805|issn=0960-9822|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Romei|first1=Vincenzo|last2=Gross|first2=Joachim|last3=Thut|first3=Gregor|date=2012-05-08|title=Sounds Reset Rhythms of Visual Cortex and Corresponding Human Visual Perception|journal=Current Biology|volume=22|issue=9|pages=807–813|doi=10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.025|pmid=22503499|issn=0960-9822|pmc=3368263}}</ref> and [[Saccade|saccadic eye movements]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Paradiso|first1=Michael A.|last2=Meshi|first2=Dar|last3=Pisarcik|first3=Jordan|last4=Levine|first4=Samuel|date=2012-12-12|title=Eye movements reset visual perception|journal=Journal of Vision|volume=12|issue=13|pages=11|doi=10.1167/12.13.11|issn=1534-7362|pmc=4504334|pmid=23241264}}</ref>

Postdiction is argued to play a central role in shaping our [[sense of agency]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shimojo|first=Shinsuke|date=2014|title=Postdiction: its implications on visual awareness, hindsight, and sense of agency|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|language=en|volume=5|pages=196|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00196|pmid=24744739|issn=1664-1078|pmc=3978293|doi-access=free }}</ref> by compressing the perceived interval between a voluntary action and its external sensory consequence.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Moore|first1=James W.|last2=Obhi|first2=Sukhvinder S.|date=2012-03-01|title=Intentional binding and the sense of agency: A review|journal=Consciousness and Cognition|series=Beyond the Comparator Model|volume=21|issue=1|pages=546–561|doi=10.1016/j.concog.2011.12.002|pmid=22240158|s2cid=7880327|issn=1053-8100|url=http://research.gold.ac.uk/6464/1/Binding%26SoAReviewC%26C2012.pdf}}</ref>

Postdictive mechanisms are believed to constantly underlie our perception, and can be revealed by some perceptual illusions: for example, in the [[flash lag illusion]]<ref name="Eagleman_Sejnowski_2000" /> and the [[cutaneous rabbit illusion]]<ref name="Goldreich_Tong_2013">{{cite journal|last=Goldreich|first=D|author2=Tong, J|date=10 May 2013|title=Prediction, Postdiction, and Perceptual Length Contraction: A Bayesian Low-Speed Prior Captures the Cutaneous Rabbit and Related Illusions|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=4|pages=221|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00221|pmid=23675360|pmc=3650428|doi-access=free}}</ref> the location of moving stimuli are mistakenly perceived due to their falling within the same postdictive window of integration.