Re: JOB in Wikipedia

Hello Petra:

You know it's easy to sit on the sidelines and comment when you haven't
investigated the matter. So, let's be fair. As you know I've been
following JOB since 1998.

I have been following JOB's claims since he first presented his syzygy
theory sometime around 1973. Since that time, he has never produced any
credible scientific research to validate his claims.

He has made some site specific predictions
and had his hits, including Loma Prieta. I know this is true because I
have personally seen the news clippings from the newspapers.

To my knowledge there is nothing to substantiate JOB's claims to have
predicted the Loma Prieta earthquake on anything other than syzygy
windows. It would be interesting to get a comment from the Gilroy
Dispatch on why they printed that particular prediction and how many
other predictions they received from him. When I questioned JOB about
why that prediction should be given more credit than his repetitious
monthly predictions of the same earthquakes, he came up with a list of
whale beachings, slug populations, and other anomalous behavior, but he
was unable or unwilling to document those claims. The most likely
explanation is that he knew, as did the USGS, that there was about 10%
chance of increased seismicity in the Bay Area as a result of two prior
5+ events during the previous two years, he picked the time that would
best fit his theory, and then got extremely lucky--he hit the time and
location, but missed drastically in magnitude. He admitted that his
predicted magnitude was only about 1/127th of the energy released from
the actual event, but claims that he did it intentionally to keep from
alarming the public. This is a strange defense for missing the
magnitude of a predicted earthquake. Isn't a prediction intended to
warn the public? Why would a legitimate prediction of a large
earthquake be deliberately reduced in magnitude? So the public would
ignore it? In his description of the event, JOB seems to be surprised
that he got the earthquake at all --"I got my quake; I got my quake",
he says he yelled when the quake hit, and he was even more surprised
that it almost toppled his file cabinet. It seems clear that the
magnitude and thus the significance of this prediction, the one that
generated his fame, was unexpected; hence nothing more than
circumstance. If he had missed his followers wouldn't have noticed.
Sooner or later there will be another large quake in the Bay Area. The
odds are roughly 50% that it will hit in one of JOB's windows. If he
hits, he will be wildly famous among the unscientific for "predicting"
the same event that he has been predicting now for over a decade. If he
misses, then there is will always be the next large event that he can
claim as a major success when it hits one of his windows.

Critics should
understand his seismic windows and how they work too.

If the seismic windows actually do work, it is at an insignificant
level wrt predicting utility.

And some forget
he is a cracker jack geologist. He is darn good in the field.

He has an encyclopedic knowledge of geologic fact. He is much less
adept at putting it all together into a coherent theory. Based on his
statements on his website, it appears that he is unable to sufficiently
distinguish between science and pseudoscience, inasmuch as he has an
expressed belief in the face on Mars, Roswell aliens, chemtrails (in
the vast conspiracy sense), and others pseudoscientific nonsense.

You
haven't been privvy to that either as I have. He taught me a lot about
geology and he should have too because he was a geology professor in
North Carolina in his younger days.

I think he was not at NC more than one or two semesters as a visiting
professor, during which time he published a paper that rock scars
produced by logging chains were glacial striations that proved Ice Age
continental glaciation extended into the Carolinas.

And at the time he issued his Loma
Prieta prediction he was First County Geologist for Santa Clara County.
Now you do have to have some credentials to secure that position. It
hurt him too because he was suspended for two weeks as a result of his
prediction.

A worthy accomplishment and I presume he was satisfactory in the
position, but as a responsible person in that position he had no
business predicting earthquakes without presenting credible evidence to
substantiate his prediction theory. Laymen have a hard time
understanding this, but a hit is meaningless if it results from
coincidence.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out prediction methods and
weigh each one having its own unique value. Some have more value than
others; but you also have to weigh what else is out there at the time.
The USGS knew an earthquake was going to occur in the same place and
also issued predictions months before Jim, but the dates came and went
and nothing happened. They weren't wrong, they just had bad timing.
But Jim was right and so he should get credit for the World Series
Earthquake Prediction.

There was a higher probability for increased seismicity in the Bay Area
following the two 5+ quakes. The USGS doesn't make predictions on that
basis, they make forecasts in the form of advisory warnings. JOB's
repetitious monthly "predictions" should be labled forecasts of
increased seismicity, and he should stop making those until he can show
scientifically that there is indeed increased seismicity within his
windows. You also claim to have successfully predicted earthquakes.
According to scientific principles, you cannot claim successful
predictions on hits until you can show a scientifically credible
prediction method. Nobody has even come close to doing that; in fact on
most boards, like JOB's, EW, and Bopps, nobody even tries.

And lastly, though he is not a seismologist, he is still a scientist.
He does deserve some level of respect and I hope you'll look before you
leap and hop over to his web page and have a look for yourself and if
you need to, just send him an e-mail and I'm sure if it is worded
politely he will respond. And if worse comes to worse, read his book
or watch a documentary about him.

JOB deserves no scientific respect because he makes scientific claims
that he cannot support.

I am not blind nor stupid. I am open minded and mostly fair.
don't understand something I ask and I keep asking until I do
understand. Believe me when I say I have tested more scientists
patience than God allows and somehow they've taken it in their stride.
And I'll say this about Jim Berkland. I love him and I'm proud to say
I do. There is no finer man in the universe and every time I read
about people taking pot shots at him, it hurts me more than it ever
does him. I wouldn't care if they knew what they were talking about;
but for the uninformed it ires me greatly.

I agree with you about JOB's likable personality. I disagree with you
that JOB's critics don't know what they are talking about. I'm not sure
you are giving the scientific opinion the hearing it deserves because
you lack experience in scientific methodology. If you would devote some
of your energy to learning the basis for scientific opposition to
unwarranted earthquake prediction claims, it would make your own
investigations much more meaningful.

dib

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jim Berkland Earthquake Predictions
    ... for scientists or the work they do. ... predict earthquakes" is when I look at the Parkfield Earthquake ... practiced prediction, but that was the least of what happened. ... throwing rocks at the Moon and there are no good excuses. ...
    (sci.geo.earthquakes)
  • Re: Jim Berkland Earthquake Predictions
    ... > for scientists or the work they do. ... > predict earthquakes" is when I look at the Parkfield Earthquake ... > practiced prediction, but that was the least of what happened. ... Sir J-P lives in the free-world, ...
    (sci.geo.earthquakes)
  • Re: Observations vs. Theories
    ... Perhaps Newton's Second Law is ... to make a prediction before a hypothesis or theory is formed. ... Scientists throughout history have begun first with a passion to solve ... It's evidence that it has happened. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ernst Mayr Calls Evolutionary biology: -a "historical" science-philosophy
    ... DARWIN HIMSELF UNDERSTOOD that questions raised about his narrative had ... It's worth noting that modern evolutionary theory, ... Which was a pretty sound prediction. ... Scientists looked at the known taxa and inferred the intermediate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Observations vs. Theories
    ... The Second law of Motion was a revolutionary discovery of Newton and ... to make a prediction before a hypothesis or theory is formed. ... Scientists throughout history have begun first with a passion to solve ... can be tested in a potentially falsifiable manner. ...
    (talk.origins)