Amit's question got me to thinking. Let's ponder the question.

"Can earthquakes be predicted?"

If we parse that question as asking if it's possible, I think the honest answer is, "we don't know."

Some may argue otherwise, but I think it's fair to say that overall no one has successfully proven so. A few individuals may have intriguing records, but no one that I am aware of has been able to pass any reasonable test of success, much less demonstrate a scientifically valid method which is documentable, repeatable, and testable.

There may be individual examples of extraordinary success, but as these are one-off's they are darn near impossible to evaluate in any meaningful statistical sense.

On the other hand, the state of the art is such that we can't determine with any certainty that it is possible or not, therefore it is not unreasonable to keep trying.

A not insignificant frustration lies in the problem of eliminating unproven methods from the playing field. There are many methods being proposed, and most can be easily eliminated based on statistical or scientific grounds. Yet, they persist. Why this is so is in part the purview of the psychologists. But the net effect is that any effort to improve upon or seek better methods of possible prediction are hindered by the continued presence of these follies, thus wasting resources and interfering with potential progress.

A great deal of the solution is in education. Effort needs to be maintained - nay, increased - in informing those who venture into the wild wild west of quake prediction that there are ways of evaluating prediction methods. But more, they need to be nformed of why these evaluations are so important - how they work, what they mean, how to understand them.

In part, the scientific community is to blame for not expressing themselves in a way that is understandable to the layperson. So much of what scientists do and how they do it is 'over the heads' of many interested parties, much to the detriment of effectively communicating and building bridges of understanding. Rocket science doesn't necessarily have to be "rocket science". Just find the right words to convey meaning without causing eyes to glaze over in bafflement.

Progress can be made, but only with increased use of the most powerful tool in the human arsenal - knowledge.

Brian