Well, some people know the words to only one song, and it is unlikely they will
learn any other.
But I do take exception to the idea that a predictor should be required to state
WHY they are making the prediction. How does this make the prediction "scientific".
Someone told me once that science was not interested in motivation, only in fact.
OK let's say every scientific paper should be preceded by not only an abstract
but also a statement of purpose or motivation for writing the paper.
My motivation for writing this post is that Zima told me she doesn't like people
or canines which have a double standard - one for "them" and one for "us".
Apparently the writer of this article believes that predictors must state their
motivation, but he/she does not. Let's see if we can guess the motivation of
the writer: "I don't like earthquake predictors, so I'll write something derogatory",
or "I spent years trying to predict earthquakes, and couldn't do it, so nobody
else can either ...."