Hacker News Reader

Comment by hk__2 | Hacker News Reader

> That his research subject has not given "proper" scientific results yet (or ever) doesn't make him a fraud. We wouldn't go far if researchers could only research proven concepts.

The problem is we’re looking at the correct predictions only. He’s a broken clock, he "predicted" numerous earthquakes in various regions and only a small number ended up true.

> The idea that planetary alignments can predict earthquakes has been long rebuffed by scientists. The USGS has stated that neither it nor any other scientist is able to predict a specific earthquake, but that it can calculate the probability of future temblors. Andrew Michael, a geophysicist for the agency, called alignment-based predictions "easy to refute" in a statement sent to Snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enth...

View on HN

Confirmation bias is a known human weakness. Based on what little I've seen, he does not appear to be guilty of it. If other people are overemphasizing his "correct" predictions and ignoring his incorrect ones, this should not be conflated with his position.

He seems fairly reasonable at first glance.

>Confirmation bias is a known human weakness. Based on what little I've seen, he does not appear to be guilty of it.

I scrolled through his timeline and found plenty of predictions that failed to materialize https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446472

I've only just learned of his existence. I have no idea why he would publish something like that.

Perhaps it's part of his process for sorting out what works.

I'm disinclined to draw any conclusion one way or another at this point in time about his work. I lack sufficient information and I'm confident quickly scanning his Twitter feed won't adequately fill in the gaps in my knowledge.

>Perhaps it's part of his process for sorting out what works.

He's been doing this for years and has been going on the media circuit touting his predictions. He even works at (founded?) an organization that claims to predict earthquakes. This is obviously not a case of some scientist "sorting out what works".

Coolios.

I've just learned of his existence. I reserve the right to draw my own conclusions in my own time and do not feel compelled to cave to social pressure to spout the "party line".

Thank you.

>I reserve the right to draw my own conclusions in my own time and do not feel compelled to cave to social pressure to spout the "party line".

What a bizarre statement to make after a seemingly reasonable series of exchanges. If you're out of arguments but don't want to change your mind, just admit so. Invoking some sort of persecution complex to justify it is just baffling. Nobody is demanding that you immediately change your mind or publicly recant your beliefs.

What part of "I haven't made up my mind, I've only just learned he exists" are you failing to grasp?

> What part of "I haven't made up my mind, I've only just learned he exists" are you failing to grasp?

I'm not sure why you think I'm "failing to grasp" that part. My previous comment literally says

>If you're out of arguments but don't want to change your mind, just admit so.

The part that was "bizzare" to me was

>Invoking some sort of persecution complex to justify it is just baffling. Nobody is demanding that you immediately change your mind or publicly recant your beliefs.

I said several replies to you ago and have reiterated that position:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446779

Changing one's mind requires you to first have a position. You keep arguing for me to see it your way, as if I believe the opposite to be true. I don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com