3165: Earthquake Prediction Flowchart - Revision history

216.221.83.168: I think we have all we need; in the absence of further discussion or edits, I am removing the incomplete tag (Despite the joke being really funny! You guys are awesome. Again!)

2025-12-04T15:59:45Z

I think we have all we need; in the absence of further discussion or edits, I am removing the incomplete tag (Despite the joke being really funny! You guys are awesome. Again!)

85.159.196.171: /* Explanation */

2025-12-01T02:47:08Z

‎Explanation

2001:56A:78D5:EB00:696B:B218:616F:A09B: Added more digits of pi

2025-11-19T02:16:32Z

Added more digits of pi

2.98.65.8: /* Explanation */

2025-11-15T21:03:50Z

‎Explanation

82.132.238.20: /* Explanation */ Taking the excised bit and perhaps making it clearer (without excessive analogy) why someone could "cry wolf", then coincidentally an unobserved wolf turns up. And that this doesn't mean that they had good reasoning.

2025-11-15T15:58:01Z

‎Explanation: Taking the excised bit and perhaps making it clearer (without excessive analogy) why someone could "cry wolf", then coincidentally an unobserved wolf turns up. And that this doesn't mean that they had good reasoning.

BunsenH: move punctuation outside elision

2025-11-15T03:34:08Z

move punctuation outside elision

OrwellFan: /* Explanation */

2025-11-15T02:54:56Z

‎Explanation

OrwellFan: /* Explanation */ Improve, comment out low quality

2025-11-15T02:34:19Z

‎Explanation: Improve, comment out low quality

2.98.65.8: /* Explanation */ punctuation, and non-redirection

2025-11-10T22:13:48Z

‎Explanation: punctuation, and non-redirection

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2025-11-10T16:17:33Z

‎Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 4 December 2025
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Explanation==		==Explanation==
−	~~{{incomplete\|This page was created EXACTLY 3.141592653589793 YEARS BEFORE AN EARTHQUAKE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}~~

	The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w\|earthquakes}} with precision. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.		The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w\|earthquakes}} with precision. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}} with precision. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.
-In this context it is noteworthy that six Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged with manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Seven years after the quake, they were finally cleared of wrongdoing. A high-ranking government official was not fully cleared, however, for inappropriate public reassurances. At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence.
+In this context it is noteworthy that seven Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged with manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Moreover, the spokesman of the commission, Bernardo De Bernardinis, specifically told the press not to worry, effectively uttering a "no earthquake prediction". Seven years after the quake, six of the accused were finally cleared of wrongdoing, while De Bernardinis received a two year sentence. The commission was still forced to pay compensation to the families of some of the dead, those which effectively stopped taking precaution after the "reassurance". At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence. Ironically, one of the seven members of the commission had 30 years earlier advised the evacuation of the region of Garfagnana in case of a possible imminent earthquake (which didn't happen).
 Prior to the L'Aquila quake, {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prior warning|other predictions were announced}} for a different part of the faultline. Retroactively, these previously dismissed claims were used to support that the threat was actually known. But similarly 'predictive' warnings are given all the time, and the initial interpretation makes it more likely to be just coincidentally connected with the real quake in not quite the 'right' place and not even necessarily at the right time. The only thing to be sure about is that certainty, both of when/where earthquakes might happen or of their ''not'' happening, is very much overrated.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ==Explanation==
-{{incomplete|This page was created EXACTLY 3.1415926 YEARS BEFORE AN EARTHQUAKE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
+{{incomplete|This page was created EXACTLY 3.141592653589793 YEARS BEFORE AN EARTHQUAKE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
 The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}} with precision. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 In this context it is noteworthy that six Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged with manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Seven years after the quake, they were finally cleared of wrongdoing. A high-ranking government official was not fully cleared, however, for inappropriate public reassurances. At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence.
-Prior to the L'Aquila quake, {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prior warning|other predictions were announced}} for a different part of the faultline. Retroactively, these previously dismissed claims were used to support that the threat was actually known. But similarly 'predictive' warnings are given all the time, and the initial interpretation makes it more likely to be just coincidentally connected with the real quake in not quite the 'right' place and not even necessarily at the right time.
+Prior to the L'Aquila quake, {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prior warning|other predictions were announced}} for a different part of the faultline. Retroactively, these previously dismissed claims were used to support that the threat was actually known. But similarly 'predictive' warnings are given all the time, and the initial interpretation makes it more likely to be just coincidentally connected with the real quake in not quite the 'right' place and not even necessarily at the right time. The only thing to be sure about is that certainty, both of when/where earthquakes might happen or of their ''not'' happening, is very much overrated.
 This strip is similar to [[1723: Meteorite Identification]], as a one-step flowchart ending in a firm ''no''.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}} with precision. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.
-In this context it is noteworthy that six Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged with manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Seven years after the quake, they were finally cleared of wrongdoing. A high-ranking government official was not fully cleared, however, for inappropriate public reassurances. At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence<!--, especially when there is always the confusing possibility of coincidentally warning about {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prior warning|a different 'wolf'}} from the real one that was not spotted in time -- unclear, dubious-->.
+In this context it is noteworthy that six Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged with manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Seven years after the quake, they were finally cleared of wrongdoing. A high-ranking government official was not fully cleared, however, for inappropriate public reassurances. At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence.
 This strip is similar to [[1723: Meteorite Identification]], as a one-step flowchart ending in a firm ''no''.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 {{incomplete|This page was created EXACTLY 3.1415926 YEARS BEFORE AN EARTHQUAKE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
-The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}}. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.
+The comic purports to depict a flowchart for determining whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}} with precision. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description as to why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.
 In this context it is noteworthy that six Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged with manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Seven years after the quake, they were finally cleared of wrongdoing. A high-ranking government official was not fully cleared, however, for inappropriate public reassurances. At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence<!--, especially when there is always the confusing possibility of coincidentally warning about {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prior warning|a different 'wolf'}} from the real one that was not spotted in time. -- unclear, dubious-->

