Seismology is a pseudoscience

In this round I will address definitions, address my opponent's arguments, and establish my own. Definitions:My opponent did not offer any definitions in the prior round, nor did he object to the ones I established. Therefore, my definitions hold.I feel no need to further define at this time.Refutations:Affirmation Argument A:From my understanding, my opponent believes that all sciences must have standards. He claims that seismology doesn't have standards, therefore, it is not a science. This can be described in the following syllogism:Major Premise: All 'sciences' without standards can be described as a pseudoscienceMinor Premise: Seismology is a 'science' without standardsConclusion: Therefore, seismology is a pseudoscienceRebuttal 1:I believe that the minor premise of the affirmation's argument does not hold. By "standard," my opponent lists multiple examples. From my interpretation, by standards he believes that there is a method used to, in general, to either draw a conclusion or recognize probabilities. I would like to look specifically at the affirmation's example of biology. He states, "We dont know whether x or y or z will happen but we know that nothing else can happen." This logic can be directly applied to seismology, even at a very elementary level. For example, we know that there will either be an earthquake or there wont be. There is no partial earthquake. There are small ones and large ones, but it will or will not be an earthquake. We know that nothing else can happen. By my opponent's own example, seismology can be seen as having standards.Rebuttal 2:The affirmation's major premise also fails. In order for the syllogism to be true, my opponent must establish that all sciences without standards (again, by his definition) are pseudosciences. Therefore, should my opponent be convinced that seismology is a pseudoscience because it fails the standard of not predicting or being able to prevent something (as per his initial concern mentioned in round one), he must also believe that the following are pseudoscience: Cellular Biology/Genetics: Unable to predict or prevent genetic mutations. (note that the affirmation claimed that biology is indeed a legitimate science) [1] Volcanology: Unable to predict when dormant volcanoes can become active [2] Particle physics/quantum mechanics: We cannot predict why particles behave like waves when not observed directly. We only know that they do. [3] Effectively, several sciences have components which they cannot predict. That does not exclude them from being a science. Also note that when I mention prediction, I mean something accurate. Summary of Rebuttal's for Affirmation Argument A: I have established in Rebuttal 2 that, according to two of the affermation's examples and one additional one, that the affermation's argument is false. If he still insists that his examples hold to his argument, then, as per Rebuttal 1, seismology does not apply. Either his minor premise or his major premise fails and thus so does his argument. Contention 1: As Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb from the University of South Alabama points out, "A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data) [4]." This is something that seismologists are clearly capable of achieving. In fact, the entire purpose of the International Seismological Centre. Through communication and observation, a database is stored for seismic events [6]. Contention 2:To further address the affirmation's initial concern, I would like to point out that seismology is not explicitly the science of observing earthquakes. Though I am likely neglecting to name several, the Seismological Society of America explains that there other significant purposes. The knowledge of observing earthquakes can be applied to make scientific discoveries. For example, "Much of what is known about the Earth's interior, from the uppermost crust to the central core, has been learned by painstaking analysis of the waves generated by earthquakes and, recently, by large explosions that are recorded by seismographs." Other uses include assisting in the search for oil and observing for nuclear activity [7]. In fact, in 2013 seismic activity played a role in detecting a nuclear test by North Korea [6].Contention 3:Contrary to the affirmation, seismology can predict earthquake activity. The Seismological Society of America is more of an expert than I am on the subject, and as such I feel they can put the following in better words than I:"After decades of observations of earthquake locations, seismologists have been able to determine the locations at which earthquakes occurred most commonly in the past--and therefore are expected to be most likely in the future. This information is also vital to the task of earthquake hazard assessment. Again, while considerable progress has been made, fundamental questions remain unanswered. Large earthquakes do not always occur where they are expected, and sometimes expected earthquakes do not occur "on schedule."[7]"This, to my interpretation, is quite similar to weather forcasts from the science of the atmosphere, metorology. Conclusion:Seismology is not a pseudoscience. The affirmation's only argument has been examined, critiqued, and rendered obsolete. Seismology's purpose has been established and backed up by evidence. Its foundation is strong: seismic waves have been observed, recorded, and even collected into a database. This means that seismology cannot fall under the definition of pseudoscience. At this point in time, I see no reason to vote for the affirmation and thus urge a Con ballot. Thank you. [1] mda.org/publications/facts-about-genetics-and-NMDs/what-happens-in-families [2]http://volcano.oregonstate.edu... [3] youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ [4] http://www.gly.uga.edu... [5] http://www.isc.ac.uk... [6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [7] http://www.seismosoc.org...