On another board in a discussion on psychics another poster said that it had been proven that there were people who could predict the future. The person he mentioned was Sollog, and he claimed that Sollog's earthquake predictions were amazing. I disputed this and was told that I obviously knew very little about it. Given that it's a general discussion forum I hadn't gone into information overdrive, but that prompted me to do exactly that. I went and found what Sollog's own site claims as his best earthquake prediction - predicting an earthquake in Iran on Christmas day 2003 - and then went back through newsgroup archives to find the actual prediction. What I found was a list of 40-50 predictions, made 6 days before Christmas 2003, one of which was that "many" will die in "great quakes".
I pointed out that this was remarkably imprecise, as it didn't give a timescale, a location, or a magnitude, but simply predicted that many would die at some point, somewhere and yet this was being counted as a precise hit as if he'd predicted Christmas day and Iran. I also pointed out that the death toll from earthquakes is in the tens of thousands every year, making such a prediction a certainty. Furthermore, I also pointed out that, even if we did take the prediction at face value, it predicted earthquakes, plural, yet just the one earthquake was being counted as a hit. And, of course, I mentioned the numerous other predictions that were entirely false and pointed out how it's a case of cherry-picking of the highest order.
And then I did what I thought was a reasonable thing - I decided to demonstrate that it was possible to make better predictions through the use of a little knowledge. My prediction was for an earthquake of at least 5.7 magnitude to occur on the west coast of the continent of America (including Hawaii) within a month. I have until the 31st of this month. If it comes true then it must be a better prediction than Sollog's as Sollog predicted that an earthquake would happen somewhere, some time, whereas I'm giving a timescale, location, and magnitude. Someone did try to say that I was cheating because earthquakes happen all the time on the west coast of America, but backed off when I reiterated that that was the point - it's something with a fair degree of probability of occurring that I know has a fair degree of probability of occurring because I know a little something about earthquakes and, even though it's pretty vague, it's many orders of magnitude better than Sollog's prediction. The idea isn't to make a good prediction, it's to make one that's better than Sollog's, as Sollog's incredibly vague prediction is counted as his best, and is being offered up as proof that a human being can predict the future.
Given that the west coast of America is on the Ring of Fire, I thought that this was a fair bet. However, I came this close to saying the east coast of Asia. The reason I didn't pick Asia is because I'd have wanted to extend what I was calling the east coast of Asia down to Australia, including Papua New Guinea, and I wasn't sure that people would go for that (I'm happy with Hawaii as even though it's nowhere near the continent of America it's part of the US, so I can make it fit).
And this is where I'm wondering whether I've made a mistake. It's been about 2 weeks and there have been 2 earthquakes that come close to my prediction - a 5.0 and a 5.2. In Papua New Guinea and Japan, however, there have been 10-20 earthquakes of 5.7 magnitude or higher. I know other people on this board have done earthquake predictions, so my question is - does the east coast of Asia have more of a proclivity for earthquakes of a significant magnitude? Would I have been playing the probabilities better if I had gone for the east coast of Asia (or even just Japan), or is it just the way that it's working out at the moment and in a different 2 week period I could have seen none on the east coast of Asia and 10-20 on the west coast of America?
I still think I have a reasonable chance of my prediction coming true, but I want to know whether I'd have had a better chance had I gone with the east coast of Asia instead, for the next time I make an earthquake prediction.
I pointed out that this was remarkably imprecise, as it didn't give a timescale, a location, or a magnitude, but simply predicted that many would die at some point, somewhere and yet this was being counted as a precise hit as if he'd predicted Christmas day and Iran. I also pointed out that the death toll from earthquakes is in the tens of thousands every year, making such a prediction a certainty. Furthermore, I also pointed out that, even if we did take the prediction at face value, it predicted earthquakes, plural, yet just the one earthquake was being counted as a hit. And, of course, I mentioned the numerous other predictions that were entirely false and pointed out how it's a case of cherry-picking of the highest order.
And then I did what I thought was a reasonable thing - I decided to demonstrate that it was possible to make better predictions through the use of a little knowledge. My prediction was for an earthquake of at least 5.7 magnitude to occur on the west coast of the continent of America (including Hawaii) within a month. I have until the 31st of this month. If it comes true then it must be a better prediction than Sollog's as Sollog predicted that an earthquake would happen somewhere, some time, whereas I'm giving a timescale, location, and magnitude. Someone did try to say that I was cheating because earthquakes happen all the time on the west coast of America, but backed off when I reiterated that that was the point - it's something with a fair degree of probability of occurring that I know has a fair degree of probability of occurring because I know a little something about earthquakes and, even though it's pretty vague, it's many orders of magnitude better than Sollog's prediction. The idea isn't to make a good prediction, it's to make one that's better than Sollog's, as Sollog's incredibly vague prediction is counted as his best, and is being offered up as proof that a human being can predict the future.
Given that the west coast of America is on the Ring of Fire, I thought that this was a fair bet. However, I came this close to saying the east coast of Asia. The reason I didn't pick Asia is because I'd have wanted to extend what I was calling the east coast of Asia down to Australia, including Papua New Guinea, and I wasn't sure that people would go for that (I'm happy with Hawaii as even though it's nowhere near the continent of America it's part of the US, so I can make it fit).
And this is where I'm wondering whether I've made a mistake. It's been about 2 weeks and there have been 2 earthquakes that come close to my prediction - a 5.0 and a 5.2. In Papua New Guinea and Japan, however, there have been 10-20 earthquakes of 5.7 magnitude or higher. I know other people on this board have done earthquake predictions, so my question is - does the east coast of Asia have more of a proclivity for earthquakes of a significant magnitude? Would I have been playing the probabilities better if I had gone for the east coast of Asia (or even just Japan), or is it just the way that it's working out at the moment and in a different 2 week period I could have seen none on the east coast of Asia and 10-20 on the west coast of America?
I still think I have a reasonable chance of my prediction coming true, but I want to know whether I'd have had a better chance had I gone with the east coast of Asia instead, for the next time I make an earthquake prediction.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1rm7wAV
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire