I think it’s irresponsible to predict earthquakes without having a valid scientific reason for making the prediction. I feel very strongly that without a good reason, the “prediction” comes very close to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Earthquakes cannot be predicted by sensitives or psychics or sloppy science, yet there are those who claim very firmly that they can. Such nonsense helps promote ignorance, superstition, and bad science. Every time a false prediction is made on an insufficient basis on the web, it has the potential to affect thousands of other people who happen to click on the site because it came up when they were looking for information about earthquakes.

In the case of LW’s prediction, I just hit the board at the wrong time. I don’t read this board very often, and just responded to LW for the heck of it. I wasn’t po’d at anything—I just wanted to make a point that there is no good evidence to back up a prediction on the basis of proton storms—that’s all. I know LW contributes a lot to this board, but I seriously question the value of his subjective rating scheme—it’s like kindergarten where everybody gets A’s whether the work is sloppy or not. Not a great way to figure out who is and who isn’t making progress in earthquake prediction. Roger Hunter’s method would seem to me to be much more meaningful, because it could help determine success in prediction on a more scientific basis. Fact is, the results were so poor when this board was using his method that nobody wanted to continue because it was too embarrassing. Well, sorry, but embarrassment is not a valid reason for scientists to abandon a working prediction-evaluation method.

Your comment about sharing knowledge and data—that’s what I thought I was doing. As far as LW’s scientific credentials, I found out, thanks to Petra, that he has accomplished a lot more than I have or ever will, but I still think he made a reckless prediction because the data is just not there, and his credentials don’t excuse his bad behavior nor do mine. As for your comment about “gut feelings”, I don’t really believe they have any use in a scientific discussion of earthquake prediction. And that’s the quandry for a board like Earthwaves, which has a lot of really nice people who enjoy getting together and talking about earthquakes. Great, good for you, but when you start making predictions, you have got to start using scientific reasoning or you will never make any progress in earthquake prediction. I won’t ever make earthquake predictions on this board until I have gathered enough data that convinces me that my method works. That’s the way scientists work and that’s the way this board should work if it want real progress rather than a pat on the back for lucky guesses.

Thanks for your rational reply. I think I’ll go now. I’m a sucker for a gentle reprimand.