Steve/Glen, Steve, I suspect you're being overly-generous, or perhaps justifiably sarcastic, in thanking me for my "constructive criticism." My criticism on this board is generally due more to exasperation than a desire to be constructive (my main contributions to this world have been in other fields). That having been said, I also don't wish to be destructive. I would like to think that I simply try to apply reason to predictive claims. And, in doing that, find that I often don't make the distinction that Glen does, above.

There is certainly a spectrum of claims, ranging from predictions based on psychic phenomena, astrology, propogating "waves" of pseudo-electromagnetism (that carry far more information than information theory says they could, violate the inverse square law and produce audible tones inside people's heads), configurations of astronomical bodies within the Solar system, cloud formations, animals reacting to something that our extremely sensitive instruments cannot detect, and etc., on up through apparently more rational considerations such as patterns of seismicity, changes in P- and S-wave travel times, seismic "gaps", EM signals generated by piezo-electric or other known effects, gas emissions, changes in stress fields, leveling measurements, and combinations of those or other measurable, observable changes. I tend to lump these all together, for reasons I'll get to in a moment, but my strongest attacks here have been on those whose insults to reason, or whose egotistical excesses, have been the most egregious. Steve has only committed a minor violation of the former, and is not overtly guilty of the latter, and my remarks have been correspondingly civil. Likewise, I think, with your own predictions, Glen, and my responses.

Why do I not distinguish much between the various bases of predictions _on these amateur boards_? Two main reasons: 1) there is a certain hubris inherent in all amateur predictions, along with a somewhat disagreeable dismissiveness (or lack of understanding) of modern science and how it operates. Amateur astronomers are often the first to detect a newly-discovered comet, or nova, or some such, but they do NOT, ever, come up with new theories to explain major cosmological mysteries. They do NOT, ever, come up with new, testable theories to explain the physics of black holes which are consistent with other physics. They do not, ever, come up with viable theories to explain matter/anti-matter assymetry. Amateur geologists cannot, on their own, have ever figured out even the basics of plate tectonics (please don't bring up Wegner - for one thing he was a scientist, and, for another, he hadn't a clue as to how the actual motion occurred), and people with only four-year degrees do not discover the cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes. I realize this stance leaves me open to charges of elitism, despite my own social and political leanings toward populism, but my own admiration for reason tempts me to take that chance.

And, 2) To the extent that my own lack of formal training in the field allows me to even have an opinion, I have become nearly convinced that the earthquake nucleation process is fundamentally chaotic. I think, from my readings, that this is likely the majority opinion among professional seismologists (whaddya think, John V.?). I don't think most scientists overtly express the opinion that a useful, practical earthquake prediction scheme can ever be developed, because, even among scientists, that opinion would lead to charges of being closed-minded. But, I think it is akin to asserting that matter cannot exceed the speed of light. Try to get a scientist to say that using the word "never" . . . I think that centuries of failed efforts to predict earthquakes is pretty damned strong evidence. This is not new thinking, yet predictors seem to never take it into account. Seems like a blind spot to me. If the earthquake doesn't even know it's going to happen until it does, then, at the most fundamental level, no practical, useful prediction scheme can ever be developed. Quakes will, on occasion, be preceded by highly anomalous phenomena, but these will be the exception, and certainly not the rule. And those phenomena will occur, on occasion, with no subsequent quake.

Michael Williams (I am not a professional seismologist or scientist of any sort)
Arroyo Grande, CA USA