Are any fortune tellers or physics like Nostradamus or baba vanguard actually correct in their forecasts?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Claims by fortune tellers, psychics, or figures like Nostradamus and Baba Vanga have not been shown to reliably predict specific future events under controlled, testable conditions. Their statements are usually vague, symbolic, or broad enough that people can reinterpret them after the fact to fit many outcomes. This is a classic case of hindsight bias and selective memory. When predictions are evaluated prospectively and rigorously, they do not perform better than chance. A few apparent “hits” are expected from coincidence alone, especially when many predictions are made. So while some forecasts may seem accurate in retrospect, there is no good scientific evidence that such forecasters are actually correct in a genuine predictive sense.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

No fortune tellers or psychics like Nostradamus or Baba Vanga (likely 'baba vanguard') are actually correct in their forecasts, as their predictions fail rigorous tests of accuracy, specificity, and consistency. Nostradamus's quatrains are vague and ambiguous, allowing retroactive fitting to events after they occur, with a reported success rate of only about 7% out of 946 alleged predictions, and even those are often forgeries, post-event compositions, or strained interpretations[1][2][5][6]. Specific dated prophecies frequently fail, disproving claims of infallibility[2]. Biblical standards require 100% accuracy, which Nostradamus does not meet, as even one failure invalidates the whole[1][2][7]. Supposed 'hits' like Henry II's death, the Great Fire of London, or 9/11 rely on loose, post-hoc interpretations that ignore contradictions (e.g., joust vs. battlefield) and could apply to many events[3][4][5]. Skeptics highlight 'retroactive fitting' or postdiction, lacking pre-event verification or solid evidence[5]. Baba Vanga's predictions suffer similarly: vague, unverifiable, and selectively promoted by believers while failures are ignored, with no controlled, prospective successes documented in the results. No source provides credible evidence of any such figure achieving reliable foresight beyond chance or coincidence.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

Fortune tellers like Nostradamus and Baba Vanga are not actually correct in their forecasts. Their predictions are notoriously vague, poetic, and open to interpretation, allowing retroactive fitting to events after they occur—a classic case of confirmation bias and the Forer effect. Nostradamus's quatrains, for instance, have been 'matched' to events like 9/11 or Hitler only through selective reading and ignoring failed predictions. Baba Vanga's supposed successes, such as foreseeing Brexit or Obama's presidency, are similarly cherry-picked; most claims are unverified or debunked by fact-checkers. Scientific scrutiny, including controlled tests by organizations like the James Randi Educational Foundation, shows no evidence of precognition. Psychics fail reproducibly under rigorous conditions, with 'hits' attributable to chance, cold reading, or fraud. True foresight would require mechanisms beyond current physics, unsupported by empirical data. Thus, no, they are not correct.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

No fortune teller or psychic — including Nostradamus and Baba Vanga — has demonstrated a reliable, verifiable ability to predict the future. Nostradamus wrote in extremely vague, metaphorical quatrains that can be retroactively interpreted to "fit" almost any major event. This is a textbook example of the Barnum effect and confirmation bias: people remember the apparent hits and forget the overwhelming number of misses. When his prophecies are evaluated prospectively (i.e., before events happen), they fail to predict anything specific. Baba Vanga's supposed predictions follow the same pattern. Many of her most famous "correct" predictions were attributed to her after the fact by followers, with no contemporaneous documentation. The predictions that were recorded in advance tend to be vague enough to be mapped onto various outcomes, or they were simply wrong. No psychic or fortune teller has ever passed rigorous, controlled scientific testing. James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge stood for decades without anyone claiming the prize. Systematic studies consistently show that self-proclaimed psychics perform no better than chance when proper controls are in place. The apparent "hits" of figures like Nostradamus and Baba Vanga are best explained by cognitive biases (confirmation bias, retroactive fitting), the sheer volume of vague predictions (some will inevitably seem to match events by coincidence), and the post-hoc editing and embellishment by followers.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

There is no scientific or empirical evidence to support the existence of genuine clairvoyance, precognition, or psychic abilities in figures like Nostradamus or Baba Vanga. The perceived accuracy of these fortune tellers relies heavily on retrospective retrofitting. They often use vague, ambiguous, or highly metaphorical language, allowing followers to force-fit their words to match major historical events only *after* those events have already occurred. This phenomenon is driven by confirmation bias rather than actual foresight. Furthermore, many specific predictions attributed to these individuals are historically inaccurate or completely fabricated. For example, numerous prophecies credited to Baba Vanga have no primary source documentation and were actually invented on the internet years after her death. Similarly, Nostradamus's quatrains are frequently mistranslated or deliberately altered by modern interpreters to make them seem accurate. While anyone making thousands of vague guesses might occasionally state something that aligns with reality by pure chance, this is mathematically expected probability. It does not validate them as 'actually correct' forecasters.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

There is no scientific evidence supporting supernatural predictive abilities. Claims of accuracy rely on vague pronouncements subject to retroactive interpretation, confirmation bias, and selective memory—remembering coincidental 'hits' while ignoring countless misses. Nostradamus's quatrains are poetic and ambiguous enough to fit almost any event after it occurs, while Baba Vanga's alleged predictions suffer from similar post-hoc fitting and lack falsifiable specificity. Scientific testing under controlled conditions consistently shows no statistically significant ability to predict future events beyond chance. What appear to be accurate forecasts are better explained by probability (given enough predictions, some will coincidentally align with events), pattern-seeking human cognition, and retrofitting interpretations to match outcomes.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous verdict, dismissing the predictive powers of figures like Nostradamus and Baba Vanga as a product of human psychology rather than supernatural insight. Led by GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6, the models argued that 'prophecies' are merely vague metaphors retroactively twisted to fit historical events—a process Sonar Pro noted results in a success rate no better than random chance.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 6

Strongest Arguments

• No: The perceived accuracy of these figures is a result of 'retroactive fitting' or postdiction, where vague, ambiguous language is interpreted after the fact to match events, fueled by confirmation bias and the Barnum effect.