![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd been waiting for the RFC to close before making any edits; and also, the more reading I do, the more I realize that I still need to do more reading. However, based on Elriana's encouragement, I've prepared a proposal in my sandbox, for a revision to the sections on VAN method. I've included a little bit of material on the situation post-2001, and my other main goal was to cut down on the length of the sections. Also, I've pulled some material from old versions of the article into my sandbox -- I haven't formed any opinions yet as to whether any of this material has any merit.
Your comments are invited; or feel free to just start editing this page -- I'll revert anything I feel is not NPOV.
/info/en/?search=User:JerryRussell/sandbox
JerryRussell ( talk) 22:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The most difficult part is to simplify, but it is a necessity. You have to put everything in your sandbox to have all info and see it as a whole, and then start cutting down, day by day at least, leaving enough time to forget and see it fresh again. It is a process that will take more than a week, and my opinion is that you should be left to do it without us commenting in between. When you need an answer you can ask for opinion and when you think you have finished simplification, we can comment on wording. Thank you for your time and effort. --IP202- 46.198.213.62 ( talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
two decades old publications" that are no longer applicable) then claims that there has been no new criticism, and therefore VAN is accepted science. (Even stating on 27 July that: "
Discussion is really over, everything claimed by my point of view is sourced.")
I'm getting the impression here that 'earthquake forecasting' is considered a legitimate seismological study, as opposed to 'earthquake prediction' which is rather disreputable, and seemingly impossible to accomplish on any routine basis that would be socially useful.
This leads me to wonder if this article should be re-named as "Earthquake Forecasting", with "Earthquake prediction" as a re-direct to the new title? The article could then be re-organized, with the highlight on trend methods such as seismicity patterns, etc.
Does anyone know of serious websites where earthquake forecasts are posted for the public? I found that Keilis-Borok and Kossobokov have a site where current M8/Msc forecasts are posted, but it's password protected. And I found a really cheesy-looking anonymous website at www.world-earthquakes.com with many intriguing results posted. Surely there must be something better, but I couldn't find it.
I will say this: if forecasting methods were saying that the big one was coming to the Pacific Northwest, and then radon readings went sky high, geo-electromagnetic precursors appeared at all wavelengths, and the cows headed for the hills, I wouldn't consider it superstitious to get out of Dodge if I could. I could use a vacation anyhow. JerryRussell ( talk) 19:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, I would not want the said information to be broadcast on the local news. A panic would cause crowds at the airport, and make it harder to get a ticket for my getaway. JerryRussell ( talk) 20:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
And the key difference shouldn't be so hard: prediction is particular about time, location, and magnitude, while forecasting is a probablistic estimate over some range of time (usually decades), location, and magnitude. Is this not made clear enough in the lead?
I'm sorry, I'm not finding this clear at all. What if someone says "a 50% chance of an M8+ EQ in the next two years somewhere in the Cascadia Subduction Zone", is that a forecast or a prediction? "Magnitude 6 (+/- .7) somewhere in Greece in the next 22 days", forecast or prediction? I can see why someone might be hesitant to call these 'predictions', but they don't exactly fit your definition of 'forecast' either.
JerryRussell (
talk) 23:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
prediction involves casting an alarm". (And isn't that just what I said just above: "... whether an alarm is issued"?) As you saw in Nature Debates, Geller sees earthquake prediction as "
an alarm of an imminent large earthquake, with enough accuracy and reliability to take measures such as the evacuation of cities." (Or sleeping in one's car.) With a forecast of (say) an M 6.7 or greater quake in the next 30 years we don't issue alarms to evacuate, we issue advisories to do seismic retrofits. Or convince friends and loved ones to move out of those quaint 1920s URM apartment buildings. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
seismo.info, again. previously discussed, and dismissed.
|
---|
"Surely there must be something better, but I couldn't find it" - of course there is: http://seismo.info, with science behind it and the obvious proof. Fascinating. 31.185.124.108 ( talk) 16:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP202, could you provide any additional information about VAN predictions extending from 1996 to the present time? I find the Arxiv article titles to be very cryptic, I have no idea whether there might be 'predictions' embedded in some of those articles. Have any VAN predictions other than the one in 2008 been discussed in any reputable popular publications in Greek?
If JJ wants more data and evidence of notability for VAN after 1996, let's see what we can do to give it to him. JerryRussell ( talk) 01:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I answer my own question to some degree: the article on VAN method states --
The VAN team claim to have successfully predicted twenty five of the 28 major earthquakes from 2001 through 2010 in the region of latitude N 36° to N 41° and longitude E 19° to E 27° with this new analysis. [1]
References
The reference is to the book 'Natural Time Analysis'. Searching Google Scholar turns up 91 citations of this book, many of which appear to be independent research groups.
Perhaps someone has a copy of the book, and could post the section on predictions & results, starting on p. 326? JerryRussell ( talk) 05:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Natural Time Analysis: The New View of Time - Precursory Seismic Electric Signals, Earthquakes and other Complex Time Series Page 296:
Table 7.1 All EQs with Ms(ATH) ≥ 6.0 within N41 36 E27 19 since 2001 along with the relevant SES activities. The cases in parentheses refer to EQs for which the expected magnitude (on the basis of the SES amplitude) was Ms(ATH) ≈ 6.0, but the actual magnitude turned out to be somewhat smaller. The last column gives, in each case, the relevant documentation publicized before the mainshock occurrence, when available. The EQs grouped together refer to almost the same epicentral location.
Date | Epicenter | Magnitude | Station | Date | Publication |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
D/M/Y | ◦N – ◦E | Ms(ATH) – Mw(USGS) | D/M/Y | ||
26/7/2001 | 39.05–24.35 | 5.8–6.5 | VOL | 17/3/2001 | Ref. [41] submitted on 25 March 2001 |
14/8/2003 | 38.79–20.56 | 6.4–6.2 | PIR | 8/8/2003 | Ref. [35] |
31/1/2005 | 37.41–20.11 | 6.2–5.7 | PIR | 17/10/2004 | Ref. [52] |
17/10/2005 | 38.13–26.59 | 6.0–5.5 | MYT | 21/3 and 23/3/2005 | Ref. [51] submitted on 16 April 2005 and Ref. [43] |
(17/10/2005 | 38.14–26.59 | 5.9–5.8 | MYT | 21/3 and 23/3/2005 | Ref. [51] submitted on 16 April 2005 and Ref. [43]) |
20/10/2005 | 38.15–26.63 | 6.1–5.9 | MYT | 21/3 and 23/3/2005 | Ref. [51] submitted on 16 April 2005 and Ref. [43] |
18/10/2005 | 37.58–20.86 | 6.1–5.7 | PIR | 17/9/2005 | Ref. [42] submitted on 22 October 2005 and Ref. [43] |
8/1/2006 | 36.21–23.41 | 6.9–6.7 | PIR | 17/9/2005 | Ref. [42] submitted on 22 October 2005 and Ref. [43] |
(3/4/2006 | 37.59–20.95 | 5.3–5.0 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
(4/4/2006 | 37.58–20.93 | 5.7–5.3 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
(11/4/2006 | 37.64–20.92 | 5.7–5.4 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
(11/4/2006 | 37.68–20.91 | 5.9–5.5 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
(12/4/2006 | 37.61–20.95 | 5.9–5.6 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
25/3/2007 | 38.34–20.42 | 6.0–5.7 | PAT | 8/2/2007 | arXiv:0703683v1 [26 March 2007] |
(29/6/2007 | 39.25–20.26 | 5.7–5.2 | PAT | 23 and 24/4/2007 | arXiv:0703683v5 [15 May 2007]) |
6/1/2008 | 37.11–22.78 | 6.6–6.2 | PAT | 7/11/2007 | arXiv:0711.3766v1 [23 November 2007] and Ref. [21] |
14/2/2008 | 36.50–21.78 | 6.7–6.9 | PIR | 14/1/2008 and 21-26/1/2008 | arXiv:0711.3766v3 [1 February 2008] and Ref. [21] |
14/2/2008 | 36.22–21.75 | 6.6–6.5 | PIR | 14/1/2008 and 21-26/1/2008 | arXiv:0711.3766v3 [1 February 2008] and Ref. [21] |
20/2/2008 | 36.18–21.72 | 6.5–6.2 | PIR | 14/1/2008 and 21-26/1/2008 | arXiv:0711.3766v3 [1 February 2008] and Ref. [21] |
8/6/2008 | 37.98–21.51 | 7.0–6.4 | PIR | 29/2-2/3/2008 | arXiv:0802.3329v4 [29 May 2008] and Ref. [21] |
21/6/2008 | 36.03–21.83 | 6.0–5.6 | PIR | 5/6/2008 | |
14/10/2008 | 38.85–23.62 | 6.1–5.2 | missed | ||
(13/12/2008 | 38.72–22.57 | 5.7–5.2 | PAT | 9/10/2008 | arXiv:0711.3766v5 [7 December 2008]) |
16/2/2009 | 37.13–20.78 | 6.0–5.5 | PIR | 12/12/2008 | arXiv:0707.3074v3 [5 February 2009] and Ref. [47] |
3/11/2009 | 37.39–20.35 | 6.1–5.8 | PIR | 24/10/2009 | – |
(18/1/2010 | 38.41–21.95 | 5.7–5.5 | PAT | 24/10/2009 | arXiV:0904.2465v8 and v9[14 and 27 November 2009]) |
(22/1/2010 | 38.42–21.97 | 5.6–5.2 | PAT | 11/11/2009 | arXiV:0904.2465v8 and v9[14 and 27 November 2009]) |
(9/3/2010 | 38.87–23.65 | 5.6– | LAM | 27-30/12/2009 | arXiV:1003.1383v1 [6 March 2010]) |
--IP202- 46.198.213.62 ( talk) 17:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
--IP202- 46.198.213.62 ( talk) 23:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is a lawsuite against newspapers, after the 2008 earthquake.--IP202- 46.198.213.62 ( talk) 09:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda." Giving "natural time" more prominence than it warrants is advocacy. Likewise for boosting VAN. VAN has been rejected by mainstream scholarship. IP202 is obviously too close to VAN to have a neutral viewpoint on any of this. If he truly wants to contribute to Wikipedia he should consider a different content area.
Seismologists, taking heed of the advice of statisticians, have worked out how to deal with these kinds of problems." How so? Are there any seismologists at all, who are routinely making and publicizing short-term earthquake predictions of any kind, whether they're worried about lawsuits or not, and whether they're taking heed of statisticians or not? I thought you've been telling us that mainstream seismology believes that prediction is probably impossible in principle, and certainly not possible within the existing state of the art.
I agree that charlatans would issue vague predictions, but IP202 has provided an explanation of why VAN must act this way whether they are charlatans or not. They are publishing their actual observations and calculations, and perhaps some day an independent group will review their data and offer a judgment as to whether their revised methods are working or not.
In an article about earthquake prediction, in which the mainstream dismisses all methods as impossible: what is the appropriate weight to give to the only prediction method which publishes their papers in peer reviewed journals, and is still making the claims that they can do this successfully? I think it's appropriate to give enough space to provide a basic, rudimentary explanation of the method. And I find IP202's participation to be very helpful in getting the story straight. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
At ArXiv, the most recent submission I could find from Varotsos is from Aug. 2015. As to my earlier question as to which VAN papers include new SES, seismic or natural time calculations, the answer seems to be "all of them". New papers or updates came out regularly right up until one year ago, then suddenly stopped.
Varotsos retirement is probably not the explanation: many professors go right on doing their research after becoming emeritus. But perhaps something has changed just recently. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
the only prediction method which publishes their papers in peer reviewed journals}. If you mean that VAN publishes their papers in peer reviewed journals, well, yeah, but then so do all the other scientific predictors. But if you mean that only they publish their predictions in peer reviewed journal, sorry, wrong. First, they haven't published any predictions, only their a posteriori claims of prediction. Second, Bakun and Lindh did publish their prediction (in Science), and Kellis-Borok published several predictions. (Have you read the article??)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The recently added section on "Classification" of long, intermediate, and short term prediction is, at best, rather pointless, making arbitrary distinctions of little use. It is also inaccurate. But under that vapid surface is a deep running current of non-neutral POV.
The first clue is the phrase "[e]xcluding solely negative views, its progress has already reached the statistically proven stage
". The "solely negative views" to be excluded are, as we have seen in this discussion, those of all those seismologists who say earthquake prediction (in the more limited sense of prediction) is impossible, while the "statistically proven stage
" refers to VAN, and the VAN proponents' own estimation of "statistically proven".
Any doubt of this POV is dispelled in the next paragraph with: "Precursors [...] are mainly non-seismic and mainstream seismology instrumentation cannot detect them.
" This is the VAN party line, as formulated by Uyeda: that seismologists look at only seismic phenomena, and are too incompetent to read up about the latest non-seismic precursor (i.e., "natural time"). This is entirely and utterly false, as can be seen by even cursory examination of the sources for the
Earthquake prediction#Precursors section. E.g., the ICEF 2011 report explicitly addresses electromagnetic signals, including VAN SES signals. The search for earthquake precursors has been far-reaching (e.g., see the report of the IASPEI - the International Association for Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior), but surely everyone here can figure that out themselves from the sources.
The inherent promotion of VAN in the "Classification" section shows yet again the persistent non-neutral POV of the anonymous editor "IP202". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"Good intentions" is not a factor here, other than someone being here only to promote something (see WP:NOT#SOAP) is a lack of good intentions.
Before you attempt to "clarify" what Uyeda said, check out Uyeda's actual words in his 2013 IWEP presentation.
Just to whet your appetite, I offer some tidbits. The red and bolding are per the original.
- Most precursors are non-seismic, which means cannot be predicted by seismometers.
This is a fetish of his, that seismologists work only with seismometers.
He also attributes the failure to make any predictions in Japan to:
- seismologists kept monopolizing the program, knowing seismology was unfit.
A key theme:
- "EQ Prediction Village" A bureaucrat-academia-industry Complex
Lots of scary disaster pictures, and exclamation marks, then:
- Thus, the "EQ Prediction Village" was established, with guaranteed funds free from burden of making any prediction.
- The further decided that precursor finding is impossible for anybody.
- Therefore, precursor research is NOT science.
But wait, there's more!
- There are signs that EQ prediction is possible by ordinary "science", only if non-seismic precursor search is fully employed.
- In particular, electromagnetic & geochemical phenomena are promising because many successful predictions have actually been achieved.
Gee, who did that?
All of this is very dubious. Do check the source.
See also similar comments in his 2007 Personal View on Short-term EQ Prediction.
I reiterate that the POV I have identified in the "Classification" edits is the very fringe views of Uyeda, a foremost proponent of VAN. And that those edits are inaccurate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
CEPEC notification protocol? Hmm... OK, here's one source. This is already in the source list for the article, though not referenced anywhere. Jordan & Jones 2010 [1] talks about CEPEC having issued a short-term forecast of a 1 to 5 percent chance of a major San Andreas Fault earthquake in late March 2009. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Earthquake prediction is sometimes distinguished from earthquake forecasting ..." to "
Short-term earthquake prediction is sometimes distinguished from long-term or intermediate-term prediction, which is also known as earthquake forecasting", you altered material attributed to Kanamori (2003). And where you wrote that "
Long-term prediction can be defined as the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard ...", well, that is just wrong. These are the particular grounds why I will be reverting your edit.
other practitioners such as Kossobokov[11] claim to have achieved statistically significant results...", what Uyeda et al. really said is: "
intermediate-term prediction of large EQs world-wide is already in the statistically proven stage (e g., Kossobokov et al., 1999)." Basically, a single claim from the 1990s. To even mention this single claim, when later and more authoritative sources deny any such claims, is a violation of WEIGHT.
RTP is the same thing as M8"; it quite clearly (no?) describes the M8 family of algorithms as including the RTP method. It did not (previously) mention MSc because that is not so much a separate method as an extension of M8. If you have any questions on that please consult the cited source, Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, §2.4.
large alarm areas, high error rates (e.g., 30-70% false alarms), and relatively low probability gains limit the practical utility of these methods as deterministic prediction tools." P.S. For more detailed criticism see Kagan & Jackson, 2006.
later and more authoritative sources deny any such claims. It seems very possible to me that M8's probability gain might be relatively small by some criteria, and yet also statistically significant. And I still question whether USGS, CEPEC, Zechar or Hough should be described as "more authoritative" than Keilis-Borok.
I think there's some confusion about RTP. I looked at Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, §2.4 which mentions M8, MSc, ROC and Accord methods from Keilis-Borok, and an RTL (Region-Time-Length) method by Sobolev & Tyupkin, who seem to be part of the same research group. RTP (Reverse Tracing of Precursors) isn't mentioned in Tiampo & Scherbakov, but is described by Keilis-Borok here:
https://www.math.purdue.edu/~agabriel/rtp.pdf
In this paper, RTP is described as a "new approach" rather than part of the M8 family. It's the RTP method rather than M8 that is analyzed in Zechar. Maybe RTP doesn't work even as well as M8. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, this is supposed to be definitive proof that Keilis-Borok is bogus?" as a red herring. Likewise for "
the CEPEC link is dead" (untrue), and "
nameless bureaucratic criticism" (uncalled for). As to "USGS", that covers a LOT of gound. If you are going to wave that around please be so good as to specify which citation you are talking about.
His team of researchers have used new algorithmic methods for earthquake prediction. Keilis-Borok's method has been retroactively applied to 31 cases dating back to 1989, with correlation 25 times (not including two near misses), including the Samoa area quake (September, 2009) and the Sumatra quake (September, 2009). In response to his prediction of an earthquake in California in 2005, US Geological Survey has said: "The work of the Keilis-Borok team is a legitimate approach to earthquake prediction research. However, the method is unproven, and it will take much additional study, and many additional trial predictions, before it can be shown whether it works, and how well." [3]. The California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council determined, "To date there is no evidence that these, or related methods, yield useful intermediate term forecasts." [4] No earthquake occurred in the predicted location or time period.
As to whether Keilis-Borok predictions are "useful" ..." — has anyone said they are useful?
also known as forecasts". That is false, and contrary to the sourced explanation provided in the lede. Also incorrect is the statement that research on short-term prediction "
is focused on finding precursors." And I question whether this short/intermediate/long term distinction really warrants any mention. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jerry, and anyone else adding citations:
1. {{
Citation}} does not need an explicit |ref=CITEREF...
(unless there is some special case thats needs handling), nor even |ref=harv
; suitable CITEREFs are generated automagically.
2. The {{
citation}}
template – unlike the {{
cite xxx}}
templates – does not automatically add a period at the end; this needs to be added manually. (A tip: I usually leave the terminal period off until I have inspected the result and tested any links.)
3. I strongly recommend that the closing pair of braces be put at the beginning of a line. I have considerable experience in this kind of formatting, and tacking the double-brace on the end of a long line (like the idiot doi-bot does) makes it harder to parse one citation from the next, or even to see that there is a closing double-brace.
4. I also recommend (somewhat strongly) putting a space before all vertical bars ("|"), and a space after all equal signs, as this best distinguishes different parameters, and makes the data standout from the labels.
5. Dates should be in "DMY" format. E.g.: "2 August 2016".
Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
--IP202- 94.66.56.26 ( talk) 01:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
being stated with a confidence that VAN group are liars." I am not aware that "stated with confidence" is any kind of offense (in law, or at WP), and there certainly is no statement that VAN group are liars. (No? Then point to it.) Your objections are entirely unfounded.
[a]ccusing anyone of slander is a serious matter and contributes nothing but a dismissive and contentious tone to this discussion." Your edits and discussion are tendentious.
To document prediction VAN has relied on telegrams sent mainly to themselves or close colleagues.[134]Approximately forty telegrams have been disclosed, but there is evidence that hundreds of telegrams were issued (and an unknown number of faxes);[135] it is "impossible to verify that unsuccessful telegrams were not quietly discarded."[136]
I can't read that text without seeing an implication that many telegrams were intentionally disregarded because they were failed predictions, which would be an example of "scientific deceit." If the sources argue that this was done on a non-deliberate or unintentional level, perhaps we should make that clear in the article -- although really it doesn't help VAN much, as it implies a level of incompetence that is perhaps even more shocking than 'moral turpitude' would be in a group of PhD scientists.
If we are looking for a truly benign explanation of the extra telegrams, it would be along the lines of (1) clearly marked as non-predictions, or predictions of sub-threshold events; (2) memos about research projects, papers or personal events that were completely unrelated to earthquakes; or (3) I could see an argument that it would be appropriate or interesting to re-evaluate the entire series of telegrams a posteriori based on some objective criteria applied across the entire series (or a subset) in order to optimize the prediction algorithm. This would be especially appropriate if the telegrams were divided into a 'training' set and a 'test' set.
My point about child's play: if I start by generating 300 completely random earthquake predictions, and then pick the 50 of them that come closest to being correct after the fact, wouldn't it automatically follow that my selected 'predictions' would be enormously better than random chance? Especially if the evaluation criteria can also be adjusted after the fact?
I'm feeling a bit amused at the interplay of euphemism, insinuation and misinterpretation in this discussion. I took Tronvillain's comment about "file drawer effect" as an ironic euphemism for deceitful or inept research practices, and felt that the socially correct response was to laugh and point to another example of an amusing euphemism. In the case of Penn State, if you read the linked article, you'll see that numerous eyewitnesses to the child abuse referred to it as "horsing around", and these euphemistic statements were later taken seriously by other investigators. Turns out Tronvillain was really trying to come up with a benign explanation for VAN results, and was puzzled by my reaction.
Now if the "clowning around" analogy becomes clearly understood here, and I were to then say that we are "clowning around" with VAN, then I would be insinuating that we are engaging in inappropriate behavior with them in the shower.
And before I go any further with that image, let me state categorically that I really do believe we're all doing our best to improve the article. I really appreciate the enormous amount of time and effort that have gone into this discussion, and I personally can say I've learned a lot through the process. I'm very sorry if I've given anyone any impression to the contrary.
I do think it's fair to discuss where the article might be making insinuations or accusations, and especially if it's happening unintentionally. It's all too easy to write materials that can be misinterpreted. Case in point, myself. JerryRussell ( talk) 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
PS -- I was curious about the difference between a 'charlatan' and a 'liar', to the extent that I looked it up. Wiki says
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception....In usage, a subtle difference is drawn between the charlatan and other kinds of confidence trickster. The charlatan is usually a salesperson. He does not try to create a personal relationship with his marks, or set up an elaborate hoax using roleplaying. Rather, the person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them.
Whereas a liar is simply someone who makes false statements intentionally, for any reason. A woman might lie to Nazi stormtroopers at the door, to save her children, to give an example of a lie for a good purpose. To me, that makes 'charlatan' a rather more insulting pejorative than 'liar'. JerryRussell ( talk) 02:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
looking for a truly benign explanation of the extra telegrams": why should we be looking for that? Why, when VAN totally screwed up a basic expectation of making predictions, should we have to make excuses for them? But you seem to have missed essential point: the "entire series of telegrams" is no longer knowable, because, just as Geller said, it is no longer possible to verify what is missing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Reply to: "As to whether VAN claims to have published all their prediction telegrams, good question! Maybe IP202 could find us a citation with a clear statement? JerryRussell (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.66.56.76 (
talk)
The abstract of the paper "Basic principles for evaluating an earthquake prediction method, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1295-1298, 1996 by Varotsos et al" which is the first article in the special issue of Geophysical Research Letters (Vol. 23, No.11, May 27, 1996) published under the title “Debate on VAN” (under the editorship of Robert J Geller) starts as follows:
"A three year continuous sample of earthquake predictions based on the observation of Seismic Electric Signals in Greece was published by Varotsos and Lazaridou [1991]. Four independent studies analyzed this sample and concluded that the success rate of the predictions is far beyond chance. On the other hand,..."
More, the captions of Tables 1 and 2 of Varotsos and Lazaridou [1991] (Latest aspects of earthquake Prediction in Greece based on Seismic Electric Signals, Tectonophysics 188, 321-347, 1991) read:
Additionally, Appendix 3 for Table 4 of the paper mentioned above states that it constitutes the "continuation of Table 1", i.e., the five telegrams which were issued between August 10, 1989 and November 30, 1989.
There are clear statements by VAN that the sample of the predictions was continuous as well as that the list of telegrams was complete, but the editor responsible for writing the section claims that it is "impossible to verify that unsuccessful telegrams were not quietly discarded."[136]"]. The citation No [136] is the following paper: Geller, R. J. (1996a), "Short-term earthquake prediction in Greece by seismic electric signals", in Lighthill, J., A Critical Review of VAN, World Scientific, pp. 155–238. In other words the editor of the section (JJ) proceeded to the above unusual claim (which with no doubt is an unacceptable insinuation) solely based on a citation by Geller. --IP202- 94.66.56.76 ( talk) 18:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S.1 Let's avoid Original Research with examples an keep the section readable. P.S.2 The title of the section under discussion only reflects the feeling on reading the article, not any intention for legal actions. --IP202- 94.66.56.76 ( talk) 18:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
solely based on a citation by Geller", it is a quite reasonable question likely to occur to any attentive reader of just the VAN sources. And all of these allegations of insinuations are bullshit.
"Given that such 'predictions' are considered open for up to 2 months, much of the 8 year period was covered. Thus, 'success' by chance is likely, especially since alarms were preferentially issued during heightened seismic activity."-- tronvillain ( talk) 21:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me for jumping in late, but when VAN issue an prediction, do they specify some kind of range of expected location, time, and magnitude of the earthquake? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 00:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
"It is not Geller's duty to prove that VAN's list of predictions are incomplete, it is a requirement laid on VAN to show their record is complete."My understanding is that it's considered appropriate for scientists to allow their data to be reviewed by their journal review editors based on reasonable doubts, but it's not considered reasonable for just anybody to get access to lab notebooks on demand. In this case, VAN sent the telegrams to several destinations including some independent ones, so any subterfuge could have been detected, as I said earlier.
"I think it is more like, given the kind of mess we see above, no one has patience for them."The other side of that coin is, anyone who does see any value in it, has taken the Kool Aide and become a member of the cult! Or in Wiki terms, they're no longer an "independent reputable source". What's a little unusual is, these cult members keep getting their materials through peer review. And in 2008, apparently for the first time in quite awhile, a major Greek newspaper ran with one of their reports; you know what happened next. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
not an actionable libel in the USA" is NOT because of (as you say) "
various technical legal reasons". It is because, for lack of an essential element, there is no libel. And what ever the law may be in Greece is entirely irrelevant here, so repeatedly harping on that is a red herring.
access to lab notebooks on demand" is another red herring. Allen's sixth requirement for a valid prediction is:
6. It must be written down and presented in some accessible form so that data on failures are as easily obtained as data on successes.
help the 2008 section get rid of the UNDUE tag". But beyond that I no more time today to consider his comments. Though in editing I see the use of the word "spectacular". I don't think so. Just more of the hype we see so much of from VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk)
For earthquakes, we find the 12-month probability for magnitude m>6 earthquakes in California increases from about 30% after the last event, to 40%–50% prior to the next one.What would it take to impress you? Maybe "spectacular" is a bit over the top, but this works for me as evidence VAN has found an interesting approach. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
JJ, I'm sorry I missed this earlier. I have trouble following densely threaded interpolations, they don't necessarily show on my watchlist. I see your point about 'natural time' being largely irrelevant to the topic of this section, and I've tried moving it up to the 'methods' section. As to the rest, the text scrupulously uses the words 'alarm' or 'report' rather than 'prediction'. I agree these are not 'predictions' according to the precise definition used in the literature of this field. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
IP202, I would repeat my advice to retract your defamation charges, and especially please retract any hint that JJ is acting in bad faith. You've been warned that he is going to take this behavior of yours and ask for a range block.
Thanks for calling my attention to your post above, about Rundle et al. I agree that reference should help establish notability for 'natural time' concept.
I disagree that the article does not currently reply to the claims that physics of VAN method is impossible, and that EMI is not rejected. The structure of the section is: 1st paragraph, VAN claims that SES may be used to predict earthquakes; 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, objections by critics; 4th paragraph, ongoing debate including references to Lighthill, GRL and Uyeda, where further discussion and debate may be found. We could make it a little clearer, but it's not that bad.
We should probably take up your concerns about VAN method article, at that article's talk page. I'll put it on my watch list. Information about VAN replication efforts in China, Mexico, Italy etc. might be helpful for this page as well, but Mary L-V's opinion is not going to be viewed by Wiki standards as an independent RS regarding those replications. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I've read that the public was reassured by seismologists before the L'Aquila EQ, that there was no evidence of an imminent earthquake. Those seismologists were subsequently convicted of manslaughter. The article insinuates that Giulani's prediction the evening of 5 April was invalid. I wonder if anyone interviewed the 'relatives, friends and colleagues' who were allegedly warned? ICEF is cited as the source for the claim that Giulani's prediction was 'invalid' but I think that's not exactly what ICEF said.
Before leaping into making changes to the article, I thought I'd begin here at the talk page, and ask if anyone else has perceptions about the L'Aquila event. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
not exactly what ICEF said"? Why don't you look at the source and know what they said? Would
At least two of the predictions (on February 17 and March 30) were false alarms. No evidence examined by the Commission indicates that Mr. Giuliani transmitted to the civil authorities a valid prediction of the mainshock before its occurrence.
The American Geophysical Union had invited him to present his work to its members in San Francisco.
As it turned out, Giuliani's presentation last December went very well. The Americans may not hold a candle to the Italians in matters of disaster management (compare New Orleans to L'Aquila), but they appreciate a free and independent spirit of scientific enquiry. The evidence Giuliani presented aroused intense interest and debate, and the AGU subsequently invited him to take part, with Chapman University and Nasa, in developing a worldwide seismic early warning system.
In particular, there is a real possibility that within a few years, combining large amounts of data and information, particularly from satellites, scientists will be able to forecast earthquakes. The Chapman team works closely with NASA and FEMA scientists and is part of a select group of international scientists who communicate amongst themselves in order to validate earthquake precursor signals, indicating an impending earthquake.JerryRussell ( talk) 19:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
a real possibility that within a few years ... scientists will be able to forecast earthquakes", is malarky. (From their mention of "precursor signals" I presume they are using forecast synonymously with prediction.)
Earthquake prediction ... appears to be on the verge of practical reality" (1973), to "
may be possible within 10 years" (1976), "
at least 10 years, perhaps more" (1978), up to "
predicting earthquakes is challenging and may be possible in the future" (2012). The topic of earthquake prediction is ever promising - at a superficial level. It is the history, and perhaps most significant lesson, of seismology that: it's not so simple. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
a worldwide seismic early warning system" - well, that is entirely uncredible. Not only is there no evidence of any such invitation, Chapman University - a private, religious college, not noted for any strength in its scientific staff - is hardly in a position to implement any such world-wide system. There are people associated with NASA that have such pretensions, but that is on the basis of EM signals, not radon. The bottom line: the Guardian article is, to a large extent, a puff piece, and not to be relied on. Of course it is intriguing, that's by design, to get people to read it. It differs from rank sensationalism only in degree, and it's not what we do at Wikipedia.
just a difference in vocabulary". Sure, they merge, but there is a BIG difference between saying "there is a 50% chance of a damaging quake within 30 years in this region", and saying more definitely "There's going to be an EARTHQUAKE!" with an implied narrow specificity of MAJOR, HERE, and SOON! Especially when post-event focusing is applied.
free individuals can make their own choices" is meaningless. Note that this notion is often qualified with "informed". But how can any individual be so informed on all things, and so competent at resolving contradictory information, as to make optimal choices? We can't, therefore we must rely on those who are more informed, and more competent. I.e., experts. So when the mayor of Sulmona was told he had as little as six hours to take appropriate measures, how much time can he take, and then the residents take in turn, in assessing Giuliani's warning?
Pulinets S.A., Ouzounov D.P., Davidenko D.V. Earthquake Prediction is Possible!? Integral technologies of multiparameter monitoring the geoeffective phenomena within the framework of integrated lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere coupling model, Moscow, Trovant Publ., 2014, 144 p (in Russian)so I guess he's another one of those that don't agree with Geller's pessimism. Here's his complete CV which runs to 19 pages and 334 items: [9] Giuliani's paper is item 11.
a worldwide seismic early warning system" is quite incredible, in that no one has made any system (based on EM, radon, frogs, or whatever) that has predicted earthquakes in any useful sense of "prediction". It is quite unlikely there will be any such system based on radon. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
conduct issues only on user talk pages", were you perhaps thinking that user talk pages are only for conduct issues? Not so!) While here is the proper place to discuss what should go (or not) into the article, or how to assess various material and sources, discussion of our own particular views and judgments might be more appropriately on a user talk page.
I think a better approach is top-down: consult reviews of the topic by the top-rated experts to determine what sub-topics (breadth) the article should cover;
-- sounds like a good idea. Any reviews you'd like to recommend?
More on Giuliani at Italian Wikipedia, confirming that he spoke at the AGU conference in San Francisco: 2
Pullinet's team looks formidable: 1 JerryRussell ( talk) 04:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As VAN authors/promoters are trying to hijack the article, why not look at real science behind seismicity: http://seismo.info, with science behind it and the obvious proof. Fascinating stuff. 31.185.124.108 ( talk) 16:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As this topic was opened by an anonymous IP spamming some previously discredited nonsense, and has little prognosis for improving the article, perhaps some passer-by would kindly close it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
As several editors have commented that "the entire topic" of earthquake prediction is fringe, it seems necessary to address this. I suspect this notion arises from not fully understanding the difference between the idea, view, position, or claim that prediction of earthquakes is possible (either generally, or by particular methods), and the scientific study of whether such prediction is possible.
As an example: claims that animals anticipate earthquakes are rejected by most scientists, and therefore are "fringe", per WP:FRINGE. But studies of whether animals have anticipated earthquakes - done scientifically, and not, say, by post-event interviews of pet owners - are generally accepted as scientific contributions, and therefore are not fringe.
Same thing for "earthquake prediction" as a whole. Whether earthquakes might have any precursory or recurring characteristics is a proper and acceptable topic of scientific study. It is also notable, due to great societal interest (even by lay-persons), and having accumulated a large literature. To summarize plain and simple: earthquake prediction, as a subject or field of scientific study, is not fringe. And it is notable.
The view that prediction of earthquakes 1) has not been successfully demonstrated, and 2) may even be inherently impossible (repugnant as this seems to many WP editors, and even to a few scientists who claim they have predicted earthquakes), is not fringe either, because it is "broadly supported by scholarship in its field
". As amply cited in the article itself. (Although likely less clear than before, due to accumulated deletions and alterations.) ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
practically the entire subject of the article is Fringe." That was out of place, as it was not a subject of the RfC, and I would say it is wrong. But closing such an extended discussion is such a thankless job (and good help hard to find) that I didn't want to belabor Geogene about it. That you or anyone else should think this subject is fringe arises (I believe, and as I have said) from not understanding the distinction between 1) a view that earthquake prediction is possible (either generally, or by some specific method), and 2) the scientific study of whether such prediction is possible.
useful, successful and proven earthquake prediction methods", there is no article, because there are no such cases (impassioned advocacy notwithstanding); that is an empty set, on account of those three qualifying words. Nor is the subject just about methods (successful or not), as without knowing something about the nature and challenges of prediction generally the reader cannot assess the credibility of either methods or specific claims of prediction.
I've been reading thru the ICEF report as JJ suggested, which was excellent advice to get a broader view of the field. I found this definition on p. 327 for the difference between prediction and forecasting.
Predictions and forecasts both make statements about future earthquake activity based on information available at the time; that is, they provide prospective (before-the-fact) rather than retrospective (after-the-fact) earthquake information. In this report, the Commission distinguishes between a prediction and a forecast using a strict dichotomy. A prediction involves casting an alarm — an assertion that one or more target ruptures will occur in a specified subdomain of space (subregion) and future time (subinterval). Predictions are therefore prospective deterministic statements: if a target event occurs in the alarm subdomain, the prediction is a true alarm; otherwise it is a false alarm (or type-I error). If a target event occurs in a subdomain without an alarm, the error is a failure-to-predict (or type-II error). A prediction can also be cast as an anti-alarm, a deterministic statement that no target rupture will occur in a subdomain [33]. Forecasts are prospective probabilistic statements: they specify the probabilities that target events will occur in space- time subdomains. The probability in a particular subdomain is a number P that ranges between 0 (no chance of a target event) and 1 (certainty of a target event).
Based on this, isn't it a trivial matter to convert any prediction into a forecast, and vice versa? Beginning with a prediction, simply add an estimate of the expected success rate as a probability, and voila, it's a forecast. And if you've got a forecast, just set a threshold of probability of an EQ above which you will issue an alarm, and you've got a prediction.
Personally, it's an easy choice. I want to be in the forecasting business. JerryRussell ( talk) 01:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
In his 1st article in the Nature debate series, Geller says:
The public, media, and government regard an 'earthquake prediction' as an alarm of an imminent large earthquake, with enough accuracy and reliability to take measures such as the evacuation of cities. 'Prediction' is used exclusively in the above sense here...
That makes sense too, but it's a different definition from the ICEF above. It's not a clean demarcation, unless you specify the parameters for "enough accuracy and reliability" that would make such predictions useful for the defined purpose. JerryRussell ( talk) 02:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
[a] prediction involves casting an alarm". Geller constrains the scope of such alarms as involving earthquakes large enough and imminent enough to justify evacuation of cities. Which (as seen at L'Aquila) can be quite a dilemma for the public officials. In an earlier version of this article Geller is quoted as to what would happen in Japan if 'anomalous data' are recorded:
an ‘Earthquake Assessment Committee’ (EAC) will be convened within two hours. Within 30 minutes the EAC must make a black (alarm) or white (no alarm) recommendation. The former would cause the Prime Minister to issue the alarm, which would shut down all expressways, bullet trains, schools, factories, etc., in an area covering seven prefectures. Tokyo would also be effectively shut down.
how do you respond to a forecast that (and let's assume on very certain information) there will be an M 8 earthquake within the next two years?but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the article content & structure, so I'm going to post it to your talk page. JerryRussell ( talk) 03:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
the determination of parameters for the next strong earthquake to occur in a region." That is the public's general conception of prediction, for all "next" that are soon enough and strong enough to warrant an alarm.
JJ, I apologize that I used incorrect Wiki terminology for redirects, as explained at WP:R. A redirect is considered a 'page' but not an 'article'. I was meaning to talk about redirect pages with no content.
Right now, we have an "Earthquake forecasting" page which is simply a redirect to this article, and has no content. In my opinion, some of the precursor methods may have some merit for short-term forecasting, even if they have failed as prediction methods.
So just to be clear, my proposal is:
1) Change the name of our existing article to 'Earthquake Prediction and Forecasting'.
2) "Earthquake Prediction" to become a redirect page pointing to this article.
3) From this article, per WP:SPINOFF, we create a new article called "Earthquake Precursors". This is less confusing than calling it "EQ Prediction", even though it would be covering all the methods that purport to be EQ prediction methods. According to the mainstream, these methods are generally deprecated for alarm purposes. By spinning off this material, I believe we would be able to overcome the existing article's problems with undue weight on the fringe idea that these precursors are actually useful as predictors.
I agree we could also go ahead with separate articles for 'prediction' and 'forecasting', and that see-also cross-links and templates would be a reasonable alternative to solve the problems we've been working with. But I feel pretty strongly that apart from specialists, almost everyone would consider "EQ forecasting" and "EQ prediction" as synonymous terms, and that my proposal is a good way to handle this confusion. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
all the methods that purport to be EQ prediction methods" is confused because you are still hung-up on supposed issues of undue weight and fringe. I particularly reject your insinuation that the article has "
problems with undue weight on the fringe idea that these precursors are actually useful as predictors." I have tried to make the article quite clear that the mainstream view is that all these precursors are not "actually useful as predictors". (And taken flack for not being "neutral".) If something contrary is been slipped in point it out and we can remove it.
separate articles for 'prediction' and 'forecasting'". So it is quite unclear what you want. I suggest that any proposal on how this topic area might be covered with various articles really should have an outline of the particular topics each article would have. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
46.198.213.62 (IP202?) suggested a new version of the contingency table for successful & unsuccessful earthquake predictions. The new table presents a second alternative alarm type: a 'state alarm' as opposed to a 'public alarm'. I'm not sure I understand what this means. It sounds like maybe the state is trying to notify only specific parties? If so, I see enormous liability as well as information security issues.
But perhaps more importantly, all material needs to be sourced. Otherwise it's Original Research. The pre-existing contingency table doesn't give a source either, but it seems to follow the sourced text very closely, so it seems OK to me. I would say that unless IP202 can provide a reference, the new table needs to go. JerryRussell ( talk) 05:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
If Quake | If No Quake | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cost in Lives | Economic cost | Cost in Lives | Economic cost | |
Public Alarm | min due to EQ
max due to panic |
max, to be on guard
economic disruption insurances until EQ EQ losses |
max due to panic | max, to be on guard
economic disruption |
Government Alarm | moderate due to EQ | some, to be on guard
EQ losses |
some, to be on guard | |
No Alarm | max due to EQ | EQ losses |
JJ, I don't have a strong preference about this. But, Wiki's article on the topic Mac and Mc together agrees that sorting Mc and Mac together is a longstanding practice as you say, but also that ISO 999 and modern style guides such as Chicago Manual of Style recommend separating Mc and Mac so that names will be sorted as they are spelled. JerryRussell ( talk) 15:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
"Headship"?? What an intriguing term. Googling on it finds:
For "headship alarm" we get:
And so forth. In the context of alarms this term "headship" is quite novel, even unknown. As IP202 didn't bother with any sourcing it does appear that he is just making it up. "Original", yes, but I wouldn't deign to connect this with "Research".
"State alarm" (meaning, I presume, "state" as in government, and not "state of alarm") is also novel. But it fits right in with Varotsos' mode of issuing "predictions" only to some government agency, and letting the government (Minister) have the burden of issuing, or not issuing, a public alarm. That way, if something happens, they can always say "we told you!" If not, just let it pass. Or complain that a "prediction" was not supposed to made public. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
would very much like to see" some sources on your table? Wow, so would we. How about where you found the table? Oh, it appears you just made it up. (I won't ask where you got it, as I think we all have a pretty good idea.) Well, the absolute first principle at Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. No sources? It doesn't belong here. And you are just wasting our time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
In Greece this model seems to work just fine.IP202, this is a fascinating claim. Please clarify how you know this?If you can't provide a source, are you stating that you have inside information that isn't known to the Greek public?
The new table clearly demonstrates that JJ's table is Original Research." That is completely bull fart. Which is to say, offends the nose, but has absolutely no substance. He made something up, something that appears to be quite novel in the field of forecasting, with entirely unknown (and undefined) terms, and zero sources. When called on that, he promptly turns around accuses me of Original Research. (A pattern we've seen before, where he is good at echoing what anyone else says.)
JJ, as you suggested I'm opening a new section for this discussion.
IP202's third reference, ↑, "Communication of Emergency Public Warnings", Mileti & Sorensen 1990, section 3.1.3, asserts that "the public simply does not panic in response to warnings of impending disasters", except in very narrow circumstances that would rarely apply to EQ predictions. Also it states that the "cry wolf" syndrome is greatly overrated, and that people can understand that false alarms are part of the game. It says that people prefer to have access to multiple sources of information, if possible. All of this seems to be relevant to the text & contingency table in the "Evaluating EQ Predictions" section. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
the public simply does not panic in response to warnings of impending disasters", even though several ocassions of panic are noted in the article. You cite the same source that the "cry wolf" syndrome is overrated, even though that is not mentioned in the current text, and certainly not in the table. But, keeping in mind it was only a month or so ago that IP202 disparaged papers from 1996 as "two decades old" and therefore no longer applicable, I point out that your source is from 1990. More relevantly, also supplanted by later sources, such as Atwood & Major (1998), who said there is a "cry wolf" effect. But so what? What has that to do with the table? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
views about IP202's issue" when (as far as I can see) IP202 has not raised any issue?
carefully read both sources, as well as to do research to find out if there has been more relevant work in the field since 1998." Why? Because you think "panic" is too subjective? Hey, take a look around: ALL terms are subjective, when you take a really close look at them. Perhaps you want we should just put this article on hold until all of the words used in it can be re-defined to remove every last bit of subjectivity? That would be absurd. As it is, I believe every instance of the use of "panic" in the article (if that is your issue?), including the existing table, is based on suitable sources, and presents no more problem here than it does in the sources. This article could use more work, but trying to find "
objective measures of public panic" where it is not at issue doesn't warrant any priority. It is an utter waste of time. If you have a question, fine, ask, but I don't see any issues here that warrant discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
JJ, would you consider humoring us by changing the text in the table for the false alarm box to: "False alarm: cost of alarm, public distraction and reduced economic productivity. 'Cry Wolf' effect?"
I can't easily make the change because I don't have the source file for the "Alarm_dilemma.png" graphic.
JerryRussell (
talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
timing is also left outside"?), but he seems incapable of making definite statements about what is bothering him. (Aside, that is, from anything that might cast the slightest doubt on VAN.) But no matter how much he quibbles, it is just as you said: the basic dilemma is the same. No matter how one sets the decision threshold, there is always a trade-off.
It seems to me that with his most recent posts, IP202 has painted himself into a corner. He's already admitted that there are no sources available to back his claim that "state alarms" are being secretly given to "headships" in Greece, and I don't see how he could make that claim without having some sort of inside information. I think this creates an apparent WP:COI, the extent of it is hard to judge without a specific declaration on IP202's part.
In accordance with the outing policy, it's not proper to press IP202 for more information. But with this evidence of a COI, and with all the complaints from JJ about IP202's bias -- I feel I'd also like to ask that IP202 not make any edits directly to the page? Come here first, and let's discuss. That's what always happens anyhow. JerryRussell ( talk) 20:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
"...such as (typically) a prediction of an earthquake at either 300 km "N.W" of Athens, or 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.? I think you're right, you and I had agreed that selection of two examples from a list is OR evaluation of primary source material, and we should have removed it. I apologize for the delay. I'm removing it now. Hopefully JJ will agree too.
JJ, if you had an article about some temple of Kali, and you chose two images showing Kali eating babies (out of hundreds that might show the fine architecture of the temple, and many more images showing Kali doing good deeds) then of course there would be complaints about OR, NPOV, and so forth. I don't know if you follow any political articles, but I've seen major brouhahas about choice of candidate photos.
Varotsos & Lazaridou 1991 is hidden by a paywall, but Varotsos et al 1996a is at Google Books preview, and I couldn't find where the two examples you cited were singled out from among many others. I could easily have missed something, I suppose. I found an appendix describing three EQ predictions, with copies of long, rambling telegrams giving explicit yet vague predictions in a way almost defying summary or description.
The text clearly states that VAN has been criticized for lack of precision in their predictions, so I don't see any violation of neutrality here. The section is still too long (giving disproportionate attention to VAN as it is), so I think that removal of text is generally a good thing. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
[W]here the two examples [I] cited were singled out from among many others" would be in the sources (as cited). The sources (all VAN) selected what telegrams to publish, and it seems fair enough to assume (especially reading the context) they were trying to show how thorough they were. There is, absolutely, no original research in "selecting" those items as representative examples.
added only to support Geller's point of view". (And then you took the bait and removed that material.) This is IP202's persistent theme, to reduce all criticism of VAN to "Geller's point of view", as if all this is just an inconsequential dispute between VAN on one side and "Geller" (and yours truly) on the other side. That persistent and one-sided theme, being contrary to the preponderance of expert sources, shows (yet again) IP202's deep-seated bias, from which a conflict of interest is reasonably inferred. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
had agreed that selection of two examples from a list is OR evaluation of primary source material", and thus improper. This "had agreed" apparently refers to your comment of 03:17, 15 Aug. in the #Libel on VAN 1983-1995 section (where it was actually off-topic):
The selection of two examples [examples] is intended, as it says, to be a typical representation of problems with VAN predictions, namely a lack of precision. The selection could be criticized as "Original Research" but then again it might be equivalent to an obvious application of simple arithmetic.
has nothing to offer to VAN method itself". As if this article and everything in it must orbit VAN. So while COI editors are often allowed to participate at talk pages, IP202's participation here has been entirely disruptive in miring us in a morass of VAN, VAN, VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"Are you ready for that fight?"
It's basically your choice, and my guess is you would probably get a topic ban or range block if you ask for it. I'm hoping you won't do that. If you look around at my editing projects at Wiki, you'll see I'm often working on fringe topics. I try to do it in a way that conforms to policy, but I do appreciate IP202's expertise about VAN.
JerryRussell (
talk) 00:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
work[ing] with us to get to a neutral treatment of the VAN topic." Whether he "
understands NPOV in principle" is rather irrelevant, as his activity (and that of the first Athenian editor) have been persistently non NPOV. That some of his "concerns" are plausibly valid on their face and considered in isolation is to naively miss the ploy: the selective use of a general rule. E.g., to cite NPOV ("balance") for adding VAN-positive comments and sources, but to cite length for removing alleged "negative" materiel. It's like typing an "F", then a "U", then the key below the "F", then a key below the "U", and considered in isolation all those acts are quite innocent. Right? But seeing the result right in your face, especially multiple times, is not so innocent.
Please have a look at June 6 version of VAN, compared to today's size, which has been built on details under the negative point of view on VAN. There was an ongoing talk on the talk page, admins were called, but JJ kept on building anti-VAN content without listening and by reverting all IP202 edits. If Jerry had not appeared, JJ's hill would be a mountain now.--IP202- 77.69.68.33 ( talk) 16:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I do agree with the points raised concerning not keeping the biased examples in the section and keep it in a logical size.
JJ' s unusual demand that nothing from his writing could be deleted or shortened does not serve Wikipedia. He has systematically excluded, without consensus, all VAN published responces to the criticism presented in the article, and just added, without consensus, more detail of the criticism to make it harder to be handled. This is not fair. This extends in the electromagnetics section:
We cannot know who is right and who is not and in what extent, but when detail is presentend in criticism and is left hanging out there as if there was no published explanation/answer to the specific accusations, this imprints. If JJ insists in being absolute and not willing to contribute in consensus, I guess tagging back VAN section (perhaps EM also) could save my time and energy, too.--IP202- 176.92.153.150 ( talk) 16:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The reader is left with the impression that it is impossible for SES to travel such long distances....". And why shouldn't the reader take away that impression? The current text says (with additional qualifying details) that "
an analysis ... showed" this was impossible. A statement supported by sources. (I believe that is your language.) He hasn't suggested an alternative text, he just wants to remove any hint of impossibility. It seems that wants to leave the impression that such travel IS possible. He is using the criterion of length to steer the content more favorably.
JJ kept on building anti-VAN content without listening and by reverting all IP202 edits", that without Jerry's timely intervention "
JJ's hill would be a mountain now." Which is just out and out bullshit. But more to the point: your comments are contrary to fact. In fact, through June, July, and August it was YOU (or your associate) making the article longer, with multiple large edits. (E.g.: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and those are only the larger edits for June.) Of your very few and insignificant deletions, the largest appears to be this removal of some embarrassing details you would rather suppress. In blaming me for the growth of the VAN section you have it backwards: it is due primarily to YOUR edits. Your statement was intentional, and it is FALSE. Which is to say: you lied.
reverting all IP202 edits", and in an earlier comment, that I have "
excluded, without consensus, all VAN published responces...." All? You have quite disingenously implied that I am the only editor opposing you (just as you have insinuated that all VAN criticism is due to Robert Geller). In fact, I have not reverted "all" of your edits, and even in reverting some of your disputed additions I was joined by Ismabard Kingdom, Volunteer Marek, and William Connolley. Again, your statement is false: you lied, and repeatedly.
Nobody is "lying" here, we just all have different points of view. There seems to be some confusion about what "alternative text" was asked for, or provided, when and where.
As to reasons why the article is too long, isn't it the fact that both of you are correct? IP202 and other Greek editors started the ball rolling by making many additions to the text, beginning in June. Much of their added text was reverted, but some was kept, and then JJ added more text too. I've played my part as well, right? And I'm not advocating deleting any of it from Wikipedia, just asking if we can offload some of the detail to the VAN method article.
JJ, are you asking for a proposal for an alternative, shortened text for this article? JerryRussell ( talk)
might have forgotten or reverted" his supposed alternative text, as if he really had proposed some alternative text (not true), and therefore it is my fault that he insinuated I was lying. So while he fake-graciously excuses me for "
an unintentional forgivable lie", he still claims a "lie".
statements about the impossibility of VAN signal transmission and reception" as "derogatory" is so very non-neutral as to raise a question of your impartiality. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
a statement that the stating party believes to be false and that is made with the intention to deceive.Therefore IP202's formulation "
an unintentional forgivable lie" was a bizarre contradiction in terms, such that I felt the appropriate response was to give IP202 an English lesson. I think his meaning was clear, though, that he felt the false statement (if any) was unintentional and forgiveable. (For whatever it's worth, I do also presume IP202 would stand by the view that your position is not neutral with respect to VAN.)
IP202 has made false statements." I am saying that by his own standard he is a liar.
a failure to communicate": yup. In a large part it comes from people vaguely waving their hands around without actually pointing to what they are talking/complaining about. I am not a mind-reader (are you?), and anyone that can't make a clear statement of what they think they are thinking has no basis to complain of a communications failure.
is not neutral with respect to VAN": well, of course. That is the key issue in ALL of this: IP202 wants everything to be "neutral" with respect to VAN, with an assumption of equal validity. But that would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE, and not the standard we use. The standard we use is relative to mainstream views. Except that he doesn't want even the false balance of equal validity and equal presentation, he wants the VAN pov boosted (for balance!) while the criticism is removed (because the section is too long!). (E.g., see his latest comment.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
JJ, on several occasions IP202 has posted links to information online, or even substantial excerpts from articles hidden behind paywalls. I don't have a big budget to buy access, nor convenient access to a library, so this has been very helpful to me in understanding the issues. Also, he has frequently pointed out areas where (in my opinion) the treatment of VAN has not met NPOV criteria.
I have not attempted to "justify" IP202's incivility on the basis of his contribution. I have attempted to explain it ("make excuses") on the basis of his limited English skills, and possibly different cultural and legal standards in Greece. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Since you've reminded me about IP202's indication that he has been a long-term Wikipedian, I went to look up that thread. Here's the exchange:
IP202: I have not seen that nerve before anywhere in Wikipedia, all my years here.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
jj: All your years? Your earliest edit as "77.69.80.202" is 12:25, 5 June 2016, not even a month ago. If you have edited from other addresses, or have other history here, you should disclose that to avoid any taint of sock puppetry. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
At the time, I remember parsing this in lawyer-like fashion, and concluding that perhaps IP202 had been using Wiki for the purpose of reading articles, and had never seen such bias. Or that maybe he'd just been reading talk pages. But, that does seem like a stretch to give him the benefit of the doubt. It does read more like a confession that IP202 has edited under multiple IP accounts, or under an earlier registered account.
WP:VALIDALT gives a number of legitimate reasons why an IP editor might use multiple accounts for editing, while WP:ILLEGIT lists inappropriate uses. Since IP202 has declined to declare his earlier edit history, this would be another possible topic for an AN/I investigation.
I'm disappointed to see that IP202 has disregarded my recommendation that he defer from editing the article. So much for any gentleman's agreement that existed in my imagination. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Even aside from SPA and advocacy issues, IP202's English is really bad enough that he shouldn't be editing. I've reverted him, and attempted to clean up a grammatical error that existed in the paragraph. Basically I think the paragraph in question was correct and neutral as it stood. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible.You changed that to read
Earthquake prediction is claimed to be intrinsically impossible.So the original was in Wiki voice, which would be appropriate if this is the consensus among seismologists. Based on everything I've read, this is probably true: everybody is at least concerned that it might be impossible, especially if by "prediction" is meant "reliable and skillful prediction" for purposes of evacuating cities. Whereas you changed it to speak in source voice, as if this was a controversial proposition. Whether intentional or not, your change to the first paragraph was strongly in favor of VAN, and IMO rendered it in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
"These theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible are still disputed."You changed it to
"These theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible are disputed."If there's any difference in meaning between those two formulations, it's certainly subtle. But, I thought that both formulations went beyond the citation from 1999. I have no idea whether there's an ongoing dispute about this topic. Accordingly, I put that sentence in past tense,
These theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible have been disputed.If anything, I think that change is also unfavorable to VAN. That is, the implication is that no one has argued specifically against the intrinsic impossibility of EQ prediction since 1999. And one can hardly claim that VAN successes are a counter-argument, inasmuch as VAN has not demonstrated that they have overcome their problem with high false alarm rate. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
IP202, thanks for checking my edits. Again I'm hoping that JJ will join our consensus. With respect to "two more unresolved issues", here are my views.
In the paragraph following "taken as a whole", the article states that VAN had an opportunity to reply to their critics in the GRL and Lighthill publications, and citations are given for both of those volumes. This seems sufficient to me, and it might be undue weight or citation overkill WP:OVERSITE to provide more detail.
In the paragraph about the Pirgos 1993, the main point of the paragraph is that Uyeda claimed that lives were saved, but Chouliaris & Stavrakakis disputed this. It's already mentioned that Varotsos' public statement of Feb 26 was unclear as to whether any predictions were being withdrawn, and that further predictions followed after March 5, which were not released to the public. So again it seems to me that the existing paragraph is complete & accurate, and further detail or more citations are unnecessary. However, the information that Varotsos issued a warning to the government on March 24 might be relevant -- but only if there's any evidence that the government took some action based on that warning, and that lives were saved by government actions. Does L-V 2013 mention anything to that effect? JerryRussell ( talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
JJ, thanks for finding the link to that old discussion. IP202's comment was: The selection of the two examples has been done with unjustified criteria, using only secondary sourced material. These examples are equal to examples of success that are omitted.
I replied, in full:
The selection of two examples "such as (typically) a prediction of an earthquake at either 300 km "N.W" of Athens, or 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit" is intended, as it says, to be a typical representation of problems with VAN predictions, namely a lack of precision. The selection could be criticized as "Original Research" but then again it might be equivalent to an obvious application of simple arithmetic. I would have no objection if you were to pull out a couple of examples of 'successful' predictions in which the location, time and amplitude of the quake were all predicted accurately in advance. On the other hand, I would also have no objection if someone were to strike the text about the two predictions as WP:OR, but it's better if we can agree with JJ here in the talk section so that we don't get into edit warring.
There was no reply to that from you or IP202 in the paragraphs that followed, so I asked again:
Also, the selection of two examples from a huge list seems to be a possible violation of WP:OR. I suggested that maybe IP202 could select a couple of counter-examples, but that might be just more OR, and also lengthen an article section that's already too long. How do you think this should be resolved?
Neither you, nor IP202, nor anybody else, ever commented about this again -- until IP202 remembered it in the above thread.
At Wiki, there's always room for editorial judgment about the correct application of policies. I don't question anyone's good faith about their opinions regarding whether the two examples are prejudicial against VAN, or whether the selection was OR, or whether the examples might actually be helpful to the reader. I have an opinion and I've stated it and acted on it, but I can only look to the consensus process to resolve any dispute.
JJ, if this is really important to you, why don't we ping a few more editors and get their opinion? JerryRussell ( talk) 00:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The selection of the two examples has been done with unjustified criteria, using only secondary sourced material. These examples are equal to examples of success that are omitted." The identification of these "two examples" with the cited telegrams comes from your subsequent comment. You opined that the selection "
could be criticized" as OR, or (logical alternative!) "
might be equivalent to an obvious application of simple arithmetic". And while you had "no objection" one way or the other, you also allowed that "
it's better if we can agree with JJ here...."
selection ... with unjustified criteria, using only secondary sourced material"?
unrepresentative?
Original Research"?
... a published source." Period. What else needs to be said?
only secondary sourced material" was used, which is clearly a factual error in that the material is clearly attributed to the man himself. I don't know how much more "primary" one can get.
chose[n] two images showing Kali eating babies" out of hundreds showing Kali doing good deeds presumes that the two images (telegrams) were in fact non-representative. But, in fact, they are not. In all of their publications VAN use this indefinite "N.W. of Athens" kind of "location". Note also that IP202 has totally failed to provide any counter-examples, as you had suggested.
