Well, it's actually trial by combat. You'ld be surprised. LOL. But, I understand what John and Roger are saying and I appreciate the point. Based on decades of meaningful research, there's a certain methodology to be adhered to if the science is going to progress.

On the other hand, the methodology operates on certain presumptions. Any hypothesis operates on a given set of presumptions. My point is being aware of those presumptions and revisiting them, as uncomfortable as that may be.

I think a good recent example of this is Peter Lynds' time theory. (That's the New Zealander college drop-out who issued a thesis about the linear quality of time, among other things.) The viciousness with which his paper - which was published - was met was quite impressive. It was definitely a restatement of the fact that the realm of science is no less political than any other discipline.

An example as it pertains to EQ prediction . . . it appears that the majority of people on this board have discounted weather anomaly (i.e., earthquake clouds) as being indicative of a forthcoming quake. I haven't seen anything qualifying that conclusion. (On the other hand, there are accounts of earthquakes being predicted via weather anomaly.) However, there seems to exist a presumption: all earthquakes in all regions have no connection with weather anomaly. The presumption seems to go further: all earthquakes in all regions operate on the same basic set of mechanics.

These presumptions (if I'm correct they exist) would discount a lot of data tangential to EQ mechanics. Thus, I find it interesting that EQ data is accumulated every moment of every day (by either occurrence of an EQ or lack of occurrence of an EQ), yet it is impossible to form some meaningful prediction. The data is constantly coming in, but based upon the operating presumptions, much of it may be discounted because it operates outside the prevailing paradigm.

If there's little or no success, perhaps it is time to revisit the operating parameters of the paradigm. Clearly, the main presumption is that an earthquake is going to occur at some point on a linear time scale. The goal is to predict at what point that earthquake will occur. We do this so as to avert damage and loss of life. The result is attempted prediction on a linear timescale that is central to the human experience. However, given other expressions of mathematical theory - i.e. "chaos" theory and probability - isn't there a better way to express "prediction"? In short, as it regards prediction on an anthrocentric, linear timescale, it might feel good to stop banging one's head against the wall. Perhaps that focus discounts other, more meaningful, forms of prediction expression.

I would assume this has been part of the ongoing debate in the EQ prediction community.

Tony