From: greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: fax
Date: 24 Jul 1992 16:38:14 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: andy.berkeley.edu

In article <6q9eoB3w163w@quake.sylmar.ca.us> nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn) writes:
>I would like to receive messages fom ANYONE that is using RF and 
>other methods to PREDICT quakes. It would be interesting to have
>that DATA myself and look it over..
> 
>why are you people always so CLOSED minded anyway??? Is this why
>the USA is so BEHIND in most things, because you all have closed minds
>and think you know it all??
> 
>I am really tired of all this, you have got to quit thinking that you
>know everything and OPEN YOUR MIND TO NEW STUFF!! (talking about
>"scientists" in general)..
> 
>I consider myself a "scientist", and I get CLOSE MINDED sometimes on
>some things and it is HARDER to keep a open mind, but you can do it...
> 
>If Mr. Cole or anyone else would like to send me mailings on their
>data, or would like a place to UPLOAD and distrubute their data, please
>write.
> 
>I would like to see the data myself.
> 

Explicitly at the beginning:
	
	The following is *my* opinion alone.
	I would not presume to speak either for
	my employer or anyone else.

As a scientist, I agree that it is very important to
keep one's mind open to new ideas.  Just 30 years ago
(as an example), the idea of plate tectonics was 
considered laughable by most "reputable" earth scientists,
and, today, it is a paradigm of earth science.  So, new
ideas are important and need to be heard.

However, as a scientist, one must also be critical.  
In order to decide if a theory is good, one needs to under-
stand the data and methods upon which the theory is based,
in order to test its validity.  A big part of that is the
need for reproducibility of results.  If I do an exper-
iment, I should not and would not consider it validated
until other experimenters can reproduce the results. 
(Witness the great "cold fusion" fiasco...)

So, what does all this have to do with Jack Coles?  Simply this: 
Jack Coles claims he has done experiments which lead him to predict
predict earthquakes based on RF noise events.  Fine.  Then let him
share his data and his methods and let other researchers try the
same experiments.  If they can reproduce his results, then he 
has done a valid experiment.  If not, then either Coles or the 
other researchers or both have done something incorrect.

However, Mr. Coles steadfastly refuses to share his data and his
methods (beyond vague generalities).  So no other scientist can
attempt his experiments to test their validity.  Therefore, no other
scientist can say his predictions are valid.

Now, the onus is on Mr. Coles to *prove*, in a scientific sense --
by allowing other researchers to duplicate his results, that his
prediction claims are valid.  It is *NOT* our duty as other 
scientists to *disprove* his claim -- we're not the ones claiming
to predict earthquakes using his methods.  Mr. Coles has not 
proven the validity of his "predictions" and thus, in my opinion,
should not be taken seriously.

When he can demonstrate scientifically the validity of his claims,
then I'll start treating his claims with the respect I give valid
claims.  Until then, I don't believe them.  That's not due to a
closed mind.  It's due to a skeptical point of view on unproven
theories -- a scepticism which is necessary for science to work.

_________________________________________________________________
Greg Anderson
UCB Seismographic Stations
greg@perry.berkeley.edu