3 ms·

This is junk. They claim "anomalies" and fail to state the statistical odds of this anomaly occurring globally and the odds for this particular location. They a

This is junk. They claim "anomalies" and fail to state the statistical odds of this anomaly occurring globally and the odds for this particular location. They also examine precisely one large earthquake rather than even considering looking at earthquakes in general. "My cat walked across the keyboard right before the large earthquake" is not statistically significant.

yinser 2y ago
As Taleb would say, “Fooled by randomness”
swader999 2y ago
Yeah, it should lead to predictions being possible fairly quickly if there was something to this.
- neonsunset 2y ago
  Don't underestimate how dogma of social consensus can stifle otherwise innovative techniques, regardless whether they are proven effective or not.
  - cjensen 2y ago
    There's no "dogma" or "social consensus" here. The authors of the paper simply failed to do their homework adequately. Earthquake Prediction is filled with cranks. To deal with the issue, there is a neutral set of criteria for "how to test a prediction theory" which involves making predictions in advance with a clear description of what types of events match the predictions and likelihood of event. Geologists can then compare a series of predictions and their outcomes to what would be expected based on historic patterns. Math then allows one to determine if the prediction theory is better than random guessing. No predictions have yet been better than random guessing.
Retric 2y ago
This magnetic anomalies have been noticed before an earthquakes on many occasions. For example this study found 2 out of 3 major earthquakes studied had similar precursor events. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1474706504000488 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14747... It’s not consistent, but it’s more than a one off correlation.

3 ms·

This is junk. They claim "anomalies" and fail to state the statistical odds of this anomaly occurring globally and the odds for this particular location. They a

by cjensen 2y ago

yinser 2y ago
As Taleb would say, “Fooled by randomness”
swader999 2y ago
Yeah, it should lead to predictions being possible fairly quickly if there was something to this.
- neonsunset 2y ago
  Don't underestimate how dogma of social consensus can stifle otherwise innovative techniques, regardless whether they are proven effective or not.
  - cjensen 2y ago
    There's no "dogma" or "social consensus" here. The authors of the paper simply failed to do their homework adequately. Earthquake Prediction is filled with cranks. To deal with the issue, there is a neutral set of criteria for "how to test a prediction theory" which involves making predictions in advance with a clear description of what types of events match the predictions and likelihood of event. Geologists can then compare a series of predictions and their outcomes to what would be expected based on historic patterns. Math then allows one to determine if the prediction theory is better than random guessing. No predictions have yet been better than random guessing.
Retric 2y ago
This magnetic anomalies have been noticed before an earthquakes on many occasions. For example this study found 2 out of 3 major earthquakes studied had similar precursor events. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1474706504000488 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14747... It’s not consistent, but it’s more than a one off correlation.