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 This strip is similar to [[1723: Meteorite Identification]], as a one-step flowchart ending in a firm ''no''.
-The title text compares those who claim to predict earthquakes to those who claim to predict the end of the world (based on their religion, for example). A prominent argument against those who claim to be able to predict non-apocalyptic disasters like earthquakes is that the "predictor" has not predicted any such disasters ''prior'' to their claim. An apocalypse, however, is not something that has occurred before{{cn}}, and generally only happens once. Thus, unlike an earthquake predictor, anyone predicting an apocalypse will not need to explain any failures ({{w|False positives and false negatives|false negatives}}) to predict previous apocalypses. People who have ''previously'' predicted an apocalypse and failed to have it come about (i.e. a false positive), should be exceptions, but {{w|Harold Camping|such people}} never seem to lose credibility with their more devout followers.
+The title text compares those who claim to predict earthquakes to those who claim to predict the end of the world (based on their religion, for example). A prominent argument against those who claim to be able to predict non-apocalyptic disasters like earthquakes is that the "predictor" has not predicted any such disasters ''prior'' to their claim. An apocalypse, however, is not something that has occurred before,{{Citation needed}} and generally only happens once. Thus, unlike an earthquake predictor, anyone predicting an apocalypse will not need to explain any failures ({{w|False positives and false negatives|false negatives}}) to predict previous apocalypses. People who have ''previously'' predicted an apocalypse and failed to have it come about (i.e. a false positive), should be exceptions, but {{w|Harold Camping|such people}} never seem to lose credibility with their more devout followers.
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 {{incomplete|This page was created EXACTLY 3.1415926 YEARS BEFORE AN EARTHQUAKE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
-The comic purports to depict a flowchart demonstrating whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}}. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description on why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. And, if it's reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.
+The comic purports to depict a flowchart demonstrating whether you should believe someone claiming to be able to predict {{w|earthquakes}}. However, this "flowchart" immediately leads to a hard '''NO''', with a brief description on why. [https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur Earthquakes happen] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-77.5421,-217.26563&extent=84.9901,345.23438 all the time], so if someone claims they can predict them, we'd have their methodology proven or disproven almost immediately. Also, if it was reliable, seismologists would be parading it around as a revolutionary discovery. Thus, there should be no remaining need to consult a flowchart on the matter. Another interpretation is that seismologists will get mad over claiming useless facts.
 In this context it is noteworthy that six Italian seismologists, volcanologists and engineers were {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prosecutions|charged for manslaughter}} in the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, on the basis of having been "falsely reassuring". Six days before the earthquake killed 308 people, they convened in a committee meeting, and decided that there was no reason to warn the population over the highly tentative possibility that minor geological activity was a sign that something more major ''might'' be imminent. Seven years after the quake, they were finally cleared of any wrongdoing. At other times, 'warnings' have been issued that did ''not'' clearly precede any actual disasters, and there are clearly many arguments about whether or not to risk "{{w|The Boy Who Cried Wolf|crying wolf}}" on flimsy evidence, especially when there is always the confusing possibility of coincidentally warning about {{w|2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prior warning|a different 'wolf'}} from the real one that was not spotted in time.