Jerry... You have totally missed the point about why the telegrams were cited. The "selection" of those examples had NOTHING TO DO with their being successful or not; that is entirely irrelevant.But the selected examples don't actually succeed in demonstrating the alleged spatial vagueness of the VAN predictions. With respect to your point above
In all of their publications VAN use this indefinite "N.W. of Athens" kind of "location": in fact there is nothing at all indefinite about a location "300 km NW of Athens." That formulation specifies a particular point on the map, which can also be defined in degrees of latitude and longitude. In Varotsos et al 1996a, all the coordinates for all the predictions are given in degrees latitude and longitude. Some of the telegrams give two different location predictions, but it doesn't seem that they mean the EQ could be anywhere in the range between the two locations given. My original complaint was that the majority of prediction telegrams from VAN were not in this "either/or" format, most of them specify just one location, so the use of this example in "or" format seems to be cherry-picking. But neglecting that issue, I feel it's clear that most VAN predictions cannot be criticized for a lack of spatial precision; and thus the example you gave doesn't really work for that purpose. I believe it's correct, though, that VAN doesn't put time limits on their predictions. Also, if they are just specifying a single point on the map, it's open to interpretation whether any particular EQ is "close enough" to be considered a hit. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The selection of the two examples has been done with unjustified criteria, using only secondary sourced material". (An assertion he made in #Libel on VAN 1983-1995, where its relevance was never established.) But while you assert "unjustified criteria", you don't actually specify what it is. (Or what sources were used.) You're just waving your hands around.
the selection of two examples from a huge list seems to be a possible violation of WP:OR." Which is just more bullshit. In the first place, there is (ha ha, fooled you) no "huge list". The examples were "selected" from a set of exactly two. From which I "cherry-picked"... the entire list.
there is nothing at all indefinite about a location "300 km NW of Athens."' Sorry, you are wrong. (Which you might have noticed if you had read any of the sources that criticize VAN on the point of indefinite location.) The matter is very much (as you allow) '
whether any particular EQ is "close enough" to be considered a hit.' The problem is that VAN are never definite as to what is "close enough", leaving it to the critics to infer what they might mean from their other publications. Which VAN then quibble about.
If the problem is that VAN aren't definite about what is "close enough", then maybe the article should just say so. JerryRussell ( talk) 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
added only to support Geller's point of view", after which YOU back-filled with "Original Research". Only now are you clarifying IP202's meaning (you are a mind-reader!) as "
a successful prediction could have been chosen for illustration." Only you still don't get it: whether that prediction was successful, or not, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT (!!!) to the purpose of illustrating a typical telegram. In fact, I could NOT have chosen another, as, in using both of the telegram images available in that source, THERE WERE NO OTHER EXAMPLES.
These examples are equal to examples of success that are omitted.By 'success' I construe that he meant predictive success. Regarding your
in that source, THERE WERE NO OTHER EXAMPLES.: How many times have I told you I don't have access to that source? I don't question your clear assertion that there were no other examples, but on the other hand I can't independently vouch for it. What I did was to look at Varotsos et al 1996a, where there were many other examples.
many other examples." Oh? Can you give me the page numbers where they have facsimile images of prediction telegrams? My recollection may be faulty, but I don't recall seeing any. I suspect you may have been thinking of "examples" of predictions, such as in their Table 1. At any rate, where I said there were no other sources why is it that you seem to have not picked up where I specified (referring to VL 1991)"telegram images available in that source"? Skipping that is sloppy, and only gets us more entangled. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Much of the controversy with VAN arises from this failure to adequately specify these parameters, such as (typically) a prediction of an earthquake at either 300 km "N.W" of Athens, or 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.So can you perhaps understand why I thought we were talking about predictions, rather than their particular instantiation in telegrams? If you were trying to show that VAN was dishonest in translating from vector coordinates (in the telegrams) to rectangular coordinates (in tabular representations), neither the article text nor the footnote spelled this out in any clear fashion. And if that's your point, you need to find a secondary source that makes that point.
I didn't ask if you have concerns about my understanding of the material. It should be obvious to anyone that I'm a lay person regarding this topic, and that the amount of reading I've done is minuscule compared to the amount of material that has been published. What I asked is whether you have any concerns about the text of this sentence in the article as it's currently written? The text now says: Some of their telegrams include predictions of two distinct earthquake events, such as (typically) one earthquake predicted at 300 km "N.W" of Athens, and another at 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.
There is an additional footnote indicating that one of these two predictions was indeed materialized as an EQ in the predicted location.
JerryRussell (
talk) 16:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
the particular instantiation" of the predictions. Where do you think the data in the tables come from?
unjustified criteria", but without any elaboration as to how they are unjustified, or even what criteria he thought were used. At which point you started imaginatively filling in his blanks, and we spent a lot of time chasing the "selection" bunny. But perhaps now you understand that the subject of the sentence in question is VAN's failure to adequately specify the prediction parameters? That the sentence illustrates these problems in regard of location, magnitude, and time with specific wording from from the source, and that ALL of the published telegrams use the same wording?
JJ, thank you for clarifying that the 9/1/88 telegram or telegrams were singled out for reproduction in VL 1991, and thus that your selection was not "original research".I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; I've been done with the issue of "unjust" selection, OR, etc. since then. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
A crucial issue is the large and often indeterminate parameters of the predictions, such that some critics say these are not predictions, and should not be recognized as such. Much of the controversy with VAN arises from this failure to adequately specify these parameters. Some of their telegrams include predictions of two distinct earthquake events, such as (typically) one earthquake predicted at 300 km "N.W" of Athens, and another at 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.How does that fail to make your point? I agree the earlier text made your point more obvious, but at the cost that the wording didn't correctly represent the source. (Unless the original telegrams could be interpreted as a single prediction somewhere in the range between the two vectors given. If that's the case, then Table 1 of Varotsos et al 1996a is very misleading as to the actual contents of the telegrams.) JerryRussell ( talk) 00:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
that VAN expresses their predictions with high implicit precision ...." So allow me to inform you: precision is limited by the nature of the inputs and how they are are processed, and (generally) you cannot make more precision than you start with. It is not proper to express outputs with precision greater than inherent in the data. (Refer to any introductory engineering text, or any text that covers numerical precision.) Your presumption their computations "
yield very precise locations" is entirely contrary to fact, where (another criticism; see text for sources) their locations are so broad as "cannot be practically utilized". Cranking a calculation to churn out more decimal places does NOT increase actual precision.
there's nothing wrong in science or engineering with expressing such a result as precisely as it's measured." Indeed, quite the opposite: the standard expectation is "as precisely as measured" – but no more than measured! Likewise, there is also "
nothing wrong with rounding", but please note: rounding reduces precision. However, to claim precision of a tenth of a degree where you really have (at best) only half a degree is not rounding, and it is not acceptable practice. (To do so knowingly and deliberately would be dishonest, but such a result could also attributed to bad practice, indifference, etc.)
highly precise" is quite dubious, and (lacking any showing of sources) quite unfounded. So where do you get that notion? You think "
their measurements of SES amplitudes are probably averaged over intervals sufficient to get at least a few digits of precision", but where do you get the idea their predictions are based on averages of an ensemble of SES measurements? In the examples they have published they identify a part of a squiggely line as an SES (or whatever), and on the basis of that single instance base a prediction. Their calculation of direction (if I recall correctly) is based on the ratio of the strength of signals on perpendicular dipoles. Which appears to be just eye-balled. NOT "highly precise".
highly precise" because you also think all their measurements (at least through the 1990s) were obtained digitally and analyzed (?) with Fourier techniques? Again, where do you get that notion?
strength of signals on perpendicular dipoles can be combined to produce a directional estimate" – I said that yesterday, and it is not an issue. The issue (what you seem to have missed) is the precision that might be expected from whatever procedures they use. Which is one of the specific points of criticism: they don't specify that in their predictions.~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
So where do you get the notion that everything was just "eyeballed", JJ? Uyeda's paper gives a very different impression. JerryRussell ( talk) 03:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
are telemetrically connected to Athens (through telephone lines) and the results are depicted on multipen recorders in the central station placed at Glyfada (GLY) about 15 km from Athens." They go on to explain how "
[t]he potential difference V is measured after amplifying and filtering out frequencies higher than 0.3 Hz and the result is displayed on a strip chart recorder...." They provide a dozen illustrations of the strip charts, showing the annotations by which they manually measure their data. No mention of computers, or any kind of digital signal processing (which, if I recall correctly, was more than the computers of that decade could handle). THAT is where I get the notion the notion they are "eyeballing" their data. And your notions of "highly precise" are just quaint.
dark ages" equipment (I've used a bit of it myself); I am objecting to your presumption that the VAN data is "
highly precise", and particularly to your assertion (15:35) that the "squiggley line" I referred to (as metaphor for VAN's raw data) "
consists of a series of digital measurements, each of which is typically precise to a couple of digits, and the series can then be averaged, or processed using fourier techniques." You base this on Uyeda's claim (?) that the SES signals were digitized, but you seem to have freely extrapolated beyond that.
highly precise". Which goes back to the precision (or lack of) in their prediction locations, for which the two telegrams (remember them?) were cited as illustrations.
highly precise". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
highly precise" does not appear to supported by any source, and your implication that such data was based on "
digital measurements" and Fourier analysis is not only not supported by any source, but also not even likely, given the technology of the time.
[t]his analysis however was shown by VAN group to be invalid...") was added, and in response to the demand for more citations. As we have discussed.
Back on Sept. 28, I wrote: JJ, thank you for clarifying that the 9/1/88 telegram or telegrams were singled out for reproduction in VL 1991, and thus that your selection was not "original research". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; I've been done with the issue of "unjust" selection, OR, etc. since then.This time, I'm at a loss as to how I could have been any more clear than that, or why you are still berating me for more clarification. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
done", but that left open whether the issues are resolved. But I will take your comments as meaning the several issues raised are settled, and that there is no issue. If there are no further comments I will close this section so that some passer-by doesn't get sucked in. Some small progress is made. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, being helpful to others is a recommended Zen spiritual practice. We've identified a couple of good reasons why IP202 shouldn't be editing the article directly: (1) he's an SPA here for advocacy purposes, and (2) English is not his first language. So if he comes to talk and makes edit requests, and I evaluate those requests and fulfill them if I feel they comply with policies, I don't see the problem. If we're not reasonably responsive to IP202 requests, the gentlemen's agreement breaks down, and IP202 might pursue other dispute resolution paths.
Also, in accordance with WP:BRD, I don't see any problem even making bold edits first, and then discussing them afterwards on the talk page, perhaps after those edits have been reverted. In the particular example we've been discussing, I did in all good faith believe that the matter had been discussed first. But even if that had not been the case, WP:BOLD is the operative policy here. Of course the ultimate outcome of the process depends on achieving consensus. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
JJ, I just noticed that you also reverted my citation to Mileti & Sorensen. Did you mean to do that? JerryRussell ( talk) 02:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
making a wrong impression on alarming}", which he seemes to think demonstrates "Orignal Research" in the existing table. From his reference you took some concern (above, at #Existing contingency table) that "
the public simply does not panic ...", or that "
the "cry wolf" syndrome is greatly overrated", or something. (You never did explain the point of your concern.) As near as I can make out, the only connection of all of that with the table is in the single word "panic". A very tangential item.
problem with all the precursor methods is a high false alarm rate"? Please note: that statement is FALSE. In general, the false alarm rate of any predictor ("precursor" or not) can be forced very low, and even to zero, very easily: just raise the alarm threshold ("The Bar"). Of course, you miss all of the hits, but that is the nature of the trade-offs between Type I and Type II errors.
The big problems with false alarms are: (1) Panic, and (2) "cry wolf" effect."? Again FALSE. There is no statement in the article (in any version), nor any basis for your statement, that "
The big problems with false alarms are: (1) Panic, and (2) "cry wolf" effect." The big problem with false alarms is economic disruption. If the current text is not clear enough on that perhaps we should restore some previously cut text.
can be mitigated by proper communication of the alarm to the public."? This appears to be true, but it is quite irrelevant. That the possibility of panic is reduced might alter the trade-offs, but does not remove the dilemma: You still can't reduce one without increasing the other.
In general, the false alarm rate of any predictor ("precursor" or not) can be forced very low, and even to zero, very easily: just raise the alarm threshold, of course I see this and I agree. But if the alarm threshold is set so that a useful "hit rate" is obtained, then the false alarm rate will be high, at least for the real-world methods we're discussing. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if you have noticed where someone said that earthquakes don't kill people, failing structures kill people.Have you noticed that the very next paragraph, that exact point is clearly spelled out?
JJ, isn't the topic of the section something that we should determine collaboratively, by consensus, as editors of the article? The existing article contains the sentence The acceptable trade-off between missed quakes and false alarms depends on the societal valuation of these outcomes
, which I would interpret as addressing the question of "how to set the bar". The text within the dilemma table states "lowering the bar reduces odds of losses, but increases the costs of false alarms." Again, this seems to qualitatively address the question "how to set the bar".
I agree it would be ludicrous to argue that the bar should be set so low as to expect a major earthquake all the time. To use a concrete example, the most optimistic estimate of VAN 1990's capability is that it could achieve a 70% hit rate at the cost of a 90% false alarm rate. If that's the case, perhaps the alarm could be communicated to the public as follows: "Some seismologists believe there's a 10% chance of a major earthquake within the next two months, somewhere within 120 km of location X." I doubt if such a prediction would elicit much panic. I'm not sure how useful it would be in terms of saving lives, either; but it seems possible that such a warning might prompt some people to take specific precautions.
It has also been complained that VAN predictions were active much of the time. VAN made 94 predictions over an 8 year period, each one of them open for a month or more. So it does seem that on the average one of those predictions would always have been active. Wiki gives the surface area of Greece as 131,957 square kilometers. If the effective radius of VAN predictions is 120 km, that is 45,216 square kilometers, or about 1/3 the surface area of Greece. So on average, about 1/3 of the area of Greece would have been covered by an active VAN prediction at any given time. (This rough calculation does not account for VAN predictions centered in the oceans.) I wouldn't encourage using this calculation in the article, as it goes beyond simple arithmetic in its presumptions, which makes it WP:OR. But it tends to indicate VAN predictions would indeed have been active often enough that "cry wolf" would be a rather difficult problem to mitigate; while at the same time, any claim that VAN predictions "expect a major EQ all the time" is going beyond the facts. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The article up until recently has read as follows:
Objections have been raised that the physics of the VAN method is not possible and the analysis of the propagation properties of SES in the Earth’s crust claimed that it would have been impossible for signals with the amplitude reported by VAN to have been transmitted over the several hundred kilometers distances from the epicenter to the monitoring station.[58][59] It was also claimed that VAN’s publications do not account for (i.e. identify and eliminate) possible sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI).[60]
At IP202's request, I proposed adding the following information:
However, the VAN group claims that SES signals mainly travel through fault zones whose conductivity exceeds significantly, i.e., by a factor 102 to 103, the conductivity of the surrounding medium.[59] They also claim to have derived and published criteria that can clearly distinguish SES from other electric signals of no precursory nature.[57]
Discussion question: May this additional information be included in the paragraph? (It is currently in the footnotes.) Or must it also be deleted from the notes as well? JerryRussell ( talk) 23:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE gives examples such as flat-earth and moon landing conspiracy theory, which are clearly deprecated by the mainstream. Is VAN in that same extreme category of pseudoscience? I see no evidence that this is a dominant mainstream position. In fact there is a diversity of views about VAN.
I hope that everyone can agree that for 1990's VAN technology, if the alarm "bar" was set so as to achieve a reasonable hit rate (~70%), the false alarm rate was very high (~90%). The predictions also lacked spatial and temporal precision. So that created a very real limit on the utility of the predictions. VAN has worked to improve that problem with "natural time" but the jury is still out, whether there has been any success on that front.
Some sources go beyond that, and claim that VAN method is no better than random darts thrown at a calendar, the hit rate was much closer to zero, and that VAN are charlatans. But I don't see evidence that this is The mainstream position. In my opinion, writing our article as if this perspective is WP:TRUTH is inappropriate. An example case in point is the discussion directly above, on "Proposed additional text re: VAN SES method". What possible reason would there be to oppose inclusion of the extra text, except for an inappropriate application of WP:FALSEBALANCE? JJ, I get that you're opposed to including this material, but I confess I am resorting to mindreading here to try to come up with why. Am I understanding you correctly? JerryRussell ( talk) 01:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Given the current state of scientific knowledge, individual large earthquakes cannot be reliably predicted in future intervals of years or less. In other words, reliable and skillful deterministic earthquake prediction is not yet possible.
The Commission has identified no method for the short-term prediction of large earthquakes that has been demonstrated to be both reliable and skillful.
... large earthquakes cannot be reliably predicted for specific regions over time scales less than decades.
... the inability to reliably predict large earthquakes in seismically active regions on short time scales. ... The search for diagnostic precursors has not yet produced a successful short-term prediction scheme.
... subsequent testing has failed to validate the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by the authors" [emphasis added].
[151] Geller [1996], Lighthill [1996], Mulargia and Gasperini [1992].So we're back to the same sources we've been discussing, and the ICEF's one-paragraph summary leaves out a lot of nuance. And, their summary asks as many questions as it answers. What are the "optimistic" prediction capabilities claimed by VAN? Does this mean the breathless claims in the first few papers they published, which certainly have failed to materialize? Or the more sober results presented in Lighthill, where they are basically admitting to a 90% false alarm rate?
What are the "optimistic" prediction capabilities claimed by VAN?". Yes, perhaps those breathless claims in their "first few papers", which would include Mary Lazaridou's 2012 book about "The success of the VAN method over thirty years". So why this quibbling about the ICEF? You were wanting a definite verdict from some kind of scientific jury re VAN, but when you get it you complain you don't like their references.
most prestigious academic peer reviewed journals", but VAN's papers are NOT being published by the most prestigious scientific peer reviewed journals (Nature and Science), nor even in leading earth science journals such as the Journal of Geophysical Research, the Geological Society of America Bulletin, the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, and Geophysical Research Letters.
ICEF summary ... adds nothing to the debate"? I think you have confused the ICEF's assessment of the debate – the verdict of the scientific jury, if you wish – with the debate itself. They weren't "another critic", they were the jury.
collection of POV reviews", it is a review, by some of the world's top experts. You object to the SES because their views are disfavorable to VAN, but as we have seen you are entirely a VAN partisan. You try to trivialize VAN-critical views by suggesting they are due to only one or two individuals (first Geller, now Papadopoulos), ignoring the broad basis of such criticism. You complain we are "
stuck to decades ago" arguments, but you reject the most recent assessment of those arguments.
JJ, it's not me whose snarkiness is leading to misstatements. We all know that PNAS is so weak in earth science that they run articles about flat-earth and creationism on a regular basis. It's so bad that they even accept "crappy" articles by Pullinets. OMG.
But, flat-earth theory and Creationism get more of a fair presentation at Wikipedia than you're willing to allow for VAN. JerryRussell ( talk) 19:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts, and is viewed by professional scientists as unscholarly and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.
there was a "one-to-one correspondence" between SES and earthquakes", [1] – that is, that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ the magnitude and the epicenter of which can be reliably predicted" [2] – the SES appearing between six and 115 hours before the earthquake.
a highly politicized team organized for the defense of the Italian scientists" is unsourced, and sounds like yet more stuff that you just pluck out of thin air. They were asked to "
assess scientific knowledge of earthquake predictability" (see the Preface, and also the Abstract), and I see absolutely no showing their verdict is incorrect, or even contested.
References
JJ: My opinion of ICEF is purely my own opinion. It is our role as Wiki editors, to assess the quality of the sources. VAN has been discussed in many, many sources since the 1996 papers cited by ICEF. If you think my POV is non-neutral, so take me to AN/I. I dare you.
JerryRussell (
talk) 23:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
And if you aren't going to take this to AN/I, here and now, I demand a retraction of your statement that I have a strong non-neutral point of view. I construe it as a personal attack.
JerryRussell (
talk) 00:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Well JJ, you finally got to me, and you made me angry. But on reflection, I'm not sure whether AN/I would be the best venue for dispute resolution. So I'm retracting my ill-considered remarks above. If you aren't enthusiastic for another RfC, maybe we could try DRN, or mediation. Or if you want to take it to AN/I, I'm game for that too, whatever.
ICEF passed on a great opportunity to actually read & review the many papers produced by VAN and their friends since 1996. How pathetic, and what a missed opportunity, that they referred to the 1996 papers and left it at that. We've already talked about the hatchet job they did on Giuliani.
ICEF didn't say whether they were judging VAN by the criteria of their 1984 claim, but if they did, so much the better. I believe VAN has significantly qualified those claims since 1984, though obviously they still believe there is some sort of correlation between SES and EQ.
I don't agree that our problem is any lack of neutrality on my part, but I do agree that this endless quibbling is getting us nowhere. JerryRussell ( talk) 07:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
pathetic" that the ICEF "
referred to the 1996 papers and left it at that"? To the extent all of the 1996 discussion settled the matter for mainstream seismology, is there anything that VAN (and their friends) have said, or even could say, that changes the mainstream point of view? How does "pathetic" even enter into this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
any VAN work since 1996", but 1) I don't see that you have the competence to make that judgment, 2) what was said up to 1996 was sufficient to show a failed validation, and 3) I suspect the ICEF felt that nothing VAN has said afterwards shows any reason to change that.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd been waiting for the RFC to close before making any edits; and also, the more reading I do, the more I realize that I still need to do more reading. However, based on Elriana's encouragement, I've prepared a proposal in my sandbox, for a revision to the sections on VAN method. I've included a little bit of material on the situation post-2001, and my other main goal was to cut down on the length of the sections. Also, I've pulled some material from old versions of the article into my sandbox -- I haven't formed any opinions yet as to whether any of this material has any merit.
Your comments are invited; or feel free to just start editing this page -- I'll revert anything I feel is not NPOV.
/info/en/?search=User:JerryRussell/sandbox
JerryRussell ( talk) 22:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The most difficult part is to simplify, but it is a necessity. You have to put everything in your sandbox to have all info and see it as a whole, and then start cutting down, day by day at least, leaving enough time to forget and see it fresh again. It is a process that will take more than a week, and my opinion is that you should be left to do it without us commenting in between. When you need an answer you can ask for opinion and when you think you have finished simplification, we can comment on wording. Thank you for your time and effort. --IP202- 46.198.213.62 ( talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
two decades old publications" that are no longer applicable) then claims that there has been no new criticism, and therefore VAN is accepted science. (Even stating on 27 July that: "
Discussion is really over, everything claimed by my point of view is sourced.")
I'm getting the impression here that 'earthquake forecasting' is considered a legitimate seismological study, as opposed to 'earthquake prediction' which is rather disreputable, and seemingly impossible to accomplish on any routine basis that would be socially useful.
This leads me to wonder if this article should be re-named as "Earthquake Forecasting", with "Earthquake prediction" as a re-direct to the new title? The article could then be re-organized, with the highlight on trend methods such as seismicity patterns, etc.
Does anyone know of serious websites where earthquake forecasts are posted for the public? I found that Keilis-Borok and Kossobokov have a site where current M8/Msc forecasts are posted, but it's password protected. And I found a really cheesy-looking anonymous website at www.world-earthquakes.com with many intriguing results posted. Surely there must be something better, but I couldn't find it.
I will say this: if forecasting methods were saying that the big one was coming to the Pacific Northwest, and then radon readings went sky high, geo-electromagnetic precursors appeared at all wavelengths, and the cows headed for the hills, I wouldn't consider it superstitious to get out of Dodge if I could. I could use a vacation anyhow. JerryRussell ( talk) 19:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, I would not want the said information to be broadcast on the local news. A panic would cause crowds at the airport, and make it harder to get a ticket for my getaway. JerryRussell ( talk) 20:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
And the key difference shouldn't be so hard: prediction is particular about time, location, and magnitude, while forecasting is a probablistic estimate over some range of time (usually decades), location, and magnitude. Is this not made clear enough in the lead?
I'm sorry, I'm not finding this clear at all. What if someone says "a 50% chance of an M8+ EQ in the next two years somewhere in the Cascadia Subduction Zone", is that a forecast or a prediction? "Magnitude 6 (+/- .7) somewhere in Greece in the next 22 days", forecast or prediction? I can see why someone might be hesitant to call these 'predictions', but they don't exactly fit your definition of 'forecast' either.
JerryRussell (
talk) 23:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
prediction involves casting an alarm". (And isn't that just what I said just above: "... whether an alarm is issued"?) As you saw in Nature Debates, Geller sees earthquake prediction as "
an alarm of an imminent large earthquake, with enough accuracy and reliability to take measures such as the evacuation of cities." (Or sleeping in one's car.) With a forecast of (say) an M 6.7 or greater quake in the next 30 years we don't issue alarms to evacuate, we issue advisories to do seismic retrofits. Or convince friends and loved ones to move out of those quaint 1920s URM apartment buildings. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
seismo.info, again. previously discussed, and dismissed.
|
---|
"Surely there must be something better, but I couldn't find it" - of course there is: http://seismo.info, with science behind it and the obvious proof. Fascinating. 31.185.124.108 ( talk) 16:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP202, could you provide any additional information about VAN predictions extending from 1996 to the present time? I find the Arxiv article titles to be very cryptic, I have no idea whether there might be 'predictions' embedded in some of those articles. Have any VAN predictions other than the one in 2008 been discussed in any reputable popular publications in Greek?
If JJ wants more data and evidence of notability for VAN after 1996, let's see what we can do to give it to him. JerryRussell ( talk) 01:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I answer my own question to some degree: the article on VAN method states --
The VAN team claim to have successfully predicted twenty five of the 28 major earthquakes from 2001 through 2010 in the region of latitude N 36° to N 41° and longitude E 19° to E 27° with this new analysis. [1]
References
The reference is to the book 'Natural Time Analysis'. Searching Google Scholar turns up 91 citations of this book, many of which appear to be independent research groups.
Perhaps someone has a copy of the book, and could post the section on predictions & results, starting on p. 326? JerryRussell ( talk) 05:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Natural Time Analysis: The New View of Time - Precursory Seismic Electric Signals, Earthquakes and other Complex Time Series Page 296:
Table 7.1 All EQs with Ms(ATH) ≥ 6.0 within N41 36 E27 19 since 2001 along with the relevant SES activities. The cases in parentheses refer to EQs for which the expected magnitude (on the basis of the SES amplitude) was Ms(ATH) ≈ 6.0, but the actual magnitude turned out to be somewhat smaller. The last column gives, in each case, the relevant documentation publicized before the mainshock occurrence, when available. The EQs grouped together refer to almost the same epicentral location.
Date | Epicenter | Magnitude | Station | Date | Publication |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
D/M/Y | ◦N – ◦E | Ms(ATH) – Mw(USGS) | D/M/Y | ||
26/7/2001 | 39.05–24.35 | 5.8–6.5 | VOL | 17/3/2001 | Ref. [41] submitted on 25 March 2001 |
14/8/2003 | 38.79–20.56 | 6.4–6.2 | PIR | 8/8/2003 | Ref. [35] |
31/1/2005 | 37.41–20.11 | 6.2–5.7 | PIR | 17/10/2004 | Ref. [52] |
17/10/2005 | 38.13–26.59 | 6.0–5.5 | MYT | 21/3 and 23/3/2005 | Ref. [51] submitted on 16 April 2005 and Ref. [43] |
(17/10/2005 | 38.14–26.59 | 5.9–5.8 | MYT | 21/3 and 23/3/2005 | Ref. [51] submitted on 16 April 2005 and Ref. [43]) |
20/10/2005 | 38.15–26.63 | 6.1–5.9 | MYT | 21/3 and 23/3/2005 | Ref. [51] submitted on 16 April 2005 and Ref. [43] |
18/10/2005 | 37.58–20.86 | 6.1–5.7 | PIR | 17/9/2005 | Ref. [42] submitted on 22 October 2005 and Ref. [43] |
8/1/2006 | 36.21–23.41 | 6.9–6.7 | PIR | 17/9/2005 | Ref. [42] submitted on 22 October 2005 and Ref. [43] |
(3/4/2006 | 37.59–20.95 | 5.3–5.0 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
(4/4/2006 | 37.58–20.93 | 5.7–5.3 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
(11/4/2006 | 37.64–20.92 | 5.7–5.4 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
(11/4/2006 | 37.68–20.91 | 5.9–5.5 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
(12/4/2006 | 37.61–20.95 | 5.9–5.6 | PAT | 13/2/2006 | arXiV:0602603v1 [25 February 2006] and Ref. [50]) |
25/3/2007 | 38.34–20.42 | 6.0–5.7 | PAT | 8/2/2007 | arXiv:0703683v1 [26 March 2007] |
(29/6/2007 | 39.25–20.26 | 5.7–5.2 | PAT | 23 and 24/4/2007 | arXiv:0703683v5 [15 May 2007]) |
6/1/2008 | 37.11–22.78 | 6.6–6.2 | PAT | 7/11/2007 | arXiv:0711.3766v1 [23 November 2007] and Ref. [21] |
14/2/2008 | 36.50–21.78 | 6.7–6.9 | PIR | 14/1/2008 and 21-26/1/2008 | arXiv:0711.3766v3 [1 February 2008] and Ref. [21] |
14/2/2008 | 36.22–21.75 | 6.6–6.5 | PIR | 14/1/2008 and 21-26/1/2008 | arXiv:0711.3766v3 [1 February 2008] and Ref. [21] |
20/2/2008 | 36.18–21.72 | 6.5–6.2 | PIR | 14/1/2008 and 21-26/1/2008 | arXiv:0711.3766v3 [1 February 2008] and Ref. [21] |
8/6/2008 | 37.98–21.51 | 7.0–6.4 | PIR | 29/2-2/3/2008 | arXiv:0802.3329v4 [29 May 2008] and Ref. [21] |
21/6/2008 | 36.03–21.83 | 6.0–5.6 | PIR | 5/6/2008 | |
14/10/2008 | 38.85–23.62 | 6.1–5.2 | missed | ||
(13/12/2008 | 38.72–22.57 | 5.7–5.2 | PAT | 9/10/2008 | arXiv:0711.3766v5 [7 December 2008]) |
16/2/2009 | 37.13–20.78 | 6.0–5.5 | PIR | 12/12/2008 | arXiv:0707.3074v3 [5 February 2009] and Ref. [47] |
3/11/2009 | 37.39–20.35 | 6.1–5.8 | PIR | 24/10/2009 | – |
(18/1/2010 | 38.41–21.95 | 5.7–5.5 | PAT | 24/10/2009 | arXiV:0904.2465v8 and v9[14 and 27 November 2009]) |
(22/1/2010 | 38.42–21.97 | 5.6–5.2 | PAT | 11/11/2009 | arXiV:0904.2465v8 and v9[14 and 27 November 2009]) |
(9/3/2010 | 38.87–23.65 | 5.6– | LAM | 27-30/12/2009 | arXiV:1003.1383v1 [6 March 2010]) |
--IP202- 46.198.213.62 ( talk) 17:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
--IP202- 46.198.213.62 ( talk) 23:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is a lawsuite against newspapers, after the 2008 earthquake.--IP202- 46.198.213.62 ( talk) 09:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda." Giving "natural time" more prominence than it warrants is advocacy. Likewise for boosting VAN. VAN has been rejected by mainstream scholarship. IP202 is obviously too close to VAN to have a neutral viewpoint on any of this. If he truly wants to contribute to Wikipedia he should consider a different content area.
Seismologists, taking heed of the advice of statisticians, have worked out how to deal with these kinds of problems." How so? Are there any seismologists at all, who are routinely making and publicizing short-term earthquake predictions of any kind, whether they're worried about lawsuits or not, and whether they're taking heed of statisticians or not? I thought you've been telling us that mainstream seismology believes that prediction is probably impossible in principle, and certainly not possible within the existing state of the art.
I agree that charlatans would issue vague predictions, but IP202 has provided an explanation of why VAN must act this way whether they are charlatans or not. They are publishing their actual observations and calculations, and perhaps some day an independent group will review their data and offer a judgment as to whether their revised methods are working or not.
In an article about earthquake prediction, in which the mainstream dismisses all methods as impossible: what is the appropriate weight to give to the only prediction method which publishes their papers in peer reviewed journals, and is still making the claims that they can do this successfully? I think it's appropriate to give enough space to provide a basic, rudimentary explanation of the method. And I find IP202's participation to be very helpful in getting the story straight. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
At ArXiv, the most recent submission I could find from Varotsos is from Aug. 2015. As to my earlier question as to which VAN papers include new SES, seismic or natural time calculations, the answer seems to be "all of them". New papers or updates came out regularly right up until one year ago, then suddenly stopped.
Varotsos retirement is probably not the explanation: many professors go right on doing their research after becoming emeritus. But perhaps something has changed just recently. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
the only prediction method which publishes their papers in peer reviewed journals}. If you mean that VAN publishes their papers in peer reviewed journals, well, yeah, but then so do all the other scientific predictors. But if you mean that only they publish their predictions in peer reviewed journal, sorry, wrong. First, they haven't published any predictions, only their a posteriori claims of prediction. Second, Bakun and Lindh did publish their prediction (in Science), and Kellis-Borok published several predictions. (Have you read the article??)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The recently added section on "Classification" of long, intermediate, and short term prediction is, at best, rather pointless, making arbitrary distinctions of little use. It is also inaccurate. But under that vapid surface is a deep running current of non-neutral POV.
The first clue is the phrase "[e]xcluding solely negative views, its progress has already reached the statistically proven stage
". The "solely negative views" to be excluded are, as we have seen in this discussion, those of all those seismologists who say earthquake prediction (in the more limited sense of prediction) is impossible, while the "statistically proven stage
" refers to VAN, and the VAN proponents' own estimation of "statistically proven".
Any doubt of this POV is dispelled in the next paragraph with: "Precursors [...] are mainly non-seismic and mainstream seismology instrumentation cannot detect them.
" This is the VAN party line, as formulated by Uyeda: that seismologists look at only seismic phenomena, and are too incompetent to read up about the latest non-seismic precursor (i.e., "natural time"). This is entirely and utterly false, as can be seen by even cursory examination of the sources for the
Earthquake prediction#Precursors section. E.g., the ICEF 2011 report explicitly addresses electromagnetic signals, including VAN SES signals. The search for earthquake precursors has been far-reaching (e.g., see the report of the IASPEI - the International Association for Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior), but surely everyone here can figure that out themselves from the sources.
The inherent promotion of VAN in the "Classification" section shows yet again the persistent non-neutral POV of the anonymous editor "IP202". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"Good intentions" is not a factor here, other than someone being here only to promote something (see WP:NOT#SOAP) is a lack of good intentions.
Before you attempt to "clarify" what Uyeda said, check out Uyeda's actual words in his 2013 IWEP presentation.
Just to whet your appetite, I offer some tidbits. The red and bolding are per the original.
- Most precursors are non-seismic, which means cannot be predicted by seismometers.
This is a fetish of his, that seismologists work only with seismometers.
He also attributes the failure to make any predictions in Japan to:
- seismologists kept monopolizing the program, knowing seismology was unfit.
A key theme:
- "EQ Prediction Village" A bureaucrat-academia-industry Complex
Lots of scary disaster pictures, and exclamation marks, then:
- Thus, the "EQ Prediction Village" was established, with guaranteed funds free from burden of making any prediction.
- The further decided that precursor finding is impossible for anybody.
- Therefore, precursor research is NOT science.
But wait, there's more!
- There are signs that EQ prediction is possible by ordinary "science", only if non-seismic precursor search is fully employed.
- In particular, electromagnetic & geochemical phenomena are promising because many successful predictions have actually been achieved.
Gee, who did that?
All of this is very dubious. Do check the source.
See also similar comments in his 2007 Personal View on Short-term EQ Prediction.
I reiterate that the POV I have identified in the "Classification" edits is the very fringe views of Uyeda, a foremost proponent of VAN. And that those edits are inaccurate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
CEPEC notification protocol? Hmm... OK, here's one source. This is already in the source list for the article, though not referenced anywhere. Jordan & Jones 2010 [1] talks about CEPEC having issued a short-term forecast of a 1 to 5 percent chance of a major San Andreas Fault earthquake in late March 2009. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Earthquake prediction is sometimes distinguished from earthquake forecasting ..." to "
Short-term earthquake prediction is sometimes distinguished from long-term or intermediate-term prediction, which is also known as earthquake forecasting", you altered material attributed to Kanamori (2003). And where you wrote that "
Long-term prediction can be defined as the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard ...", well, that is just wrong. These are the particular grounds why I will be reverting your edit.
other practitioners such as Kossobokov[11] claim to have achieved statistically significant results...", what Uyeda et al. really said is: "
intermediate-term prediction of large EQs world-wide is already in the statistically proven stage (e g., Kossobokov et al., 1999)." Basically, a single claim from the 1990s. To even mention this single claim, when later and more authoritative sources deny any such claims, is a violation of WEIGHT.
RTP is the same thing as M8"; it quite clearly (no?) describes the M8 family of algorithms as including the RTP method. It did not (previously) mention MSc because that is not so much a separate method as an extension of M8. If you have any questions on that please consult the cited source, Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, §2.4.
large alarm areas, high error rates (e.g., 30-70% false alarms), and relatively low probability gains limit the practical utility of these methods as deterministic prediction tools." P.S. For more detailed criticism see Kagan & Jackson, 2006.
later and more authoritative sources deny any such claims. It seems very possible to me that M8's probability gain might be relatively small by some criteria, and yet also statistically significant. And I still question whether USGS, CEPEC, Zechar or Hough should be described as "more authoritative" than Keilis-Borok.
I think there's some confusion about RTP. I looked at Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, §2.4 which mentions M8, MSc, ROC and Accord methods from Keilis-Borok, and an RTL (Region-Time-Length) method by Sobolev & Tyupkin, who seem to be part of the same research group. RTP (Reverse Tracing of Precursors) isn't mentioned in Tiampo & Scherbakov, but is described by Keilis-Borok here:
https://www.math.purdue.edu/~agabriel/rtp.pdf
In this paper, RTP is described as a "new approach" rather than part of the M8 family. It's the RTP method rather than M8 that is analyzed in Zechar. Maybe RTP doesn't work even as well as M8. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, this is supposed to be definitive proof that Keilis-Borok is bogus?" as a red herring. Likewise for "
the CEPEC link is dead" (untrue), and "
nameless bureaucratic criticism" (uncalled for). As to "USGS", that covers a LOT of gound. If you are going to wave that around please be so good as to specify which citation you are talking about.
His team of researchers have used new algorithmic methods for earthquake prediction. Keilis-Borok's method has been retroactively applied to 31 cases dating back to 1989, with correlation 25 times (not including two near misses), including the Samoa area quake (September, 2009) and the Sumatra quake (September, 2009). In response to his prediction of an earthquake in California in 2005, US Geological Survey has said: "The work of the Keilis-Borok team is a legitimate approach to earthquake prediction research. However, the method is unproven, and it will take much additional study, and many additional trial predictions, before it can be shown whether it works, and how well." [3]. The California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council determined, "To date there is no evidence that these, or related methods, yield useful intermediate term forecasts." [4] No earthquake occurred in the predicted location or time period.
As to whether Keilis-Borok predictions are "useful" ..." — has anyone said they are useful?
also known as forecasts". That is false, and contrary to the sourced explanation provided in the lede. Also incorrect is the statement that research on short-term prediction "
is focused on finding precursors." And I question whether this short/intermediate/long term distinction really warrants any mention. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jerry, and anyone else adding citations:
1. {{
Citation}} does not need an explicit |ref=CITEREF...
(unless there is some special case thats needs handling), nor even |ref=harv
; suitable CITEREFs are generated automagically.
2. The {{
citation}}
template – unlike the {{
cite xxx}}
templates – does not automatically add a period at the end; this needs to be added manually. (A tip: I usually leave the terminal period off until I have inspected the result and tested any links.)
3. I strongly recommend that the closing pair of braces be put at the beginning of a line. I have considerable experience in this kind of formatting, and tacking the double-brace on the end of a long line (like the idiot doi-bot does) makes it harder to parse one citation from the next, or even to see that there is a closing double-brace.
4. I also recommend (somewhat strongly) putting a space before all vertical bars ("|"), and a space after all equal signs, as this best distinguishes different parameters, and makes the data standout from the labels.
5. Dates should be in "DMY" format. E.g.: "2 August 2016".
Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
--IP202- 94.66.56.26 ( talk) 01:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
being stated with a confidence that VAN group are liars." I am not aware that "stated with confidence" is any kind of offense (in law, or at WP), and there certainly is no statement that VAN group are liars. (No? Then point to it.) Your objections are entirely unfounded.
[a]ccusing anyone of slander is a serious matter and contributes nothing but a dismissive and contentious tone to this discussion." Your edits and discussion are tendentious.
To document prediction VAN has relied on telegrams sent mainly to themselves or close colleagues.[134]Approximately forty telegrams have been disclosed, but there is evidence that hundreds of telegrams were issued (and an unknown number of faxes);[135] it is "impossible to verify that unsuccessful telegrams were not quietly discarded."[136]
I can't read that text without seeing an implication that many telegrams were intentionally disregarded because they were failed predictions, which would be an example of "scientific deceit." If the sources argue that this was done on a non-deliberate or unintentional level, perhaps we should make that clear in the article -- although really it doesn't help VAN much, as it implies a level of incompetence that is perhaps even more shocking than 'moral turpitude' would be in a group of PhD scientists.
If we are looking for a truly benign explanation of the extra telegrams, it would be along the lines of (1) clearly marked as non-predictions, or predictions of sub-threshold events; (2) memos about research projects, papers or personal events that were completely unrelated to earthquakes; or (3) I could see an argument that it would be appropriate or interesting to re-evaluate the entire series of telegrams a posteriori based on some objective criteria applied across the entire series (or a subset) in order to optimize the prediction algorithm. This would be especially appropriate if the telegrams were divided into a 'training' set and a 'test' set.
