Let's say there was a precursor that was reliable for quakes (and so far, there is not). If a short-term predictor did not understand plate tectonics, he/she would be less likely to get the magnitude or even the location correct. Those who believe in what is virtually scientific fact, plate tectonics, may or may not believe that earthquakes can ever be predicted, but many are working on the problem.

Of course, those who don't believe in plate tectonics are having a problem either with where they get their information, or how they evaluate information, so, yes, it is more likely that someone who does not understand plate tectonics at all is more likely to believe "alternative" methods of prediction. And, professional scientists like Roger (retired) or John (active) or Penny (retired) or me (active) who have been interested in the problem for decades are trained that you don't automatically accept something just because it is posted on the internet. We are skeptics, in my humble opinion (IMHO).

Chris