The furore over John Campbell’s interview with earthquake predictor Ken Ring this week really exposed a strong anti-science vein running through New Zealand that even we here at Sciblogs, seasoned from hand to hand combat with the anti-vax lobby, homeopaths and evolution deniers were surprised at.
As one commenter on Sciblogs put it, Ken Ring’s predictions and his methods have a “pleasant intuitiveness” to them that makes them sound plausible and offer comfort in the face of hard science, often explained in complex, unemotional or even arrogant terms by scientists.
Well, this week’s turn of events reminded me of a 20 year-old Science article I was sent in the wake of September’s earthquake (h/t Lynley Hood) that paints some striking similarities between Ken Ring and another earthquake predictor who has long since passed, Dr Iben Browning.
Dr Browning was a self-taught climatologist with a Ph.D in zoology who in late 1989 predicted the serious likelihood of a major earthquake striking the Mississippi Valley during the first week of December 1990.
The media jumped on the prediction and widely publicised them. Why? According to Science:
Browning’s successful scare was based on classic ingredients: a predictor with apparently solid credentials, a prediction method that sounds scientific, and unsupported claims of previous prediction successes.
Does all of that have a familiar ring to it?
According to Browning, who at the time was a business consultant in Albuquerque, the subtle bulging of Earth caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon – was to peak on 3 December 1990 which meant there was a 50 percent probability of a magnitude 6.5 to 7.5 earthquake sometime between December 1 and December 5. Browning identified the New Madrid fault as the likely break point.
As the day approached, Midwesterners were in consternation and on the day itself, schools and factories closed and “…groups such as the Red Cross wasted precious funds in their efforts to calm the public”. The period passed with no earthquake on the New Madrid fault, people sheepishly drove back into town.
Why were numerous media outlets so eager to promote this bogus earthquake prediction? The answer has many parallels with the seismic situation we find ourselves faced with in New Zealand.
Throughout the 1980s, the authorities in the Midwest of the US had been warning the population about the risk of earthquakes, pointing out that the New Madrid fault beneath them had produced three of the country’s most devastating earthquakes in 1811 – 1812. While there have been few serious earthquakes on the fault ever since, the risk remains – a lot of research is underway in the New Madrid Fault Region to learn more about the state of the fault as a high magnitude earthquake in the region is expected to result in massive damage and significant loss of life.
Like those Midwesterners, many of us live in close proximity to a major fault line – in my case, its the Wellington Fault cutting a path through the city half a kilometre from my office. For those in the South Island, it is the Alpine Fault that traditionally has had them worried. There has also been a recent, fairly destructive quake in the form of the September 4 7.1M event – on a previously unknown fault. In October 1989, weeks just prior to Dr Brown making his prediction, there was a large quake in northern California (Loma Prieta) killing 63 people in the San Francisco Bay Area.
So you have a: an area of the country riddled with faults that scientists says could rupture and cause massive earthquakes b: a recent high magnitude quake that has put earthquakes squarely in the public consciousness and c: a guy who comes along and says he can predict when and where the next one will happen.
Throw on top of that the fact that scientists actually have been, over the years, checking out the possibility that tidal forces can trigger earthquakes, and the lack of credible scientists loudly proclaiming Iben Browning a quack, and you have the perfect conditions for Dr Brown’s theory to take hold.
There was also something else seemingly compelling – Dr. Browning was reported as having predicted that earthquake that struck the Bay Area. The San Francisco Chronicle reported:
He missed by just 6 hours hitting the Oct. 17 San Francisco quake on the nose and by only 5 minutes in an update a week before the disaster.
However, when December 1990 had passed with no quake on the New Madrid fault, scientists went back and looked more closely at his predictions.
Reported Science:
His claim to have predicted Loma Prieta was baseless, a video and a transcript of two of his talks showed that he had not even mentioned California – he had predicted nothing more than vague geologic unrest around the world. And his claimed 5-year-long record of prediction success was no better than chance.
You may have read fellow Sciblogger David Winter’s piece Ken Ring can’t predict earthquakes either which looks in detail at Ken Ring’s “prediction” of the Feb. 22 quake in Canterbury and whether it stacks up.
It all came crashing down for Dr Browning in 1991, according to Science when it was revealed that one of his biggest supporters, geophysicist Dr David Stewart revealed that be believed “psychic phenomenon is [sic] a fact”.
Again, some parallels with Ken Ring author of Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat’s Paws. More on that and Ken Ring’s lack of formal scientific qualifications at Silly Beliefs.