My point about child's play: if I start by generating 300 completely random earthquake predictions, and then pick the 50 of them that come closest to being correct after the fact, wouldn't it automatically follow that my selected 'predictions' would be enormously better than random chance? Especially if the evaluation criteria can also be adjusted after the fact?
I'm feeling a bit amused at the interplay of euphemism, insinuation and misinterpretation in this discussion. I took Tronvillain's comment about "file drawer effect" as an ironic euphemism for deceitful or inept research practices, and felt that the socially correct response was to laugh and point to another example of an amusing euphemism. In the case of Penn State, if you read the linked article, you'll see that numerous eyewitnesses to the child abuse referred to it as "horsing around", and these euphemistic statements were later taken seriously by other investigators. Turns out Tronvillain was really trying to come up with a benign explanation for VAN results, and was puzzled by my reaction.
Now if the "clowning around" analogy becomes clearly understood here, and I were to then say that we are "clowning around" with VAN, then I would be insinuating that we are engaging in inappropriate behavior with them in the shower.
And before I go any further with that image, let me state categorically that I really do believe we're all doing our best to improve the article. I really appreciate the enormous amount of time and effort that have gone into this discussion, and I personally can say I've learned a lot through the process. I'm very sorry if I've given anyone any impression to the contrary.
I do think it's fair to discuss where the article might be making insinuations or accusations, and especially if it's happening unintentionally. It's all too easy to write materials that can be misinterpreted. Case in point, myself. JerryRussell ( talk) 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
PS -- I was curious about the difference between a 'charlatan' and a 'liar', to the extent that I looked it up. Wiki says
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception....In usage, a subtle difference is drawn between the charlatan and other kinds of confidence trickster. The charlatan is usually a salesperson. He does not try to create a personal relationship with his marks, or set up an elaborate hoax using roleplaying. Rather, the person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them.
Whereas a liar is simply someone who makes false statements intentionally, for any reason. A woman might lie to Nazi stormtroopers at the door, to save her children, to give an example of a lie for a good purpose. To me, that makes 'charlatan' a rather more insulting pejorative than 'liar'. JerryRussell ( talk) 02:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
looking for a truly benign explanation of the extra telegrams": why should we be looking for that? Why, when VAN totally screwed up a basic expectation of making predictions, should we have to make excuses for them? But you seem to have missed essential point: the "entire series of telegrams" is no longer knowable, because, just as Geller said, it is no longer possible to verify what is missing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Reply to: "As to whether VAN claims to have published all their prediction telegrams, good question! Maybe IP202 could find us a citation with a clear statement? JerryRussell (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.66.56.76 (
talk)
The abstract of the paper "Basic principles for evaluating an earthquake prediction method, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1295-1298, 1996 by Varotsos et al" which is the first article in the special issue of Geophysical Research Letters (Vol. 23, No.11, May 27, 1996) published under the title “Debate on VAN” (under the editorship of Robert J Geller) starts as follows:
"A three year continuous sample of earthquake predictions based on the observation of Seismic Electric Signals in Greece was published by Varotsos and Lazaridou [1991]. Four independent studies analyzed this sample and concluded that the success rate of the predictions is far beyond chance. On the other hand,..."
More, the captions of Tables 1 and 2 of Varotsos and Lazaridou [1991] (Latest aspects of earthquake Prediction in Greece based on Seismic Electric Signals, Tectonophysics 188, 321-347, 1991) read:
Additionally, Appendix 3 for Table 4 of the paper mentioned above states that it constitutes the "continuation of Table 1", i.e., the five telegrams which were issued between August 10, 1989 and November 30, 1989.
There are clear statements by VAN that the sample of the predictions was continuous as well as that the list of telegrams was complete, but the editor responsible for writing the section claims that it is "impossible to verify that unsuccessful telegrams were not quietly discarded."[136]"]. The citation No [136] is the following paper: Geller, R. J. (1996a), "Short-term earthquake prediction in Greece by seismic electric signals", in Lighthill, J., A Critical Review of VAN, World Scientific, pp. 155–238. In other words the editor of the section (JJ) proceeded to the above unusual claim (which with no doubt is an unacceptable insinuation) solely based on a citation by Geller. --IP202- 94.66.56.76 ( talk) 18:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S.1 Let's avoid Original Research with examples an keep the section readable. P.S.2 The title of the section under discussion only reflects the feeling on reading the article, not any intention for legal actions. --IP202- 94.66.56.76 ( talk) 18:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
solely based on a citation by Geller", it is a quite reasonable question likely to occur to any attentive reader of just the VAN sources. And all of these allegations of insinuations are bullshit.
"Given that such 'predictions' are considered open for up to 2 months, much of the 8 year period was covered. Thus, 'success' by chance is likely, especially since alarms were preferentially issued during heightened seismic activity."-- tronvillain ( talk) 21:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me for jumping in late, but when VAN issue an prediction, do they specify some kind of range of expected location, time, and magnitude of the earthquake? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 00:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
"It is not Geller's duty to prove that VAN's list of predictions are incomplete, it is a requirement laid on VAN to show their record is complete."My understanding is that it's considered appropriate for scientists to allow their data to be reviewed by their journal review editors based on reasonable doubts, but it's not considered reasonable for just anybody to get access to lab notebooks on demand. In this case, VAN sent the telegrams to several destinations including some independent ones, so any subterfuge could have been detected, as I said earlier.
"I think it is more like, given the kind of mess we see above, no one has patience for them."The other side of that coin is, anyone who does see any value in it, has taken the Kool Aide and become a member of the cult! Or in Wiki terms, they're no longer an "independent reputable source". What's a little unusual is, these cult members keep getting their materials through peer review. And in 2008, apparently for the first time in quite awhile, a major Greek newspaper ran with one of their reports; you know what happened next. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
not an actionable libel in the USA" is NOT because of (as you say) "
various technical legal reasons". It is because, for lack of an essential element, there is no libel. And what ever the law may be in Greece is entirely irrelevant here, so repeatedly harping on that is a red herring.
access to lab notebooks on demand" is another red herring. Allen's sixth requirement for a valid prediction is:
6. It must be written down and presented in some accessible form so that data on failures are as easily obtained as data on successes.
help the 2008 section get rid of the UNDUE tag". But beyond that I no more time today to consider his comments. Though in editing I see the use of the word "spectacular". I don't think so. Just more of the hype we see so much of from VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk)
For earthquakes, we find the 12-month probability for magnitude m>6 earthquakes in California increases from about 30% after the last event, to 40%–50% prior to the next one.What would it take to impress you? Maybe "spectacular" is a bit over the top, but this works for me as evidence VAN has found an interesting approach. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
JJ, I'm sorry I missed this earlier. I have trouble following densely threaded interpolations, they don't necessarily show on my watchlist. I see your point about 'natural time' being largely irrelevant to the topic of this section, and I've tried moving it up to the 'methods' section. As to the rest, the text scrupulously uses the words 'alarm' or 'report' rather than 'prediction'. I agree these are not 'predictions' according to the precise definition used in the literature of this field. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
IP202, I would repeat my advice to retract your defamation charges, and especially please retract any hint that JJ is acting in bad faith. You've been warned that he is going to take this behavior of yours and ask for a range block.
Thanks for calling my attention to your post above, about Rundle et al. I agree that reference should help establish notability for 'natural time' concept.
I disagree that the article does not currently reply to the claims that physics of VAN method is impossible, and that EMI is not rejected. The structure of the section is: 1st paragraph, VAN claims that SES may be used to predict earthquakes; 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, objections by critics; 4th paragraph, ongoing debate including references to Lighthill, GRL and Uyeda, where further discussion and debate may be found. We could make it a little clearer, but it's not that bad.
We should probably take up your concerns about VAN method article, at that article's talk page. I'll put it on my watch list. Information about VAN replication efforts in China, Mexico, Italy etc. might be helpful for this page as well, but Mary L-V's opinion is not going to be viewed by Wiki standards as an independent RS regarding those replications. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I've read that the public was reassured by seismologists before the L'Aquila EQ, that there was no evidence of an imminent earthquake. Those seismologists were subsequently convicted of manslaughter. The article insinuates that Giulani's prediction the evening of 5 April was invalid. I wonder if anyone interviewed the 'relatives, friends and colleagues' who were allegedly warned? ICEF is cited as the source for the claim that Giulani's prediction was 'invalid' but I think that's not exactly what ICEF said.
Before leaping into making changes to the article, I thought I'd begin here at the talk page, and ask if anyone else has perceptions about the L'Aquila event. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
not exactly what ICEF said"? Why don't you look at the source and know what they said? Would
At least two of the predictions (on February 17 and March 30) were false alarms. No evidence examined by the Commission indicates that Mr. Giuliani transmitted to the civil authorities a valid prediction of the mainshock before its occurrence.
The American Geophysical Union had invited him to present his work to its members in San Francisco.
As it turned out, Giuliani's presentation last December went very well. The Americans may not hold a candle to the Italians in matters of disaster management (compare New Orleans to L'Aquila), but they appreciate a free and independent spirit of scientific enquiry. The evidence Giuliani presented aroused intense interest and debate, and the AGU subsequently invited him to take part, with Chapman University and Nasa, in developing a worldwide seismic early warning system.
In particular, there is a real possibility that within a few years, combining large amounts of data and information, particularly from satellites, scientists will be able to forecast earthquakes. The Chapman team works closely with NASA and FEMA scientists and is part of a select group of international scientists who communicate amongst themselves in order to validate earthquake precursor signals, indicating an impending earthquake.JerryRussell ( talk) 19:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
a real possibility that within a few years ... scientists will be able to forecast earthquakes", is malarky. (From their mention of "precursor signals" I presume they are using forecast synonymously with prediction.)
Earthquake prediction ... appears to be on the verge of practical reality" (1973), to "
may be possible within 10 years" (1976), "
at least 10 years, perhaps more" (1978), up to "
predicting earthquakes is challenging and may be possible in the future" (2012). The topic of earthquake prediction is ever promising - at a superficial level. It is the history, and perhaps most significant lesson, of seismology that: it's not so simple. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
a worldwide seismic early warning system" - well, that is entirely uncredible. Not only is there no evidence of any such invitation, Chapman University - a private, religious college, not noted for any strength in its scientific staff - is hardly in a position to implement any such world-wide system. There are people associated with NASA that have such pretensions, but that is on the basis of EM signals, not radon. The bottom line: the Guardian article is, to a large extent, a puff piece, and not to be relied on. Of course it is intriguing, that's by design, to get people to read it. It differs from rank sensationalism only in degree, and it's not what we do at Wikipedia.
just a difference in vocabulary". Sure, they merge, but there is a BIG difference between saying "there is a 50% chance of a damaging quake within 30 years in this region", and saying more definitely "There's going to be an EARTHQUAKE!" with an implied narrow specificity of MAJOR, HERE, and SOON! Especially when post-event focusing is applied.
free individuals can make their own choices" is meaningless. Note that this notion is often qualified with "informed". But how can any individual be so informed on all things, and so competent at resolving contradictory information, as to make optimal choices? We can't, therefore we must rely on those who are more informed, and more competent. I.e., experts. So when the mayor of Sulmona was told he had as little as six hours to take appropriate measures, how much time can he take, and then the residents take in turn, in assessing Giuliani's warning?
Pulinets S.A., Ouzounov D.P., Davidenko D.V. Earthquake Prediction is Possible!? Integral technologies of multiparameter monitoring the geoeffective phenomena within the framework of integrated lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere coupling model, Moscow, Trovant Publ., 2014, 144 p (in Russian)so I guess he's another one of those that don't agree with Geller's pessimism. Here's his complete CV which runs to 19 pages and 334 items: [9] Giuliani's paper is item 11.
a worldwide seismic early warning system" is quite incredible, in that no one has made any system (based on EM, radon, frogs, or whatever) that has predicted earthquakes in any useful sense of "prediction". It is quite unlikely there will be any such system based on radon. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
conduct issues only on user talk pages", were you perhaps thinking that user talk pages are only for conduct issues? Not so!) While here is the proper place to discuss what should go (or not) into the article, or how to assess various material and sources, discussion of our own particular views and judgments might be more appropriately on a user talk page.
I think a better approach is top-down: consult reviews of the topic by the top-rated experts to determine what sub-topics (breadth) the article should cover;
-- sounds like a good idea. Any reviews you'd like to recommend?
More on Giuliani at Italian Wikipedia, confirming that he spoke at the AGU conference in San Francisco: 2
Pullinet's team looks formidable: 1 JerryRussell ( talk) 04:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As VAN authors/promoters are trying to hijack the article, why not look at real science behind seismicity: http://seismo.info, with science behind it and the obvious proof. Fascinating stuff. 31.185.124.108 ( talk) 16:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As this topic was opened by an anonymous IP spamming some previously discredited nonsense, and has little prognosis for improving the article, perhaps some passer-by would kindly close it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
As several editors have commented that "the entire topic" of earthquake prediction is fringe, it seems necessary to address this. I suspect this notion arises from not fully understanding the difference between the idea, view, position, or claim that prediction of earthquakes is possible (either generally, or by particular methods), and the scientific study of whether such prediction is possible.
As an example: claims that animals anticipate earthquakes are rejected by most scientists, and therefore are "fringe", per WP:FRINGE. But studies of whether animals have anticipated earthquakes - done scientifically, and not, say, by post-event interviews of pet owners - are generally accepted as scientific contributions, and therefore are not fringe.
Same thing for "earthquake prediction" as a whole. Whether earthquakes might have any precursory or recurring characteristics is a proper and acceptable topic of scientific study. It is also notable, due to great societal interest (even by lay-persons), and having accumulated a large literature. To summarize plain and simple: earthquake prediction, as a subject or field of scientific study, is not fringe. And it is notable.
The view that prediction of earthquakes 1) has not been successfully demonstrated, and 2) may even be inherently impossible (repugnant as this seems to many WP editors, and even to a few scientists who claim they have predicted earthquakes), is not fringe either, because it is "broadly supported by scholarship in its field
". As amply cited in the article itself. (Although likely less clear than before, due to accumulated deletions and alterations.) ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
practically the entire subject of the article is Fringe." That was out of place, as it was not a subject of the RfC, and I would say it is wrong. But closing such an extended discussion is such a thankless job (and good help hard to find) that I didn't want to belabor Geogene about it. That you or anyone else should think this subject is fringe arises (I believe, and as I have said) from not understanding the distinction between 1) a view that earthquake prediction is possible (either generally, or by some specific method), and 2) the scientific study of whether such prediction is possible.
useful, successful and proven earthquake prediction methods", there is no article, because there are no such cases (impassioned advocacy notwithstanding); that is an empty set, on account of those three qualifying words. Nor is the subject just about methods (successful or not), as without knowing something about the nature and challenges of prediction generally the reader cannot assess the credibility of either methods or specific claims of prediction.
I've been reading thru the ICEF report as JJ suggested, which was excellent advice to get a broader view of the field. I found this definition on p. 327 for the difference between prediction and forecasting.
Predictions and forecasts both make statements about future earthquake activity based on information available at the time; that is, they provide prospective (before-the-fact) rather than retrospective (after-the-fact) earthquake information. In this report, the Commission distinguishes between a prediction and a forecast using a strict dichotomy. A prediction involves casting an alarm — an assertion that one or more target ruptures will occur in a specified subdomain of space (subregion) and future time (subinterval). Predictions are therefore prospective deterministic statements: if a target event occurs in the alarm subdomain, the prediction is a true alarm; otherwise it is a false alarm (or type-I error). If a target event occurs in a subdomain without an alarm, the error is a failure-to-predict (or type-II error). A prediction can also be cast as an anti-alarm, a deterministic statement that no target rupture will occur in a subdomain [33]. Forecasts are prospective probabilistic statements: they specify the probabilities that target events will occur in space- time subdomains. The probability in a particular subdomain is a number P that ranges between 0 (no chance of a target event) and 1 (certainty of a target event).
Based on this, isn't it a trivial matter to convert any prediction into a forecast, and vice versa? Beginning with a prediction, simply add an estimate of the expected success rate as a probability, and voila, it's a forecast. And if you've got a forecast, just set a threshold of probability of an EQ above which you will issue an alarm, and you've got a prediction.
Personally, it's an easy choice. I want to be in the forecasting business. JerryRussell ( talk) 01:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
In his 1st article in the Nature debate series, Geller says:
The public, media, and government regard an 'earthquake prediction' as an alarm of an imminent large earthquake, with enough accuracy and reliability to take measures such as the evacuation of cities. 'Prediction' is used exclusively in the above sense here...
That makes sense too, but it's a different definition from the ICEF above. It's not a clean demarcation, unless you specify the parameters for "enough accuracy and reliability" that would make such predictions useful for the defined purpose. JerryRussell ( talk) 02:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
[a] prediction involves casting an alarm". Geller constrains the scope of such alarms as involving earthquakes large enough and imminent enough to justify evacuation of cities. Which (as seen at L'Aquila) can be quite a dilemma for the public officials. In an earlier version of this article Geller is quoted as to what would happen in Japan if 'anomalous data' are recorded:
an ‘Earthquake Assessment Committee’ (EAC) will be convened within two hours. Within 30 minutes the EAC must make a black (alarm) or white (no alarm) recommendation. The former would cause the Prime Minister to issue the alarm, which would shut down all expressways, bullet trains, schools, factories, etc., in an area covering seven prefectures. Tokyo would also be effectively shut down.
how do you respond to a forecast that (and let's assume on very certain information) there will be an M 8 earthquake within the next two years?but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the article content & structure, so I'm going to post it to your talk page. JerryRussell ( talk) 03:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
the determination of parameters for the next strong earthquake to occur in a region." That is the public's general conception of prediction, for all "next" that are soon enough and strong enough to warrant an alarm.
JJ, I apologize that I used incorrect Wiki terminology for redirects, as explained at WP:R. A redirect is considered a 'page' but not an 'article'. I was meaning to talk about redirect pages with no content.
Right now, we have an "Earthquake forecasting" page which is simply a redirect to this article, and has no content. In my opinion, some of the precursor methods may have some merit for short-term forecasting, even if they have failed as prediction methods.
So just to be clear, my proposal is:
1) Change the name of our existing article to 'Earthquake Prediction and Forecasting'.
2) "Earthquake Prediction" to become a redirect page pointing to this article.
3) From this article, per WP:SPINOFF, we create a new article called "Earthquake Precursors". This is less confusing than calling it "EQ Prediction", even though it would be covering all the methods that purport to be EQ prediction methods. According to the mainstream, these methods are generally deprecated for alarm purposes. By spinning off this material, I believe we would be able to overcome the existing article's problems with undue weight on the fringe idea that these precursors are actually useful as predictors.
I agree we could also go ahead with separate articles for 'prediction' and 'forecasting', and that see-also cross-links and templates would be a reasonable alternative to solve the problems we've been working with. But I feel pretty strongly that apart from specialists, almost everyone would consider "EQ forecasting" and "EQ prediction" as synonymous terms, and that my proposal is a good way to handle this confusion. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
all the methods that purport to be EQ prediction methods" is confused because you are still hung-up on supposed issues of undue weight and fringe. I particularly reject your insinuation that the article has "
problems with undue weight on the fringe idea that these precursors are actually useful as predictors." I have tried to make the article quite clear that the mainstream view is that all these precursors are not "actually useful as predictors". (And taken flack for not being "neutral".) If something contrary is been slipped in point it out and we can remove it.
separate articles for 'prediction' and 'forecasting'". So it is quite unclear what you want. I suggest that any proposal on how this topic area might be covered with various articles really should have an outline of the particular topics each article would have. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
46.198.213.62 (IP202?) suggested a new version of the contingency table for successful & unsuccessful earthquake predictions. The new table presents a second alternative alarm type: a 'state alarm' as opposed to a 'public alarm'. I'm not sure I understand what this means. It sounds like maybe the state is trying to notify only specific parties? If so, I see enormous liability as well as information security issues.
But perhaps more importantly, all material needs to be sourced. Otherwise it's Original Research. The pre-existing contingency table doesn't give a source either, but it seems to follow the sourced text very closely, so it seems OK to me. I would say that unless IP202 can provide a reference, the new table needs to go. JerryRussell ( talk) 05:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
If Quake | If No Quake | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cost in Lives | Economic cost | Cost in Lives | Economic cost | |
Public Alarm | min due to EQ
max due to panic |
max, to be on guard
economic disruption insurances until EQ EQ losses |
max due to panic | max, to be on guard
economic disruption |
Government Alarm | moderate due to EQ | some, to be on guard
EQ losses |
some, to be on guard | |
No Alarm | max due to EQ | EQ losses |
JJ, I don't have a strong preference about this. But, Wiki's article on the topic Mac and Mc together agrees that sorting Mc and Mac together is a longstanding practice as you say, but also that ISO 999 and modern style guides such as Chicago Manual of Style recommend separating Mc and Mac so that names will be sorted as they are spelled. JerryRussell ( talk) 15:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
"Headship"?? What an intriguing term. Googling on it finds:
For "headship alarm" we get:
And so forth. In the context of alarms this term "headship" is quite novel, even unknown. As IP202 didn't bother with any sourcing it does appear that he is just making it up. "Original", yes, but I wouldn't deign to connect this with "Research".
"State alarm" (meaning, I presume, "state" as in government, and not "state of alarm") is also novel. But it fits right in with Varotsos' mode of issuing "predictions" only to some government agency, and letting the government (Minister) have the burden of issuing, or not issuing, a public alarm. That way, if something happens, they can always say "we told you!" If not, just let it pass. Or complain that a "prediction" was not supposed to made public. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
would very much like to see" some sources on your table? Wow, so would we. How about where you found the table? Oh, it appears you just made it up. (I won't ask where you got it, as I think we all have a pretty good idea.) Well, the absolute first principle at Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. No sources? It doesn't belong here. And you are just wasting our time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
In Greece this model seems to work just fine.IP202, this is a fascinating claim. Please clarify how you know this?If you can't provide a source, are you stating that you have inside information that isn't known to the Greek public?
The new table clearly demonstrates that JJ's table is Original Research." That is completely bull fart. Which is to say, offends the nose, but has absolutely no substance. He made something up, something that appears to be quite novel in the field of forecasting, with entirely unknown (and undefined) terms, and zero sources. When called on that, he promptly turns around accuses me of Original Research. (A pattern we've seen before, where he is good at echoing what anyone else says.)
JJ, as you suggested I'm opening a new section for this discussion.
IP202's third reference, ↑, "Communication of Emergency Public Warnings", Mileti & Sorensen 1990, section 3.1.3, asserts that "the public simply does not panic in response to warnings of impending disasters", except in very narrow circumstances that would rarely apply to EQ predictions. Also it states that the "cry wolf" syndrome is greatly overrated, and that people can understand that false alarms are part of the game. It says that people prefer to have access to multiple sources of information, if possible. All of this seems to be relevant to the text & contingency table in the "Evaluating EQ Predictions" section. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
the public simply does not panic in response to warnings of impending disasters", even though several ocassions of panic are noted in the article. You cite the same source that the "cry wolf" syndrome is overrated, even though that is not mentioned in the current text, and certainly not in the table. But, keeping in mind it was only a month or so ago that IP202 disparaged papers from 1996 as "two decades old" and therefore no longer applicable, I point out that your source is from 1990. More relevantly, also supplanted by later sources, such as Atwood & Major (1998), who said there is a "cry wolf" effect. But so what? What has that to do with the table? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
views about IP202's issue" when (as far as I can see) IP202 has not raised any issue?
carefully read both sources, as well as to do research to find out if there has been more relevant work in the field since 1998." Why? Because you think "panic" is too subjective? Hey, take a look around: ALL terms are subjective, when you take a really close look at them. Perhaps you want we should just put this article on hold until all of the words used in it can be re-defined to remove every last bit of subjectivity? That would be absurd. As it is, I believe every instance of the use of "panic" in the article (if that is your issue?), including the existing table, is based on suitable sources, and presents no more problem here than it does in the sources. This article could use more work, but trying to find "
objective measures of public panic" where it is not at issue doesn't warrant any priority. It is an utter waste of time. If you have a question, fine, ask, but I don't see any issues here that warrant discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
JJ, would you consider humoring us by changing the text in the table for the false alarm box to: "False alarm: cost of alarm, public distraction and reduced economic productivity. 'Cry Wolf' effect?"
I can't easily make the change because I don't have the source file for the "Alarm_dilemma.png" graphic.
JerryRussell (
talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
timing is also left outside"?), but he seems incapable of making definite statements about what is bothering him. (Aside, that is, from anything that might cast the slightest doubt on VAN.) But no matter how much he quibbles, it is just as you said: the basic dilemma is the same. No matter how one sets the decision threshold, there is always a trade-off.
It seems to me that with his most recent posts, IP202 has painted himself into a corner. He's already admitted that there are no sources available to back his claim that "state alarms" are being secretly given to "headships" in Greece, and I don't see how he could make that claim without having some sort of inside information. I think this creates an apparent WP:COI, the extent of it is hard to judge without a specific declaration on IP202's part.
In accordance with the outing policy, it's not proper to press IP202 for more information. But with this evidence of a COI, and with all the complaints from JJ about IP202's bias -- I feel I'd also like to ask that IP202 not make any edits directly to the page? Come here first, and let's discuss. That's what always happens anyhow. JerryRussell ( talk) 20:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
"...such as (typically) a prediction of an earthquake at either 300 km "N.W" of Athens, or 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.? I think you're right, you and I had agreed that selection of two examples from a list is OR evaluation of primary source material, and we should have removed it. I apologize for the delay. I'm removing it now. Hopefully JJ will agree too.
JJ, if you had an article about some temple of Kali, and you chose two images showing Kali eating babies (out of hundreds that might show the fine architecture of the temple, and many more images showing Kali doing good deeds) then of course there would be complaints about OR, NPOV, and so forth. I don't know if you follow any political articles, but I've seen major brouhahas about choice of candidate photos.
Varotsos & Lazaridou 1991 is hidden by a paywall, but Varotsos et al 1996a is at Google Books preview, and I couldn't find where the two examples you cited were singled out from among many others. I could easily have missed something, I suppose. I found an appendix describing three EQ predictions, with copies of long, rambling telegrams giving explicit yet vague predictions in a way almost defying summary or description.
The text clearly states that VAN has been criticized for lack of precision in their predictions, so I don't see any violation of neutrality here. The section is still too long (giving disproportionate attention to VAN as it is), so I think that removal of text is generally a good thing. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
[W]here the two examples [I] cited were singled out from among many others" would be in the sources (as cited). The sources (all VAN) selected what telegrams to publish, and it seems fair enough to assume (especially reading the context) they were trying to show how thorough they were. There is, absolutely, no original research in "selecting" those items as representative examples.
added only to support Geller's point of view". (And then you took the bait and removed that material.) This is IP202's persistent theme, to reduce all criticism of VAN to "Geller's point of view", as if all this is just an inconsequential dispute between VAN on one side and "Geller" (and yours truly) on the other side. That persistent and one-sided theme, being contrary to the preponderance of expert sources, shows (yet again) IP202's deep-seated bias, from which a conflict of interest is reasonably inferred. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
had agreed that selection of two examples from a list is OR evaluation of primary source material", and thus improper. This "had agreed" apparently refers to your comment of 03:17, 15 Aug. in the #Libel on VAN 1983-1995 section (where it was actually off-topic):
The selection of two examples [examples] is intended, as it says, to be a typical representation of problems with VAN predictions, namely a lack of precision. The selection could be criticized as "Original Research" but then again it might be equivalent to an obvious application of simple arithmetic.
has nothing to offer to VAN method itself". As if this article and everything in it must orbit VAN. So while COI editors are often allowed to participate at talk pages, IP202's participation here has been entirely disruptive in miring us in a morass of VAN, VAN, VAN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"Are you ready for that fight?"
It's basically your choice, and my guess is you would probably get a topic ban or range block if you ask for it. I'm hoping you won't do that. If you look around at my editing projects at Wiki, you'll see I'm often working on fringe topics. I try to do it in a way that conforms to policy, but I do appreciate IP202's expertise about VAN.
JerryRussell (
talk) 00:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
work[ing] with us to get to a neutral treatment of the VAN topic." Whether he "
understands NPOV in principle" is rather irrelevant, as his activity (and that of the first Athenian editor) have been persistently non NPOV. That some of his "concerns" are plausibly valid on their face and considered in isolation is to naively miss the ploy: the selective use of a general rule. E.g., to cite NPOV ("balance") for adding VAN-positive comments and sources, but to cite length for removing alleged "negative" materiel. It's like typing an "F", then a "U", then the key below the "F", then a key below the "U", and considered in isolation all those acts are quite innocent. Right? But seeing the result right in your face, especially multiple times, is not so innocent.
Please have a look at June 6 version of VAN, compared to today's size, which has been built on details under the negative point of view on VAN. There was an ongoing talk on the talk page, admins were called, but JJ kept on building anti-VAN content without listening and by reverting all IP202 edits. If Jerry had not appeared, JJ's hill would be a mountain now.--IP202- 77.69.68.33 ( talk) 16:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I do agree with the points raised concerning not keeping the biased examples in the section and keep it in a logical size.
JJ' s unusual demand that nothing from his writing could be deleted or shortened does not serve Wikipedia. He has systematically excluded, without consensus, all VAN published responces to the criticism presented in the article, and just added, without consensus, more detail of the criticism to make it harder to be handled. This is not fair. This extends in the electromagnetics section:
We cannot know who is right and who is not and in what extent, but when detail is presentend in criticism and is left hanging out there as if there was no published explanation/answer to the specific accusations, this imprints. If JJ insists in being absolute and not willing to contribute in consensus, I guess tagging back VAN section (perhaps EM also) could save my time and energy, too.--IP202- 176.92.153.150 ( talk) 16:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The reader is left with the impression that it is impossible for SES to travel such long distances....". And why shouldn't the reader take away that impression? The current text says (with additional qualifying details) that "
an analysis ... showed" this was impossible. A statement supported by sources. (I believe that is your language.) He hasn't suggested an alternative text, he just wants to remove any hint of impossibility. It seems that wants to leave the impression that such travel IS possible. He is using the criterion of length to steer the content more favorably.
JJ kept on building anti-VAN content without listening and by reverting all IP202 edits", that without Jerry's timely intervention "
JJ's hill would be a mountain now." Which is just out and out bullshit. But more to the point: your comments are contrary to fact. In fact, through June, July, and August it was YOU (or your associate) making the article longer, with multiple large edits. (E.g.: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and those are only the larger edits for June.) Of your very few and insignificant deletions, the largest appears to be this removal of some embarrassing details you would rather suppress. In blaming me for the growth of the VAN section you have it backwards: it is due primarily to YOUR edits. Your statement was intentional, and it is FALSE. Which is to say: you lied.
reverting all IP202 edits", and in an earlier comment, that I have "
excluded, without consensus, all VAN published responces...." All? You have quite disingenously implied that I am the only editor opposing you (just as you have insinuated that all VAN criticism is due to Robert Geller). In fact, I have not reverted "all" of your edits, and even in reverting some of your disputed additions I was joined by Ismabard Kingdom, Volunteer Marek, and William Connolley. Again, your statement is false: you lied, and repeatedly.
Nobody is "lying" here, we just all have different points of view. There seems to be some confusion about what "alternative text" was asked for, or provided, when and where.
As to reasons why the article is too long, isn't it the fact that both of you are correct? IP202 and other Greek editors started the ball rolling by making many additions to the text, beginning in June. Much of their added text was reverted, but some was kept, and then JJ added more text too. I've played my part as well, right? And I'm not advocating deleting any of it from Wikipedia, just asking if we can offload some of the detail to the VAN method article.
JJ, are you asking for a proposal for an alternative, shortened text for this article? JerryRussell ( talk)
might have forgotten or reverted" his supposed alternative text, as if he really had proposed some alternative text (not true), and therefore it is my fault that he insinuated I was lying. So while he fake-graciously excuses me for "
an unintentional forgivable lie", he still claims a "lie".
statements about the impossibility of VAN signal transmission and reception" as "derogatory" is so very non-neutral as to raise a question of your impartiality. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
a statement that the stating party believes to be false and that is made with the intention to deceive.Therefore IP202's formulation "
an unintentional forgivable lie" was a bizarre contradiction in terms, such that I felt the appropriate response was to give IP202 an English lesson. I think his meaning was clear, though, that he felt the false statement (if any) was unintentional and forgiveable. (For whatever it's worth, I do also presume IP202 would stand by the view that your position is not neutral with respect to VAN.)
IP202 has made false statements." I am saying that by his own standard he is a liar.
a failure to communicate": yup. In a large part it comes from people vaguely waving their hands around without actually pointing to what they are talking/complaining about. I am not a mind-reader (are you?), and anyone that can't make a clear statement of what they think they are thinking has no basis to complain of a communications failure.
is not neutral with respect to VAN": well, of course. That is the key issue in ALL of this: IP202 wants everything to be "neutral" with respect to VAN, with an assumption of equal validity. But that would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE, and not the standard we use. The standard we use is relative to mainstream views. Except that he doesn't want even the false balance of equal validity and equal presentation, he wants the VAN pov boosted (for balance!) while the criticism is removed (because the section is too long!). (E.g., see his latest comment.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
JJ, on several occasions IP202 has posted links to information online, or even substantial excerpts from articles hidden behind paywalls. I don't have a big budget to buy access, nor convenient access to a library, so this has been very helpful to me in understanding the issues. Also, he has frequently pointed out areas where (in my opinion) the treatment of VAN has not met NPOV criteria.
I have not attempted to "justify" IP202's incivility on the basis of his contribution. I have attempted to explain it ("make excuses") on the basis of his limited English skills, and possibly different cultural and legal standards in Greece. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Since you've reminded me about IP202's indication that he has been a long-term Wikipedian, I went to look up that thread. Here's the exchange:
IP202: I have not seen that nerve before anywhere in Wikipedia, all my years here.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
jj: All your years? Your earliest edit as "77.69.80.202" is 12:25, 5 June 2016, not even a month ago. If you have edited from other addresses, or have other history here, you should disclose that to avoid any taint of sock puppetry. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
At the time, I remember parsing this in lawyer-like fashion, and concluding that perhaps IP202 had been using Wiki for the purpose of reading articles, and had never seen such bias. Or that maybe he'd just been reading talk pages. But, that does seem like a stretch to give him the benefit of the doubt. It does read more like a confession that IP202 has edited under multiple IP accounts, or under an earlier registered account.
WP:VALIDALT gives a number of legitimate reasons why an IP editor might use multiple accounts for editing, while WP:ILLEGIT lists inappropriate uses. Since IP202 has declined to declare his earlier edit history, this would be another possible topic for an AN/I investigation.
I'm disappointed to see that IP202 has disregarded my recommendation that he defer from editing the article. So much for any gentleman's agreement that existed in my imagination. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Even aside from SPA and advocacy issues, IP202's English is really bad enough that he shouldn't be editing. I've reverted him, and attempted to clean up a grammatical error that existed in the paragraph. Basically I think the paragraph in question was correct and neutral as it stood. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible.You changed that to read
Earthquake prediction is claimed to be intrinsically impossible.So the original was in Wiki voice, which would be appropriate if this is the consensus among seismologists. Based on everything I've read, this is probably true: everybody is at least concerned that it might be impossible, especially if by "prediction" is meant "reliable and skillful prediction" for purposes of evacuating cities. Whereas you changed it to speak in source voice, as if this was a controversial proposition. Whether intentional or not, your change to the first paragraph was strongly in favor of VAN, and IMO rendered it in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
"These theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible are still disputed."You changed it to
"These theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible are disputed."If there's any difference in meaning between those two formulations, it's certainly subtle. But, I thought that both formulations went beyond the citation from 1999. I have no idea whether there's an ongoing dispute about this topic. Accordingly, I put that sentence in past tense,
These theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible have been disputed.If anything, I think that change is also unfavorable to VAN. That is, the implication is that no one has argued specifically against the intrinsic impossibility of EQ prediction since 1999. And one can hardly claim that VAN successes are a counter-argument, inasmuch as VAN has not demonstrated that they have overcome their problem with high false alarm rate. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
IP202, thanks for checking my edits. Again I'm hoping that JJ will join our consensus. With respect to "two more unresolved issues", here are my views.
In the paragraph following "taken as a whole", the article states that VAN had an opportunity to reply to their critics in the GRL and Lighthill publications, and citations are given for both of those volumes. This seems sufficient to me, and it might be undue weight or citation overkill WP:OVERSITE to provide more detail.
In the paragraph about the Pirgos 1993, the main point of the paragraph is that Uyeda claimed that lives were saved, but Chouliaris & Stavrakakis disputed this. It's already mentioned that Varotsos' public statement of Feb 26 was unclear as to whether any predictions were being withdrawn, and that further predictions followed after March 5, which were not released to the public. So again it seems to me that the existing paragraph is complete & accurate, and further detail or more citations are unnecessary. However, the information that Varotsos issued a warning to the government on March 24 might be relevant -- but only if there's any evidence that the government took some action based on that warning, and that lives were saved by government actions. Does L-V 2013 mention anything to that effect? JerryRussell ( talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
JJ, thanks for finding the link to that old discussion. IP202's comment was: The selection of the two examples has been done with unjustified criteria, using only secondary sourced material. These examples are equal to examples of success that are omitted.
I replied, in full:
The selection of two examples "such as (typically) a prediction of an earthquake at either 300 km "N.W" of Athens, or 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit" is intended, as it says, to be a typical representation of problems with VAN predictions, namely a lack of precision. The selection could be criticized as "Original Research" but then again it might be equivalent to an obvious application of simple arithmetic. I would have no objection if you were to pull out a couple of examples of 'successful' predictions in which the location, time and amplitude of the quake were all predicted accurately in advance. On the other hand, I would also have no objection if someone were to strike the text about the two predictions as WP:OR, but it's better if we can agree with JJ here in the talk section so that we don't get into edit warring.
There was no reply to that from you or IP202 in the paragraphs that followed, so I asked again:
Also, the selection of two examples from a huge list seems to be a possible violation of WP:OR. I suggested that maybe IP202 could select a couple of counter-examples, but that might be just more OR, and also lengthen an article section that's already too long. How do you think this should be resolved?
Neither you, nor IP202, nor anybody else, ever commented about this again -- until IP202 remembered it in the above thread.
At Wiki, there's always room for editorial judgment about the correct application of policies. I don't question anyone's good faith about their opinions regarding whether the two examples are prejudicial against VAN, or whether the selection was OR, or whether the examples might actually be helpful to the reader. I have an opinion and I've stated it and acted on it, but I can only look to the consensus process to resolve any dispute.
JJ, if this is really important to you, why don't we ping a few more editors and get their opinion? JerryRussell ( talk) 00:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The selection of the two examples has been done with unjustified criteria, using only secondary sourced material. These examples are equal to examples of success that are omitted." The identification of these "two examples" with the cited telegrams comes from your subsequent comment. You opined that the selection "
could be criticized" as OR, or (logical alternative!) "
might be equivalent to an obvious application of simple arithmetic". And while you had "no objection" one way or the other, you also allowed that "
it's better if we can agree with JJ here...."
selection ... with unjustified criteria, using only secondary sourced material"?
unrepresentative?
Original Research"?
... a published source." Period. What else needs to be said?
only secondary sourced material" was used, which is clearly a factual error in that the material is clearly attributed to the man himself. I don't know how much more "primary" one can get.
chose[n] two images showing Kali eating babies" out of hundreds showing Kali doing good deeds presumes that the two images (telegrams) were in fact non-representative. But, in fact, they are not. In all of their publications VAN use this indefinite "N.W. of Athens" kind of "location". Note also that IP202 has totally failed to provide any counter-examples, as you had suggested.
