I take offense with the last sentence in that article: "Nobody can really know the future. But few could imagine it better than Lem."
This simply can't be true. Lem did have a great imagination, coupled with huge talents as a writer. You could say that he was a writer with the greatest imagination.
In a world consisting of 7 billion people, it is very likely there are people out there that have much better and much more accurate imaginations, perhaps people who are correctly predicting detailed outcomes for the next 50 or 100 years.
The problem is that they are not great communicators.
I think you're reading the last sentence too literally which is probably not the way it was meant to be read. Instead it is simply a compliment to the author.
And if you really want to be pedantic then please also note that the sentence does not say "more accurate", it says "better". This can mean many things: more entertaining, more inspiring, and yes, also more accurate. But because "better" is rather vague, I don't think it's very fair to criticize it as irrational.
This simply can't be true. Lem did have a great imagination, coupled with huge talents as a writer. You could say that he was a writer with the greatest imagination.
In a world consisting of 7 billion people, it is very likely there are people out there that have much better and much more accurate imaginations, perhaps people who are correctly predicting detailed outcomes for the next 50 or 100 years.
The problem is that they are not great communicators.