7 ms·

The Strange Tectonic Coincidence of Mexico’s September Earthquakes

43 points by anthotny 9y ago

dogruck 9y ago
Summary: the epicenters of the two quakes were far apart. Correlation does not equal causation.
- pacaro 9y ago
  Also Mexico City is built on a swamp/marsh[1], like a suprisingly large proportion of capital cities (London, Berlin, Paris, etc. ) [1] IIRC the difference between a swamp and a marsh is one of ph.
  - pmorici 9y ago
    Difference between a swamp and a marsh is the type of plants. Swamps are to forests what marshes are to prairie. You might be thinking of the difference between fens and bogs which ph is a distinguishing characteristic. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-classification-and-types#marshes https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-classification-and-typ...
    - tmzt 9y ago
      Something might be wrong with my browser, I didn't receive a 451 when visiting that page. Or should it be 404 since it never existed?
    - pacaro 9y ago
      Thank you! I should have looked it up.
  - FooHentai 9y ago
    >like a suprisingly large proportion of capital cities Not a massive surprise - Cities are enduring hubs for commerce, and so usually rise around strong transport infrastructure, which going back far enough meant waterways. Extensive development is facilitated with the presence of large areas of flat land. Put those two together and you're looking for flatland surrounding major waterways: Swamps and marshes.
- DavidSJ 9y ago
  To be pedantic, it's more that there isn't enough data to even say that there's any correlation to begin with, and also that our understanding of the origin of the two quakes refutes a shared cause. A usage note: the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" is usually reserved for the case where two variables A and B have a correlation in the data that isn't just due to sampling accident, and hence are causally connected, but just not in the naive sense of A causing B. It may be that B causes A or that a third variable C causes both. But a true correlation in the underlying process always has some causal explanation.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    That's false, unless you assert the lack of free will.
    - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
      Are you talking about the social concept / illusion of "free will", or actual free will? Because actual free will clearly cannot exist. Either your actions are fully dictated by physics and your prior state (meaning know free choice), or your actions are influenced by randomness meaning random choice (but again not free choice). I do agree that the societal illusion of free-will along with associating legal consequences to actions is the only way we can have a functioning society.
      - CuriouslyC 9y ago
        I think it is somewhat of a grey area if you are free to influence the world, but your choices reflect your preferences. I think it is better to argue about whether consciousness has causal power, since that is semantically clearer.
      - biofox 9y ago
        Free will is a tricky subject. It certainly feels like I can deliberate and come to a free choice, by abstracting decisions from my immediate and prior influences. I have previously tried to come to terms with not having free will, and it left me feeling stripped of any agency / control, utterly depressed, demotivated, and incapable of doing anything. If there is no reason for my actions, other than the initial state of the universe evolving forward in time, then there is no point to anything. Most people can't live like that. Could there be an alternative explanation, based on unknown physics; selecting between different permissible universes? I heard an argument from Terence McKenna that I liked, along the lines of: You should choose to believe in free will, because it appears that we have it. If you choose to believe in it, and it doesn't exist, then you had no choice but to believe in it anyway.
- nanis 9y ago
  Actually, with two observations and two variables, correlation is always perfect. Statistical inference begins with three observations.
stillbourne 9y ago
Illuminati confirmed! Obviously this is some sort of earthquake weapon made to do... uh, what exactly? Cause, you know, earthquakes and aftershocks are not naturally occurring things near tectonic plates... so we need to attribute it to some dark god^H^H^H government conspiracy in order to explain this. The article is actually a pretty good piece on skepticism. But the title is just bait for stupid people to feed into their fears. If the attempt was to make it clickbaity for people to click on it in order to debunk any notions people might have they failed. Stupid people only read headlines not articles.
dmlorenzetti 9y ago
The New Yorker could be that much better if they would occasionally include technical graphics. In this case, how about a rendering of the plate mechanics that are the subject of the article? They are quite happy to print line drawings, comics, and full-page photos, so it's not like they're scared of non-text content. Yet I've seen them devote multiple paragraphs to describing a scatterplot that stunned some scientist they were profiling.
malkia 9y ago
There is another one today - 6.2 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/23/mexico-new-earthquake-oaxaca https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/23/mexico-new-ear...