Jerry... You have totally missed the point about why the telegrams were cited. The "selection" of those examples had NOTHING TO DO with their being successful or not; that is entirely irrelevant.But the selected examples don't actually succeed in demonstrating the alleged spatial vagueness of the VAN predictions. With respect to your point above
In all of their publications VAN use this indefinite "N.W. of Athens" kind of "location": in fact there is nothing at all indefinite about a location "300 km NW of Athens." That formulation specifies a particular point on the map, which can also be defined in degrees of latitude and longitude. In Varotsos et al 1996a, all the coordinates for all the predictions are given in degrees latitude and longitude. Some of the telegrams give two different location predictions, but it doesn't seem that they mean the EQ could be anywhere in the range between the two locations given. My original complaint was that the majority of prediction telegrams from VAN were not in this "either/or" format, most of them specify just one location, so the use of this example in "or" format seems to be cherry-picking. But neglecting that issue, I feel it's clear that most VAN predictions cannot be criticized for a lack of spatial precision; and thus the example you gave doesn't really work for that purpose. I believe it's correct, though, that VAN doesn't put time limits on their predictions. Also, if they are just specifying a single point on the map, it's open to interpretation whether any particular EQ is "close enough" to be considered a hit. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The selection of the two examples has been done with unjustified criteria, using only secondary sourced material". (An assertion he made in #Libel on VAN 1983-1995, where its relevance was never established.) But while you assert "unjustified criteria", you don't actually specify what it is. (Or what sources were used.) You're just waving your hands around.
the selection of two examples from a huge list seems to be a possible violation of WP:OR." Which is just more bullshit. In the first place, there is (ha ha, fooled you) no "huge list". The examples were "selected" from a set of exactly two. From which I "cherry-picked"... the entire list.
there is nothing at all indefinite about a location "300 km NW of Athens."' Sorry, you are wrong. (Which you might have noticed if you had read any of the sources that criticize VAN on the point of indefinite location.) The matter is very much (as you allow) '
whether any particular EQ is "close enough" to be considered a hit.' The problem is that VAN are never definite as to what is "close enough", leaving it to the critics to infer what they might mean from their other publications. Which VAN then quibble about.
If the problem is that VAN aren't definite about what is "close enough", then maybe the article should just say so. JerryRussell ( talk) 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
added only to support Geller's point of view", after which YOU back-filled with "Original Research". Only now are you clarifying IP202's meaning (you are a mind-reader!) as "
a successful prediction could have been chosen for illustration." Only you still don't get it: whether that prediction was successful, or not, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT (!!!) to the purpose of illustrating a typical telegram. In fact, I could NOT have chosen another, as, in using both of the telegram images available in that source, THERE WERE NO OTHER EXAMPLES.
These examples are equal to examples of success that are omitted.By 'success' I construe that he meant predictive success. Regarding your
in that source, THERE WERE NO OTHER EXAMPLES.: How many times have I told you I don't have access to that source? I don't question your clear assertion that there were no other examples, but on the other hand I can't independently vouch for it. What I did was to look at Varotsos et al 1996a, where there were many other examples.
many other examples." Oh? Can you give me the page numbers where they have facsimile images of prediction telegrams? My recollection may be faulty, but I don't recall seeing any. I suspect you may have been thinking of "examples" of predictions, such as in their Table 1. At any rate, where I said there were no other sources why is it that you seem to have not picked up where I specified (referring to VL 1991)"telegram images available in that source"? Skipping that is sloppy, and only gets us more entangled. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Much of the controversy with VAN arises from this failure to adequately specify these parameters, such as (typically) a prediction of an earthquake at either 300 km "N.W" of Athens, or 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.So can you perhaps understand why I thought we were talking about predictions, rather than their particular instantiation in telegrams? If you were trying to show that VAN was dishonest in translating from vector coordinates (in the telegrams) to rectangular coordinates (in tabular representations), neither the article text nor the footnote spelled this out in any clear fashion. And if that's your point, you need to find a secondary source that makes that point.
I didn't ask if you have concerns about my understanding of the material. It should be obvious to anyone that I'm a lay person regarding this topic, and that the amount of reading I've done is minuscule compared to the amount of material that has been published. What I asked is whether you have any concerns about the text of this sentence in the article as it's currently written? The text now says: Some of their telegrams include predictions of two distinct earthquake events, such as (typically) one earthquake predicted at 300 km "N.W" of Athens, and another at 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.
There is an additional footnote indicating that one of these two predictions was indeed materialized as an EQ in the predicted location.
JerryRussell (
talk) 16:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
the particular instantiation" of the predictions. Where do you think the data in the tables come from?
unjustified criteria", but without any elaboration as to how they are unjustified, or even what criteria he thought were used. At which point you started imaginatively filling in his blanks, and we spent a lot of time chasing the "selection" bunny. But perhaps now you understand that the subject of the sentence in question is VAN's failure to adequately specify the prediction parameters? That the sentence illustrates these problems in regard of location, magnitude, and time with specific wording from from the source, and that ALL of the published telegrams use the same wording?
JJ, thank you for clarifying that the 9/1/88 telegram or telegrams were singled out for reproduction in VL 1991, and thus that your selection was not "original research".I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; I've been done with the issue of "unjust" selection, OR, etc. since then. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
A crucial issue is the large and often indeterminate parameters of the predictions, such that some critics say these are not predictions, and should not be recognized as such. Much of the controversy with VAN arises from this failure to adequately specify these parameters. Some of their telegrams include predictions of two distinct earthquake events, such as (typically) one earthquake predicted at 300 km "N.W" of Athens, and another at 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.How does that fail to make your point? I agree the earlier text made your point more obvious, but at the cost that the wording didn't correctly represent the source. (Unless the original telegrams could be interpreted as a single prediction somewhere in the range between the two vectors given. If that's the case, then Table 1 of Varotsos et al 1996a is very misleading as to the actual contents of the telegrams.) JerryRussell ( talk) 00:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
that VAN expresses their predictions with high implicit precision ...." So allow me to inform you: precision is limited by the nature of the inputs and how they are are processed, and (generally) you cannot make more precision than you start with. It is not proper to express outputs with precision greater than inherent in the data. (Refer to any introductory engineering text, or any text that covers numerical precision.) Your presumption their computations "
yield very precise locations" is entirely contrary to fact, where (another criticism; see text for sources) their locations are so broad as "cannot be practically utilized". Cranking a calculation to churn out more decimal places does NOT increase actual precision.
there's nothing wrong in science or engineering with expressing such a result as precisely as it's measured." Indeed, quite the opposite: the standard expectation is "as precisely as measured" – but no more than measured! Likewise, there is also "
nothing wrong with rounding", but please note: rounding reduces precision. However, to claim precision of a tenth of a degree where you really have (at best) only half a degree is not rounding, and it is not acceptable practice. (To do so knowingly and deliberately would be dishonest, but such a result could also attributed to bad practice, indifference, etc.)
highly precise" is quite dubious, and (lacking any showing of sources) quite unfounded. So where do you get that notion? You think "
their measurements of SES amplitudes are probably averaged over intervals sufficient to get at least a few digits of precision", but where do you get the idea their predictions are based on averages of an ensemble of SES measurements? In the examples they have published they identify a part of a squiggely line as an SES (or whatever), and on the basis of that single instance base a prediction. Their calculation of direction (if I recall correctly) is based on the ratio of the strength of signals on perpendicular dipoles. Which appears to be just eye-balled. NOT "highly precise".
highly precise" because you also think all their measurements (at least through the 1990s) were obtained digitally and analyzed (?) with Fourier techniques? Again, where do you get that notion?
strength of signals on perpendicular dipoles can be combined to produce a directional estimate" – I said that yesterday, and it is not an issue. The issue (what you seem to have missed) is the precision that might be expected from whatever procedures they use. Which is one of the specific points of criticism: they don't specify that in their predictions.~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
So where do you get the notion that everything was just "eyeballed", JJ? Uyeda's paper gives a very different impression. JerryRussell ( talk) 03:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
are telemetrically connected to Athens (through telephone lines) and the results are depicted on multipen recorders in the central station placed at Glyfada (GLY) about 15 km from Athens." They go on to explain how "
[t]he potential difference V is measured after amplifying and filtering out frequencies higher than 0.3 Hz and the result is displayed on a strip chart recorder...." They provide a dozen illustrations of the strip charts, showing the annotations by which they manually measure their data. No mention of computers, or any kind of digital signal processing (which, if I recall correctly, was more than the computers of that decade could handle). THAT is where I get the notion the notion they are "eyeballing" their data. And your notions of "highly precise" are just quaint.
dark ages" equipment (I've used a bit of it myself); I am objecting to your presumption that the VAN data is "
highly precise", and particularly to your assertion (15:35) that the "squiggley line" I referred to (as metaphor for VAN's raw data) "
consists of a series of digital measurements, each of which is typically precise to a couple of digits, and the series can then be averaged, or processed using fourier techniques." You base this on Uyeda's claim (?) that the SES signals were digitized, but you seem to have freely extrapolated beyond that.
highly precise". Which goes back to the precision (or lack of) in their prediction locations, for which the two telegrams (remember them?) were cited as illustrations.
highly precise". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
highly precise" does not appear to supported by any source, and your implication that such data was based on "
digital measurements" and Fourier analysis is not only not supported by any source, but also not even likely, given the technology of the time.
[t]his analysis however was shown by VAN group to be invalid...") was added, and in response to the demand for more citations. As we have discussed.
Back on Sept. 28, I wrote: JJ, thank you for clarifying that the 9/1/88 telegram or telegrams were singled out for reproduction in VL 1991, and thus that your selection was not "original research". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; I've been done with the issue of "unjust" selection, OR, etc. since then.This time, I'm at a loss as to how I could have been any more clear than that, or why you are still berating me for more clarification. JerryRussell ( talk) 00:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
done", but that left open whether the issues are resolved. But I will take your comments as meaning the several issues raised are settled, and that there is no issue. If there are no further comments I will close this section so that some passer-by doesn't get sucked in. Some small progress is made. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, being helpful to others is a recommended Zen spiritual practice. We've identified a couple of good reasons why IP202 shouldn't be editing the article directly: (1) he's an SPA here for advocacy purposes, and (2) English is not his first language. So if he comes to talk and makes edit requests, and I evaluate those requests and fulfill them if I feel they comply with policies, I don't see the problem. If we're not reasonably responsive to IP202 requests, the gentlemen's agreement breaks down, and IP202 might pursue other dispute resolution paths.
Also, in accordance with WP:BRD, I don't see any problem even making bold edits first, and then discussing them afterwards on the talk page, perhaps after those edits have been reverted. In the particular example we've been discussing, I did in all good faith believe that the matter had been discussed first. But even if that had not been the case, WP:BOLD is the operative policy here. Of course the ultimate outcome of the process depends on achieving consensus. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
JJ, I just noticed that you also reverted my citation to Mileti & Sorensen. Did you mean to do that? JerryRussell ( talk) 02:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
making a wrong impression on alarming}", which he seemes to think demonstrates "Orignal Research" in the existing table. From his reference you took some concern (above, at #Existing contingency table) that "
the public simply does not panic ...", or that "
the "cry wolf" syndrome is greatly overrated", or something. (You never did explain the point of your concern.) As near as I can make out, the only connection of all of that with the table is in the single word "panic". A very tangential item.
problem with all the precursor methods is a high false alarm rate"? Please note: that statement is FALSE. In general, the false alarm rate of any predictor ("precursor" or not) can be forced very low, and even to zero, very easily: just raise the alarm threshold ("The Bar"). Of course, you miss all of the hits, but that is the nature of the trade-offs between Type I and Type II errors.
The big problems with false alarms are: (1) Panic, and (2) "cry wolf" effect."? Again FALSE. There is no statement in the article (in any version), nor any basis for your statement, that "
The big problems with false alarms are: (1) Panic, and (2) "cry wolf" effect." The big problem with false alarms is economic disruption. If the current text is not clear enough on that perhaps we should restore some previously cut text.
can be mitigated by proper communication of the alarm to the public."? This appears to be true, but it is quite irrelevant. That the possibility of panic is reduced might alter the trade-offs, but does not remove the dilemma: You still can't reduce one without increasing the other.
In general, the false alarm rate of any predictor ("precursor" or not) can be forced very low, and even to zero, very easily: just raise the alarm threshold, of course I see this and I agree. But if the alarm threshold is set so that a useful "hit rate" is obtained, then the false alarm rate will be high, at least for the real-world methods we're discussing. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if you have noticed where someone said that earthquakes don't kill people, failing structures kill people.Have you noticed that the very next paragraph, that exact point is clearly spelled out?
JJ, isn't the topic of the section something that we should determine collaboratively, by consensus, as editors of the article? The existing article contains the sentence The acceptable trade-off between missed quakes and false alarms depends on the societal valuation of these outcomes
, which I would interpret as addressing the question of "how to set the bar". The text within the dilemma table states "lowering the bar reduces odds of losses, but increases the costs of false alarms." Again, this seems to qualitatively address the question "how to set the bar".
I agree it would be ludicrous to argue that the bar should be set so low as to expect a major earthquake all the time. To use a concrete example, the most optimistic estimate of VAN 1990's capability is that it could achieve a 70% hit rate at the cost of a 90% false alarm rate. If that's the case, perhaps the alarm could be communicated to the public as follows: "Some seismologists believe there's a 10% chance of a major earthquake within the next two months, somewhere within 120 km of location X." I doubt if such a prediction would elicit much panic. I'm not sure how useful it would be in terms of saving lives, either; but it seems possible that such a warning might prompt some people to take specific precautions.
It has also been complained that VAN predictions were active much of the time. VAN made 94 predictions over an 8 year period, each one of them open for a month or more. So it does seem that on the average one of those predictions would always have been active. Wiki gives the surface area of Greece as 131,957 square kilometers. If the effective radius of VAN predictions is 120 km, that is 45,216 square kilometers, or about 1/3 the surface area of Greece. So on average, about 1/3 of the area of Greece would have been covered by an active VAN prediction at any given time. (This rough calculation does not account for VAN predictions centered in the oceans.) I wouldn't encourage using this calculation in the article, as it goes beyond simple arithmetic in its presumptions, which makes it WP:OR. But it tends to indicate VAN predictions would indeed have been active often enough that "cry wolf" would be a rather difficult problem to mitigate; while at the same time, any claim that VAN predictions "expect a major EQ all the time" is going beyond the facts. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The article up until recently has read as follows:
Objections have been raised that the physics of the VAN method is not possible and the analysis of the propagation properties of SES in the Earth’s crust claimed that it would have been impossible for signals with the amplitude reported by VAN to have been transmitted over the several hundred kilometers distances from the epicenter to the monitoring station.[58][59] It was also claimed that VAN’s publications do not account for (i.e. identify and eliminate) possible sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI).[60]
At IP202's request, I proposed adding the following information:
However, the VAN group claims that SES signals mainly travel through fault zones whose conductivity exceeds significantly, i.e., by a factor 102 to 103, the conductivity of the surrounding medium.[59] They also claim to have derived and published criteria that can clearly distinguish SES from other electric signals of no precursory nature.[57]
Discussion question: May this additional information be included in the paragraph? (It is currently in the footnotes.) Or must it also be deleted from the notes as well? JerryRussell ( talk) 23:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE gives examples such as flat-earth and moon landing conspiracy theory, which are clearly deprecated by the mainstream. Is VAN in that same extreme category of pseudoscience? I see no evidence that this is a dominant mainstream position. In fact there is a diversity of views about VAN.
I hope that everyone can agree that for 1990's VAN technology, if the alarm "bar" was set so as to achieve a reasonable hit rate (~70%), the false alarm rate was very high (~90%). The predictions also lacked spatial and temporal precision. So that created a very real limit on the utility of the predictions. VAN has worked to improve that problem with "natural time" but the jury is still out, whether there has been any success on that front.
Some sources go beyond that, and claim that VAN method is no better than random darts thrown at a calendar, the hit rate was much closer to zero, and that VAN are charlatans. But I don't see evidence that this is The mainstream position. In my opinion, writing our article as if this perspective is WP:TRUTH is inappropriate. An example case in point is the discussion directly above, on "Proposed additional text re: VAN SES method". What possible reason would there be to oppose inclusion of the extra text, except for an inappropriate application of WP:FALSEBALANCE? JJ, I get that you're opposed to including this material, but I confess I am resorting to mindreading here to try to come up with why. Am I understanding you correctly? JerryRussell ( talk) 01:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Given the current state of scientific knowledge, individual large earthquakes cannot be reliably predicted in future intervals of years or less. In other words, reliable and skillful deterministic earthquake prediction is not yet possible.
The Commission has identified no method for the short-term prediction of large earthquakes that has been demonstrated to be both reliable and skillful.
... large earthquakes cannot be reliably predicted for specific regions over time scales less than decades.
... the inability to reliably predict large earthquakes in seismically active regions on short time scales. ... The search for diagnostic precursors has not yet produced a successful short-term prediction scheme.
... subsequent testing has failed to validate the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by the authors" [emphasis added].
[151] Geller [1996], Lighthill [1996], Mulargia and Gasperini [1992].So we're back to the same sources we've been discussing, and the ICEF's one-paragraph summary leaves out a lot of nuance. And, their summary asks as many questions as it answers. What are the "optimistic" prediction capabilities claimed by VAN? Does this mean the breathless claims in the first few papers they published, which certainly have failed to materialize? Or the more sober results presented in Lighthill, where they are basically admitting to a 90% false alarm rate?
What are the "optimistic" prediction capabilities claimed by VAN?". Yes, perhaps those breathless claims in their "first few papers", which would include Mary Lazaridou's 2012 book about "The success of the VAN method over thirty years". So why this quibbling about the ICEF? You were wanting a definite verdict from some kind of scientific jury re VAN, but when you get it you complain you don't like their references.
most prestigious academic peer reviewed journals", but VAN's papers are NOT being published by the most prestigious scientific peer reviewed journals (Nature and Science), nor even in leading earth science journals such as the Journal of Geophysical Research, the Geological Society of America Bulletin, the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, and Geophysical Research Letters.
ICEF summary ... adds nothing to the debate"? I think you have confused the ICEF's assessment of the debate – the verdict of the scientific jury, if you wish – with the debate itself. They weren't "another critic", they were the jury.
collection of POV reviews", it is a review, by some of the world's top experts. You object to the SES because their views are disfavorable to VAN, but as we have seen you are entirely a VAN partisan. You try to trivialize VAN-critical views by suggesting they are due to only one or two individuals (first Geller, now Papadopoulos), ignoring the broad basis of such criticism. You complain we are "
stuck to decades ago" arguments, but you reject the most recent assessment of those arguments.
JJ, it's not me whose snarkiness is leading to misstatements. We all know that PNAS is so weak in earth science that they run articles about flat-earth and creationism on a regular basis. It's so bad that they even accept "crappy" articles by Pullinets. OMG.
But, flat-earth theory and Creationism get more of a fair presentation at Wikipedia than you're willing to allow for VAN. JerryRussell ( talk) 19:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts, and is viewed by professional scientists as unscholarly and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.
there was a "one-to-one correspondence" between SES and earthquakes", [1] – that is, that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ the magnitude and the epicenter of which can be reliably predicted" [2] – the SES appearing between six and 115 hours before the earthquake.
a highly politicized team organized for the defense of the Italian scientists" is unsourced, and sounds like yet more stuff that you just pluck out of thin air. They were asked to "
assess scientific knowledge of earthquake predictability" (see the Preface, and also the Abstract), and I see absolutely no showing their verdict is incorrect, or even contested.
References
JJ: My opinion of ICEF is purely my own opinion. It is our role as Wiki editors, to assess the quality of the sources. VAN has been discussed in many, many sources since the 1996 papers cited by ICEF. If you think my POV is non-neutral, so take me to AN/I. I dare you.
JerryRussell (
talk) 23:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
And if you aren't going to take this to AN/I, here and now, I demand a retraction of your statement that I have a strong non-neutral point of view. I construe it as a personal attack.
JerryRussell (
talk) 00:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Well JJ, you finally got to me, and you made me angry. But on reflection, I'm not sure whether AN/I would be the best venue for dispute resolution. So I'm retracting my ill-considered remarks above. If you aren't enthusiastic for another RfC, maybe we could try DRN, or mediation. Or if you want to take it to AN/I, I'm game for that too, whatever.
ICEF passed on a great opportunity to actually read & review the many papers produced by VAN and their friends since 1996. How pathetic, and what a missed opportunity, that they referred to the 1996 papers and left it at that. We've already talked about the hatchet job they did on Giuliani.
ICEF didn't say whether they were judging VAN by the criteria of their 1984 claim, but if they did, so much the better. I believe VAN has significantly qualified those claims since 1984, though obviously they still believe there is some sort of correlation between SES and EQ.
I don't agree that our problem is any lack of neutrality on my part, but I do agree that this endless quibbling is getting us nowhere. JerryRussell ( talk) 07:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
pathetic" that the ICEF "
referred to the 1996 papers and left it at that"? To the extent all of the 1996 discussion settled the matter for mainstream seismology, is there anything that VAN (and their friends) have said, or even could say, that changes the mainstream point of view? How does "pathetic" even enter into this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
any VAN work since 1996", but 1) I don't see that you have the competence to make that judgment, 2) what was said up to 1996 was sufficient to show a failed validation, and 3) I suspect the ICEF felt that nothing VAN has said afterwards shows any reason to change that.