From: greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: fax
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:44:47 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: UC Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: andy.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul24.214500.1394@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson) writes:
>>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.
>
>Nor can they say, with scientific certainty, that they are invalid.
>
>Seems to me I've seen some pretty specific articles describing what
>his equipment is, who else is helping, and where the data can be
>seen - on which bulletin board systems, that is.
>

It's *my* recollection that the posts to which you are referring
were fairly vague.  They listed the equipment, but not how he is
using it.  That's not sufficient to allow someone to reproduce
his results.  It's like saying you need eggs, milk, flour, and 
chocolate chips (among other things -- I never claimed to be a
baker :-)) to make chocoloate chip cookies.  It may tell you 
what you need, but not the proportions and/or how to mix and cook
them to end up with cookies.

>>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.
>
>Bullshit. It's not a question of belief ... it's a question of keeping
>from calling it nonsense, until such point in time as you can *prove*
>that it is nonsense. No such proof exists on either side. Which is why
>it annoys people when you refer to Mr. Coles with a derogatory tone ...
>

I was not aware I had referred to Mr. Coles "with a derogatory tone".
I simply said that he had not proven the validity of his claims, and
therefore I don't believe them.  Note that I didn't say he *lied*, I
just said his claims haven't been proven and that *I* don't believe
them.  That's very different from calling someone a liar.

I also never called it "nonsense".  I said he had not proven the
validity of his claims.  It's like the people who claim to have seen
UFOs and that UFOs are alien spacecraft.  I don't say that they are
lying.  I do say that it is *their* responsibility to prove that 
their experience happened and that their interpretation is correct.
It is not the responsiblity of other people to *disprove* either
that the experience took place or that the person's interpretation
of the experience is correct.

I say it is *Mr. Coles'* responsibility to prove that his means of   
prediction are valid, not the scientific community's responsibility
to prove that they are *invalid*.  

And as such, I say his claims are unproven and therefore *I* don't 
believe them.  I'm not saying he's lying.  I'm saying he has not
proven he's right.

Greg Anderson
UCB Seismographic Station
greg@perry.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes