Authentic Science Fiction Monthly No. 71 — page 3: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

= Editorial INDSIGHT, AS EVERYONE knows, is a lot better than foresight. Looking back you know what has happened; looking forward you can only guess. The guess may be a shrewd one with a high percentage of probability, but it is still an assumption based on incomplete knowledge. We can be very certain that the sun will rise in the east but we can only be absolutely certain after it has done so. I wonder how many generals, sitting in their tents on the eve of battle, have longed for preliminary hind- sight? How many people who would give much just to know what the immediate future will bring? A man waiting for a major operation which may, or may not, restore his health. A woman wondering whether her child will be boy or girl. A gambler wishing to know the name of the winning horse before he makes his bet. Clairvoyance, to these people, seems just the thing. But is it? Would it help anyone to be able to see into the future? Would it aid the general if he knew that, within twenty-four hours, his armies would be scattered and the battle lost? Would it help a gambler to know that he was going to win? If he had that knowledge he would no longer be a gambler, so, by definition, a gambler cannot be certain of the result of his wager. Clairvoyance, to him, would only serve to take the zest from his sport. But clairvoyance has, and always will have, a terrible fascination for the worried, the desperate, the unhappy. To them, as to most of us, uncertainty is the enemy. Anything is better than in decision. Even the worst, once known, can be accepted. But can it? CONNIE DOOKS .COlin)