The paper begins by noting a curious dichotomy made by Koselleck (2004) on the shift from medieval closed futures, predetermined in Church scripture, to a modern open vista of possibility for individual action. Following this shift Koselleck also notes a transition in epistemologies of knowing the future: from a technique of religious and superstitious divination, prophecy, to one of calculative rationality, what he terms prognosis (2004: 18). A rupture between historical ideal types of foresight which has been echoed in recent socio-economic studies of contemporary future outlooks (cf. Beckert, 2016: 28; Andersson, 2018: 15; Garsten & Sörborn, forthcoming). I would argue, however, that Koselleck's historical division of rationalities warrants a closer analysis. While there's certainly an epistemological gap between prophecies and statistical probability the prognostic method arguably constitutes a third approach, neither synonymous with modern calculation, nor logically separated from forms of divination, but instead characterized by engaging with the future through the interpretation of signs. To elaborate on this argument the paper follows a three-part structure. The initial part of the paper is structured as a genealogy, beginning with antique medical treatises and follows the development of distinct techniques of sign interpretation. As Seboek has noted the medical analysis of symptoms, as initially codified in the Hippocratic corpus, is not only etymologically linked to the analysis of symbols, but the practices are in themselves similar (1989). In Greek medicine a form of "mental sight", diagnosis, was developed through which physicians were able to presuppose the nature of, to them, not visible diseases through examining external bodily symptoms, and via prognosis, to direct such interpretations towards foreseeing what will happen in the future (Ibid.). Having given historical contours to the method of prognosis, I connect the technique to Carlo Ginzburg's analysis of what he terms an 'evidential paradigm', and the practice of acquiring knowledge via clues (1989). By drawing on Ginzburg's essay, and the prior genealogy, I highlight how key aspects of the, initially, medical prognostic 'mental sight' are still operative in contemporary forms of economic and political attempts to foresee and manage uncertain futures, via 'readings' of signs, symptoms and indicators. A concluding, implication of the paper concerns recent economic-sociological scolarship of perceiving economic practice through tools of literary analysis such as narratives. While I find such arguments convincing, in the way actors coordinate both future and present action through stories, imaginaries, and expectations, I attempt to expand this epistemological arsenal towards 'seeing the future' with inferential sign interpretation as well. References: Andersson, J. (2018). The Future of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garsten, C., Sörborn, A. (Forthcoming). Future by Design: Seductive Technologies of Anticipation within the Future Industry. In J. Andersson & S. Kamp. The Future of the World Futurology, Futurists, and the Struggle for the Cold War Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ginzburg, C. (1989). Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method. Baltimore, ML: John Hopkins University Press. Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures Past: on the semantics of historical time. New York: Columbia University Press. Sebeok, T. (2001). Global semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.