symptom of disease> -- compare OBJECTIVE 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY
- sub·jec·tive·ly adverb
- sub·jec·tive·ness noun
- sub·jec·tiv·i·ty /-"jek-'ti-v&-tE/ noun
:A magnitude calculation is not subjective. An
:average is not subjective. my probability
:calculations are not subjective.
When magnitude readings are being averaged
together from several different locations,
and you don't know how right either one of
those readings are, then you are being
subjective by putting your personal view
into what the magnitude of a quake should
be. Granted, its the best that can be done,
but its still subjective.
Your probability calculations are also
subjective because that is your personal
view on how they should be done.
:No, I don't know Scot Krueger or anyone in the
:tectonophysics group.
Oops!!! Scot had worked at tectonophysics when
they were busily into prediction efforts. Later
when the branch was disbanded, he joined ARCO
which is where I had worked.
:Which measurements are "right"? All of them,
:usually. Do they all agree? No, for the reasons
:you mention. The math has built-in procedures
:for way out values.
That doesn't answer my question. Since what the
predictor is measuring doesn't have anything to
do with any of those scales, it is not right to
arbitrarily choose the higher one just because
everybody else does it.
:Predictions can handle India by the way they
:assign the area.
Predictions are trying to determine where the
quake will occur. Not how much of an area
will be impacted by the quake. By doing what
you suggest here, it would increase the odds
of getting a hit by chance. Is that your
intention? Make it as hard as possible to
become statistically significant?
:Yes, your example is a miss AS PREDICTED. Bigger
:limits would have caught it. The prediction was
:wrong. Sticking with it is objective;
:saying "well, this quake SHOULD fit" is
:subjective.
I don't agree in the case when somebody is
consistently close. The quake did occur, just
not in exactly the location predicted. But
so what. It got people ready and possibly
saved lives which is the intention. Only
those people that are against prediction wouldn't
care about this. Is that where you stand?
:Your final example is why I wrote the best-fit
:program. I agree that predictors need to know
:what might fit so they can revise their methods.
Actually I used to do that way back in 1994/1995
when I first started issuing predictions on the
newsgroups. It was because of myself and Bob
Shannon that Alan came up with the method that
he currently uses to track predictions. It was
using Alans' method that Alan had declared I
had reached statistical significance back in
11/95. Later on I dropped below that because
of an inherent problem with my process of not
being able to separate signals from multiple
quakes close in space and time. Actually, it
was the Mammoth swarm back in Jan/Feb of '96.
:But when a prediction is made, it is right or
:wrong. Period. The probability is different for
:the best-fitting quake. They might be
:saying "Boy, I'm pretty good" when the best-
:fitting quake has a 90% chance.
You're still ignoring the fact that in statistics,
it is acceptable to have a certain amount of
deviation from what is predicted. Why?
Dennis
