From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: fax
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:08:50 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Jul29.213242.21246@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
> greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson) writes:
> 
> >Mr. Childers, you seem convinced that Mr. Coles is correct.  Fine --
> >I don't take issue with the fact that you are convinced.  In fact,
> >I invite you to try to convince me.  So, if you have any scientific
> >proof, rather than simple criticisms of the scientific method,
> >show it to me.  Make your case.  If you manage to convince me, I
> >will gladly publicly state the fact that you have managed to do so.
> 
> Why would I try to convince you of something that remains to be deter-
> -mined ?
> 
> Where we disagree, is whether it is worth determining. You seem to know
> the answers in advance, such that you can dictate whether a particular
> line of reasoning is worth pursuing. This is not scientific method.

Greg certainly doesn't need my help, but I feel like throwing in my 2 cents
anyway...

What we have here is a misunderstanding of the scientific method.  Greg
is not disagreeing that Mr Cole's method is worth pursuing.  He has merely
pointed out that any opportunity to apply the scientific method has been
denied here.  The scientific method absolutely requires the independent
confirmation of results.  Mr Cole has not arranged for this.  Could he
not find a qualified and informed third party mutually agreeable to
both himself and interested scientists to whom he could reveal his method
and equipment and allow said person to attempt to duplicate his results
under rigorous conditions?

Remember - this is exactly the point at which "cold fusion" failed.  The two
researchers (Pons and Fleishmann) announced their "results" and asked for
grant money (several million dollars), yet would not release their method
supposedly for the fear that someone else would profit.  Well, competent
scientists investigated their claims every way possible and found nothing.
Finally, a third party was brought in - they could not duplicate the results.
Because they were demanding such large funds, they were finally forced
to release their method.  The method was duplicated, and fully analyzed - no
fusion was shown.  A combination of bad technique, bad theory, bad observation
ability, lack of analysis and jumping to conclusions led to the debacle.

A similar phenomenon has been at work against thermodynamicists forever.
Since before the laws of thermodynamics were derived, people have announced
perpetual motion machines.  They have always been closely guarded secrets -
always under the guise that the inventor was afraid they would be stolen.
Have you ever heard of one being released as a product, shown to be
scientifically valid, or otherwise make it out of the inventor's own workshop?
No - there can be no perpetual motion machines, they do not exist.  People
either do not fully understand the phenomena they are working with, or
they have not analyzed all the available data using controls, etc., or
they are deliberate frauds as part of a money-making scheme.  What happens
with the very popular perpetual motion machines happens in other areas
of science, and quake prediction is one of those more frequently hit.
I was hearing and reading about prediction devices more than 10 yearts ago,
and I know several scientists who can tell of many such devices stretching
back through the years.  Few were ever proven or disproven - the methods and
equipment are rarely made available.  Yet, we have no prediction device
today.  I'd say the weight of history is against Mr. Cole.  If he will
not allow the scientific method to be applied to his devices and technique,
how can he claim to be any different than those who went before?

Certainly, a record of well-specified successful predictions would be a good
indication.  I would want to see predictions far more precise than that
expected on the basis of historical seismicity.  Direction is not sufficient.
He must provide:  direction (a precise compass angle, with a range in degrees
that the quake must occur within - close don't count), distance range
from his observing site, time (again with a precise range within which the
quake must occur), and magnitude (with a precise range on that, recalling
that magnitude is logarithmic - saying "3 to 6" is a little like saying
"1000 to 27,000,000" when converted to energy - pretty damn big range).
I would count events he issued no prediction for against him if they were
within his normal distance range and magnitude range.  Do you think he
could pass a rigorous exam like that?  Hard to say based on the sparse
predicting he's done so far.

As a scientist, there's many interesting phenomena to investigate.  Yet,
many scientists would drop what they were doing to work on verifying his
methods if the methods were released.  (Again, witness the cold fusion
fiasco - 100's of scientists checked that one).  No scientist is given any form
of assistance if they do not justify their work.  No money, no papers
published, no jobs.  Mr. Cole can expect nothing better.  If he is not
interested, fine, but that leaves the scientists out of the loop.
They can't investigate his work, and he isn't asking for their assistance.
So don't bother the scientists.  Do you want them to just roll over and
say that "Oh, yes any Tom, Dick or Harry is certainly more qualified than
myself, and they must be 100% right in all things just because they
AREN'T scientists"?  I have no idea what folks really want scientists
to do with Mr. Cole.  If you say have an open mind - we already got that.
Greg has that - he said he wants to have a look at what Mr. Cole does.
If he didn't have an open mind, Mr. Cole could beg, and he wouldn't give
him the time of day.  If you're blustering about having an open mind -
you're preaching to the choir here.  What do you want us to do?

Also, note that Greg's questions are not statements that Mr. Cole is worng.
They are simply questions - part of the scientific method.  Questions are
asked and then investigations are done to find the answers.  When Greg
asks how Mr. Cole gets a direction - the question reflects his understanding
of radio energy.  Mr. Cole measures frequency shifts.  In and of themselves,
these contain no directional information, so Greg is asking what additional
information is used to determine the direction.  He is not denying that
Mr. Cole determines direction.  He is merely asking how this is done.

--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes