But your analogy doesn't hold up--the situation with sensitives isn't analagous to that of string theorists. String theorists provide logical arguments to support their claims and subject their theories to scientific scrutiny; sensitives do not; they assume powers that others do not have, assume unknown stimuli transmitted over unknown pathways in random occurrences that have never been directly correlated with the earthquakes that they firmly believe to have caused their symptoms. Well la de da, why don't they investigate all the KNOWN causes of those symptoms, and if they can rule out ALL of those possible causes, THEN perhaps it would be worthwhile investigating unknown causes. However, if it were my headaches, I would search through about 500 pages of potential sources of unknown causes before I ever presumed that earthquakes might be the culprit.

How often have you seen scientific evidence from ANY of the so-called sensitives to back up their claims? Jim Berkland certainly cannot substantiate his claims that Kathi Gory has a near perfect earthquake prediction record, but that doesn't prevent him from making the claims. Until there is some evidence to support the claim that there are sensitives that respond to earthquake phenomena, it is poor science to accept the concept as rational. I would think that, with all the claims of sensitivity that have been plastered all over the web, one or two of them might provide some valid evidence. Show me some good evidence that they are real--any scientific evidence (no anecdotes, please).