43 points by anthotny 9y ago

dogruck 9y ago

Summary: the epicenters of the two quakes were far apart. Correlation does not equal causation.

pacaro 9y ago
Also Mexico City is built on a swamp/marsh[1], like a suprisingly large proportion of capital cities (London, Berlin, Paris, etc. ) [1] IIRC the difference between a swamp and a marsh is one of ph.
- pmorici 9y ago
  Difference between a swamp and a marsh is the type of plants. Swamps are to forests what marshes are to prairie. You might be thinking of the difference between fens and bogs which ph is a distinguishing characteristic. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-classification-and-types#marshes https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-classification-and-typ...
  - tmzt 9y ago
    Something might be wrong with my browser, I didn't receive a 451 when visiting that page. Or should it be 404 since it never existed?
  - pacaro 9y ago
    Thank you! I should have looked it up.
- FooHentai 9y ago
  >like a suprisingly large proportion of capital cities Not a massive surprise - Cities are enduring hubs for commerce, and so usually rise around strong transport infrastructure, which going back far enough meant waterways. Extensive development is facilitated with the presence of large areas of flat land. Put those two together and you're looking for flatland surrounding major waterways: Swamps and marshes.
DavidSJ 9y ago
To be pedantic, it's more that there isn't enough data to even say that there's any correlation to begin with, and also that our understanding of the origin of the two quakes refutes a shared cause. A usage note: the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" is usually reserved for the case where two variables A and B have a correlation in the data that isn't just due to sampling accident, and hence are causally connected, but just not in the naive sense of A causing B. It may be that B causes A or that a third variable C causes both. But a true correlation in the underlying process always has some causal explanation.
- dogruck 9y ago
  That's false, unless you assert the lack of free will.
  - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
    Are you talking about the social concept / illusion of "free will", or actual free will? Because actual free will clearly cannot exist. Either your actions are fully dictated by physics and your prior state (meaning know free choice), or your actions are influenced by randomness meaning random choice (but again not free choice). I do agree that the societal illusion of free-will along with associating legal consequences to actions is the only way we can have a functioning society.
    - CuriouslyC 9y ago
      I think it is somewhat of a grey area if you are free to influence the world, but your choices reflect your preferences. I think it is better to argue about whether consciousness has causal power, since that is semantically clearer.
    - biofox 9y ago
      Free will is a tricky subject. It certainly feels like I can deliberate and come to a free choice, by abstracting decisions from my immediate and prior influences. I have previously tried to come to terms with not having free will, and it left me feeling stripped of any agency / control, utterly depressed, demotivated, and incapable of doing anything. If there is no reason for my actions, other than the initial state of the universe evolving forward in time, then there is no point to anything. Most people can't live like that. Could there be an alternative explanation, based on unknown physics; selecting between different permissible universes? I heard an argument from Terence McKenna that I liked, along the lines of: You should choose to believe in free will, because it appears that we have it. If you choose to believe in it, and it doesn't exist, then you had no choice but to believe in it anyway.
nanis 9y ago
Actually, with two observations and two variables, correlation is always perfect. Statistical inference begins with three observations.

stillbourne 9y ago

Illuminati confirmed! Obviously this is some sort of earthquake weapon made to do... uh, what exactly? Cause, you know, earthquakes and aftershocks are not naturally occurring things near tectonic plates... so we need to attribute it to some dark god^H^H^H government conspiracy in order to explain this. The article is actually a pretty good piece on skepticism. But the title is just bait for stupid people to feed into their fears. If the attempt was to make it clickbaity for people to click on it in order to debunk any notions people might have they failed. Stupid people only read headlines not articles.

dmlorenzetti 9y ago

The New Yorker could be that much better if they would occasionally include technical graphics. In this case, how about a rendering of the plate mechanics that are the subject of the article? They are quite happy to print line drawings, comics, and full-page photos, so it's not like they're scared of non-text content. Yet I've seen them devote multiple paragraphs to describing a scatterplot that stunned some scientist they were profiling.

malkia 9y ago

There is another one today - 6.2 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/23/mexico-new-earthquake-oaxaca https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/23/mexico-new-ear...