Subject: Re: Texas Aseismic Institute Announcement
From: e_rmwm@va.nmh.ac.uk (Roger Musson)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:15:39
In article <19970111122801.HAA14421@ladder01.news.aol.com> texasai@aol.com writes:
>From: texasai@aol.com
>Subject: Texas Aseismic Institute Announcement
>Date: 11 Jan 1997 12:30:00 GMT
>THE TEXAS ASEISMIC INSTITUTE IS BACK!
>Yes, we are back after having a shakeup last October.
>At the suggestion of one of our correspondents, we
>started to investigate the likelihood of not having
>earthquakes in certain sections of Okalahoma. The
>young lady we assigned to this task kept predicting
>an extremely large event in the vicinity of Norman, OK.
>Now, I became extremely suspicious of this prediction
>since it was timed to coincide closely with the Texas
>State Fair and the woman in question was an active
>alumna of the University of Texas. Still, we had to
>make sure, so I and a couple of colleagues headed
>out to Oklahoma over a period of a week or two to
>measure the realtive strength of the various vortices
>of negatively charged krypton gas. (Since the use
>of negatively charged krypton vortices as a method
>of earthquake prediction is so well known, I will not
>elaborate on the particular methodology we used.)
I thought that the use of negatively-charged krypton vortices was essentially
a technique for the prediction of non-earthquakes. Not enough is said about
this subject; predicting non-earthquakes is much easier than predicting
earthquakes. There is so much else you can do with non-earthquake
investigations, as well. Consider the following extreme version of Tim Kelly's
hypothesis:
"All earthquakes are caused by dew"
From this it follows:
"All things not caused by dew are non-earthquakes"
We start collecting data. I have here a coffee mug. Is it caused by dew? No.
Is it a non-earthquake? Yes! The datum confirms the hypothesis!
Try it yourself.
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Dew Point Theory Paper (nonsense - is it?)
From: mcorman@netcom.com (Mary Corman)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 02:54:51 GMT
timberwoof (timberwoof@themall.net) wrote:
: Why don't you go and look up the word "theory" in that encyclopedia?
: You seem to be confusing the word with "hypothesis," which you
: might also want (or not) to look up.
Here is the definition for "hypothesis" from the American Heritage
deluxe edition dictionary on my Macintosh:
> 1. A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be
> tested by further investigation; a theory.
> 2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or
> investigation; an assumption.
> 3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
> [Latin, subject for a speech, from Greek hupothesis, proposal,
> supposition, from hupotithenai, to suppose : hupo-, hypo- + tithenai, to
> place; see dhT- below.]
And here is the definition of "theory" from the same dictionary:
> 1.a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide
> variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted
> principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or
> otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
> b. Such knowledge or such a system.
> 2. Abstract reasoning; speculation.
> 3. A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment:
> rose early, on the theory that morning efforts are best; the modern
> architectural theory that less is more.
> 4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
> [Late Latin theria, from Greek, from theAros, spectator : probably thea,
> a viewing + -oros, seeing.]
For those of us reading here who are not scientists, would you
explain the differences between "hypothesis" and "theory" so that
one word is not used to define the other?
--
Mary Corman
mcorman@netcom.com marycorman@aol.com tybg72a@prodigy.com
Subject: Re: Dew Point Theory Paper (nonsense - is it?)
From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 22:18:12 -0300
In article
,
timberwoof@themall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>I guess that people who design airplanes based on the theories of
>aerodynamics, biologists who look at ecological systems and disease
>systems based on the theory of evolution, electrical engineers who
>use electronics theory, and car designers who base their work on
>vehicle dynamics theory also don't know for sure?
In this case we weren't talking about the theories of aerodynamics
or the theory of evolution etc. Do these all have more than one
theory to explain the same thing?
To repost some of what I posted before on what causes lightning:
One theory holds that the principle mechanism for separating
electric charge is the vertical separation of larger charged
droplets of water or ice (raindrops, hailstones, and so on)
from differentially charged smaller droplets, as a result of their
different settling velocities within a cloud.
Another theory holds that small cloud particles and droplets are
the principal charge carriers, and that the main mechanism for
the separation of charge is the variable convective air motions
within a cloud, which carry some particles upward and others
downward.
And now this from an ongoing study an UW:
A great puzzle in cloud studies was once: where does the electric
charge that creates lightning come from? Today it is widely
believed that the charging occurs when fast-moving ice particles
collide in clouds.
So we have two different theories being modified by a third
theory. Or are all of these theories really hypothesis's. ;-)
And if charging can only happen when ice particles collide in clouds
then what about when their aren't any clouds? We can't have any
charging? I doubt that too!
>Why don't you go and look up the word "theory" in that encyclopedia?
>You seem to be confusing the word with "hypothesis," which you
>might also want (or not) to look up.
Well I guess somebody else has looked up these two words and I would
have to say that it looks very interesting. Wouldn't you?
Question though is when does a theory become fact and is their
terminology for this transference?
Richard, saw your response and your probably closer to the truth
behind the definitions. But it sure would be nice to have another
word for when a hypothesis or theory becomes a fact.
Regards,
Dennis
Subject: Re: Whale strandings->earthquakes? Was: (Re: ...earthquake references)
From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 22:18:49 -0300
In article <5bd76q$7bn@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>, richard.herring@gecm.com wrote:
>I suspect that what he meant to say was that the *fluctuations* in the field
>were 600 times their "normal" level. Whatever that is.
>Without an identifiable citation it's difficult to establish what he
>really said. What kind of fluctuations? Were they periodic, and if so,
>what was their period? Any correlation with increased solar activity?
>How often was this pattern of magnetic activity observed *without*
>earthquakes?
Good questions and I'll have to try and find the paper on it as I've
been quoting from an LA Times article.
From what I understand, this paper was presented at an AGU conference
in San Francisco in December of '95.
Al, saw your question and according to the article it was 600 times.
Regards,
Dennis
Subject: Re: Whale strandings->earthquakes? Was: (Re: ...earthquake references)
From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 22:19:21 -0300
In article <32DA0324.51AD@pacbell.net>, bilsmith@pacbell.net wrote:
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>>
>> In article <32D7D7A4.3D30@pacbell.net>, bilsmith@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>> The burden of proving something false rests on the
>> person(s) not making the claim. How can the person
>> making the claim say his/her own theory is false?
>
>I didn't mention anything about falsifying a statement; you
>are introducing a new subject here. Your original statement
>suggests that every coincience may be related.
Exactly. It has to be proven that it isn't related.
>> BTW, the "clear means" that you used above is ambiguous
>
>I used the statement in the context that an assertion is
>arguable with information to back it up. I believe that
>is common usage.
And that is also exactly what I've been trying to say. Now
that were on the same wavelength. :-)
>> >There are elements in this reality that are NOT
>> >related. Blindly assuming that everything is related
>> >until proved otherwise is a long futile path to nowhere.
>>
>> I agree.
>That is not what you imply when you state "But it also
>doesn't mean that they aren't related." Seems like
>a contradiction to me.
No. Until a person delves into finding out whether
something correlates or not, it will never be know whether
it does or doesn't. But just because the data hasn't been
accumulated to back a proposal up doesn't mean that the
correlation isn't there.
>> My intent was to dispell any notion that just because....
>
>Sounds like nonsense to me. "Well, maybe it is related, but
>maybe it isn't. But just because it isn't means that maybe it is."
>What is left to dispell?
>>
>> And don't get me wrong, I'm NOT dispelling plate tectonics. Just
>> that all quakes aren't explained by that "theory".
>It is widely recognized by everyone except phychics that there is
>much to be learned about earthquake mechanisms. Plate tectonics
>is less than 25 years old (we have discussed this before!) as
>a popular model, and the learning curve is very steep. What
>are you complaining about, that we don't know enough yet? Sorry!
I wasn't complaining about not enough being known. But I am
trying to get acrossed that all *isn't* known. The way some
people out here talk, you'd think everything about everything
was known.
>> But, as I said above, the data should be collected to support
>> that claim.
>What claim?
Any claim that anybody makes.
But in this case it was an observation that a particular
person wanted to do a little research on.
Is their a problem with somebody making an observation, posting
a little about what they are thinking, and then asking where to
find the data in order to do a little research on it?
>> And if the data *is* collected to support the claim,
>> then its up to somebody else to disprove it.
>This sounds like sliding away from nonsense and toward
>a tautologically obvious path to nowhere.
Sorry, but I don't see it as that. I just don't believe that
people should stop looking for precursors because some people
think it won't go anywhere.
Science felt the same way about Alfred Wegener and about the
world not being round.
Let the data be collected and then see where we stand.
Regards,
Dennis
Subject: Re: Whale strandings->earthquakes? Was: (Re: ...earthquake references)
From: Dave Monroe
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:56:06 -0500
Brian Sandle wrote:
>
> I remembered this topic when writing on sci.physics about power line
> health effects - electromagnetic stress - there is currently a thread.
> Whales register the dawn pulse in the earth's magnetic field, do they
> register other magnetic trouble which may indicate an oncoming 'quake?
>
> Brian Sandle
While it is certainly possible that whales respond to changes in
the magnetic field, since they are primarily auditory animals they
are probably responding to sound.
They probably hear something going on before a quake. It may be
loud enough to mess up their sonar causing them to make navigational
mistakes. I understand low frequency sounds can travel thousands of
miles underwater.
Anyway, that's my guess.
--
David S. Monroe David.Monroe@cdc.com
Software Engineer
Control Data Systems
2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
Fairborn, Ohio 45324
(937) 427-6385
Subject: Hypothesis and theory (was Re: Dew Point Theory Paper)
From: gerard@hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 19:20:59 GMT
In article , mcorman@netcom.com (Mary Corman) writes:
>
>For those of us reading here who are not scientists, would you
>explain the differences between "hypothesis" and "theory" so that
>one word is not used to define the other?
An hypothesis is just an idea, a suggestion, purporting to explain or
predict some phenomenon. An hypothesis may be inspired by facts, or it
may be just a wacky idea. A theory is different. A theory is a working
hypothesis supported by a preponderance of the data. In other words,
once you have subjected your wacky idea to validation, if it has
performed reasonably well, you can start refering to it as a theory.
Whether others regard it as a theory usually depends on how well it
performs against competing theories. In any field there is usually one
prevailing theory which stands out against a bunch of alternate
hypotheses. As more information comes in, the theory may be modified,
or it may become apparent that one of the other hypotheses fits the
data better, or some new all-encompassing idea which explains all those
forgotten and ignored little details may suddenly explode onto the
scene. The key is the constant reference back to data (our vision of
reality). Through constant appeal to the data, science lurches towards
the truth. (Postmodernists, of course, say science just lurches
randomly, never approaching any truth because there is no truth. My
usual rejoinder to them is to dare them to proclaim the Law of
Gravitation invalid, then to test their conviction by walking off the
roof.)
In the stumbling forward there are often steps backward. The Copernican
idea of a sun-centered solar system wasn't new, as Copernicus readily
admitted. What Copernicus did was to brush off Aristarchus of Samos'
sun-centered theory which had been so long supplanted by the Ptolomaic
earth-centered theory. But Copernicus' version was more robust, because
the missing data about planetary orbits was now known.
It is important to recognise that science is primarily the development
and testing of theories. Everything is subject to question; even the
most nurtured "laws" (which are simply theories that are very widely
accepted) are at all times subject to falsifiability.
In my last run-in with a creationist he threw at me the usual
"Evolution is only a theory." Although "only" is redundant, I agreed.
But I responded with "Creation science is not science because it is not
based on theories." He just shook his head.
--
Gerard Fryer
gerard@hawaii.edu http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~gerard/
Personal views only.
