What does "genuine prediction" mean? (imported)

[pippin_999]

(I) said:
===
Dumbledore says it's a "genuine prediction." That is, he 
believes it contains verifiable knowledge of the future. 

The only way any prophecy can be verified is if, at some future 
date, it is established as truth. The only way it can be shown to 
be true (as opposed to possible) that one has the power to 
defeat the Dark Lord, is if the Dark Lord is actually defeated. 
Follow me?

Of course one or both of them may die in the process, but even if 
the Dark Lord lives, and Harry dies, it must be the Dark Lord 
who is vanquished, ie defeated and subjugated, if the prophecy 
is to prove genuine.
===

[Naama said:]
====
That's an interpretation, after all. To say that true knowledge is 
*verifiable* knowledge is not at all a trivial statement of the 
obvious. Dumbledore hadn't said, and we don't know, what 
makes a 
prediction genuine. After all, he said it was genuine *before* it 
was 
verified, right? So, how could he know beforehand that it was? In 
fact, since only prophecies (which I take to mean genuine 
predictions) are kept in that Mysteries room, there must be some 
signs that marks a prediction as genuine, and that are 
independent of 
the actual outcome (e.g., the authenticity of the trance state). If 
you had to wait for future events in order to decide whether it's 
genuine or not, what would be the point of keeping prophecies at 
all? 
====

Oh Naama, I am sorry I missed your reply. I have gone so far as 
to type my handle into the search box to see if anybody's replied 
to one of my posts lately, but it gets confusing since that also 
brings up all the moderated posts I dealt with in the pending 
queue.:P

 That Prof. Trelawney does not instruct her classes on the ways 
to distinguish  Seeing from fortune-telling is understandable 
enough ;-). It also provides  Rowling with an excuse for not telling 
us  anything she thinks could remotely be mistaken for functional 
real world knowledge of how to predict the future.* I think we're 
just going to have to take Dumbledore's word  that he knows a 
genuine prophecy when he hears one. However, we are told 
some of the properties of genuine predictions.

Firenze said that "trivial hurts, tiny human accidents" are of no 
more significance to the wide universe than the scurryings of 
ants. (I guess he's not into chaos theory.) He says that the skies 
foretell only "great tides of evil or change." 

I think we are given this information so that we can understand  
Dumbledore's attitude toward the Prophecy. Why does he treat it 
as so important when it seems to be so vague? IMO, 
Dumbledore can say that the prophecy refers to Voldemort being 
vanquished "for good" because  a genuine prophecy can't be 
about anything as trivial as a temporary defeat. Likewise, a 
missed opportunity to defeat Voldemort would be  
heartwrenching from our trivial human perspective, but not a sign 
of great change, and so not worthy of foretelling. 

 Voldemort wouldn't see it that way, of course--he thinks he *is* 
the universe. From what I can see, he regards prophecy as  a set 
of rules, and wants to know what they are so he can game the 
system. The White Witch made a similar error in the The Lion, 
The Witch and The Wardrobe, when she thought she had 
vanquished Aslan by his own laws.

This stuff is almost as squirrely as time travel, so I hope I have 
made myself clear here.  I'm reminded that Diana Gabaldon said 
that the ambiguity of pre-destination versus free-will in her 
stories is purposeful, and reflects her opinion that people want it 
both ways. We want, she says, to feel that there is a grand plan 
unfolding in the universe and it will all come right in the end, and 
also to feel that our choices matter.

Pippin

 *We've been rolling our eyes over the "cannot be used for flight" 
notices on the toy broomsticks, but my older brother still has a 
scar  from the time he tied a  red towel  around his neck, yelled 
"Superman!", and jumped off the garage.