Probability is the arcane symbolic and computational basis of modern prophetic utterances. It is the authority which modern soothsayers quote to cover their arses. In order to retain public credibility, all professional prophets need to hedge their predictions. They need to allow for the intricate complexity of causal relations where one or more events may or may not result in others. Probability assessment is an attempt to quantify the macro observation that the occurrence of certain events always seems to channel an energy flow towards a finite variety of outcomes, although the intricate micro-complexity of the process is for the time being beyond tracking.

Dominating much probability theory is the gaussian normal distribution. It is the model that eventually seems to infiltrate every aspect. This so-called bell curve supplies the computational basis for the measured parameters of every set of entities investigated in the natural world. Pragmatically speaking, with small samples selected from a population of entities using in a truly random technique, it can be of great utility. Determining the average weight of a large population of whales or wasps without having to measure every single one of them...with an estimate of error to boot...is a very useful trick.

Using the same theory with human political populations however is more humourous than informative. Political pollsters regularly choose small samples of the population to gauge the support for particular candidates. They assume that such samples are distributed according to the normal distribution and compute percentage support levels and an estimation of the error. Firstly however, as is frequently pointed out, the validity and relevance of such results is seriously compromised by the selection method from the population. The pollsters normally use sampling techniques which suit their own convenience rather than the dictates of universal chaos. Secondly, they totally ignore the reality that few individuals would truthfully indicate to a pollster the choice they would make during a controlled democratic election. For some astounding reason, although they themselves see deception on their part as an organizational necessity, they trust the responses of their sample. But most polled individuals would probably lie. They enjoy seeing how incorrect the polls actually turn out to be. Its much more fun that way. There is also the added bonus of being entertained by displays of feeding frenzy behaviour when journalists are provided with the results.

Similar attempts at oracular prognostications are equally comic. The numerical probabilities allocated to such events as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, impact by comets, the likelihood of rain, and so on, further detracts from the credible testimony of numbers. Knowing the empirical frequencies of certain events, like how often a tsunami has occurred in the past, or how many tornados came thru a region during the last season, can be of some use to planning one's life. Making a profound numerical statement about the future probability or not of such events is no more helpful than suggesting that both a rain umbrella and a sun umbrella be available at all times because both rain and sunshine are quite possible. The reality is that the universe is more infinitely creative and ingenious than probabalistic simplifications can ever encompass.