Rare are those bodies of knowledge, such as astrology, which must continually confront their detractors. As a result, it is often the case that a "defense" (or apologia) is appended to treatises on the subject, especially since the Renaissance. In the context of modern society, astrology is held in scant esteem; its principles are denied any validity; its practices are ridiculed. It is called to account to justify itself vis-à-vis a variety of institutionalized presuppositions, customs, beliefs and skepticisms. There exists no universal manifesto against psychoanalysis, Voodoo, historical materialism or the immaterialism of Berkeley. No religious sect, doctrine or practice is so regularly vilified by the pontifications of the intelligentsia, nor is its voice left so willfully unheard by the skeptical deafness of those who claim to be the possessors of knowledge. Might it be sensed that astrology is the vehicle of a true alternative to unidimensional thought (Herbert Marcuse) and to the society of the Show (Guy Debord)? In this case, it is up to astrologers to recognize the task before them, which consists primarily of thinking astrology, even without the permission to research (François Furet), and not in reducing its terms to the standard set by the venality, cynicism and cowardice generated and maintained by our contemporary mentality.
Predictions must be clear and unambiguous. They must convey practical advice that can be acted upon. This applies to both natal readings and deliberation on mundane matters. In natal: unless people leave the consultation with both increased knowledge about themselves and some firm practical information they can use as a guide for the future then they have not had an astrological reading at all. In mundane: ideally, someone reading the prediction should be able to act on it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Any statement that introduces ambiguity should not be called prediction at all. Part of the trouble with the current debate on prediction and its place within astrology is that the main proponents  think they are debating on prediction but are mostly considering nothing more than Considerations before Judgment. Coupled to this is the manner in which people are apt to upgrade these inferior observations to foreknowledge. These Considerations should not be confused with such things as Bonatti’s 146 Considerations  or those applied in Traditional Horary. Generally speaking, a Consideration before Judgment merely alerts you to a factor that must be accounted for in the final astrological analysis, which the actual prediction takes into account. Colloquially they are also called observations and are always preliminary to prediction.