Hi Brian,

The problem with the fuzzy-wuzzy-touchy-feely predictors is that their predictions tend to be fuzzy-wuzzy-touchy-feely as well, and in general fuzzy-wuzzy-touchy-feely predictions are not quantifiable, let alone the interpretation of their results by a group of people greater than 1 person (sorry, humor, but true).

The problem with that is, if you can't agree on the prediction parameters such as place (south pacific), time (sooner rather than later), or magnitude (a medium quake), how can you agree if the method is successful or not?

The answer is you can't.

And if you can't, what use is it?

The answer is none.

However, there are fuzzy-wuzzy-touchy-feely predictors that are willing to make valid predictions. For example, a predictor may hear an ear tone that they have come to learn usually leads to a quake at a certain range or in a certain direction. Or maybe some have a certain dream, or some see their dog standing on one foot, and that means something else. Hardly high science, or maybe it is, just before it's time lol. Regardless, I have no problem how people determine their prediction parameters, but if they can make a well defined prediction, then it is something that should be documented, analyzed, and considered. There is nothing to say the big breakthrough won't come from somebody outside the professional scientific community, or somebody even right here on this board, but that won't happen if a well defined predictions cannot be made in a repeatable fashion.

Then you also have the Jim Berkland's of the world. Here you have a guy that has some sort of experience in geology at least, usually making scientific predictions from what I can see, and you have a wealth of data, predictions and results, that cannot be analyzed by anybody because it is not in form that permits any sort of sane analysis. A whole lot of effort going on there, but nothing to show for it because no third party can verify or disprove his results.

So, yes, I hear what you are saying, but the short answer is the predictions of the fuzzy-wuzzy-touchy-feely crowd tend to be useless scientifically because they tend to make fuzzy-wuzzy-touchy-feely predictions which by their nature are not quantitative and whos results cannot be proven.

If you can't prove your results, ain't nobody gunna listen, and if nobody is listening, what's the point?

Thanks again for your input Brian, I appreciate having a devil's advocate around ...

Michael