“Scientists, philosophers, and professional skeptics justifiably criticize science deniers and pseudoscientists for their gullible acceptance of improbable theories that have little to no evidence. But what to say then about an improbable event that has apparently good evidence in support of a dubious causal claim? One of the hallmarks of scientific reasoning is what I have called the scientific attitude: the ability to embrace fallibilism and to change one’s mind in the face of new evidence. What is the appropriate response when confronted with evidence in favor of a theory one does not want to believe? Dismiss it as a coincidence? Contend that although the event was unlikely it was not impossible? At what point do such responses violate the scientific attitude? In this lecture, I will consider the fascinating case of a Roman fortune teller who predicted the specifics of his own death. (Please note that I am a professional philosopher of science and a card-carrying member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. This is a fun lecture meant to tweak the standards of warranted belief and to challenge the skeptic to specify in advance what those conditions may be.)“