Scientists did a lot of soul-searching in the wake of the Ibsen Browning debacle in 1990. They were criticised for not getting on the front foot and debunking Dr Browning sooner in the piece, before the media frenzy had whipped up hysteria. One scientist quoted in the Science piece explains the approach that is often taken by the scientific community in such cases:
The hope is that if we don’t respond, people will forget it and it will go away. If we do respond it gives the prediction a certain amount of credibility.
Scientists responded strongly this week to debunk Ken Ring’s claims as an earthquake predictor. Maybe they should have done that sooner, but I have seen the reluctance outlined above in operation here too and for good reason – look what happened on Campbell Live.
In the end the parallels between the shonky earthquake predictor who terrified the US Midwest in 1990 and Ken Ring currently putting a ring around March 20 on his calendar are incredibly strong. The question asked by US scientists back then was why hadn’t they learned their lesson about pseudoscientific earthquake predictions. After all, there had been at least three of them in the 1970s that had attracted widespread publicity – surely the scientific community wouldn’t let a fourth gather steam? Well it did and the rest is history… and there’s a lot we could learn from that history when faced with earthquake predictions of this nature in our own country.
PETER GRIFFIN 
Peter G, I’m not all over the place… “I can’t think of a single useful contribution geologists have made to comfort/reassure/help people get through this traumatic time… not one.†does not undermine the totally different topic regarding the public outrage to Campbell’s unprofessional interview.
The simple fact is that geologists have no expertise that has comforted Cantabrians… That’s not being anti-science or pro-Ring… it’s just an observation of the contributions geologists have made to date.
Grant, front up! Your silence is deafening… Are you denying you said on your blog, Civilisations are built on an acceptance of division of labour. Builders know how to build sound structures so that your house doesn’t crash around your ears in a storm.???
That’s a cut and paste from your self described ‘pimp’ blog…
As a so-called scientist you can’t even accept simple facts… even when you have written them…
petersmith,
“I can’t think of a single useful contribution geologists have made to comfort/reassure/help people get through this traumatic time… not one.â€
As another commenter has already pointed out it is not the job of geologists to provide comfort. There job is to provide a scientific perspective. However, it would be appropriate to expect that their delivery of such a perspective is delivered carefully, so as not to promote unnecessary panic.
The ability for geologists (or any other scientists, for that matter) to communicate with the public is limited by how “interesting” the media views their information to be.
Can you explain what you think geologists could have done to be more comforting and reassuring?
And how does this affect an argument that is based around whether a journalist was rude and unprofessional in an interview (and I think the general consensus here is that it was an extremely rude interview).
“I can’t think of a single useful contribution geologists have made to comfort/reassure/help people get through this traumatic time… not one.â€
Well, what on earth would you have them do? They can’t say that there won’t be any more earthquakes – it might be a comforting statement but it’s demonstrably untrue & would be highly unethical. (And Mr Ring’s claims of another biggie are hardly ‘comforting’ either!)
But on the individual level I think that you are impugning those same geologists who have got stuck in as members of their communities to help their friends, neighbours, colleagues, & total strangers through this incredibly difficult time. That’s the human side of the aftermath that broad-brush comments about professions tend to ignore.
Alison: +1.
Petersmith: you could check out this presentation.
http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/News–Events/News/Current/Earthquake-education-seminar/
It includes excellent presentations on the research response to the Sept 4 earthquake by phsyical scientists Drs Tom Wilson and Peter Almond, and a presentation by clinical psychologist Dr Helen Colhoun, who discusses the psychosocial impacts of the earthquake on the people of Canterbury and some excellent advice on help available.
While this talk has clearly been overtaken by the Feb 22 earthquake, it still illustrates quite clearly the contributions made by different areas of expertise, which is why I find your comments about geologists being required to comfort and reassure people quite misguided.
A further comment is that the research response to Sept 4 was astoundingly rapid and comprehensive. I can only assume you were unaware of this level of effort by geologists, geophysicists, soil scientists and many more.
Geologists said the Sept 4 EQ was a 1:500 (have seen 1:700) year event… very reassuring… so what are the odds of an even worse event some 6 months later?
NZ scientific ‘experts’ are out of step with Australian and US scientific ‘experts’ as to whether it was a ‘new’ earthquake or an aftershock… that is a totally academic argument that means zilch to jo public… except that to Jo Public it highlights that if experts can’t agree on basics, what right do they have to claim omniscience on issues such as triggers of earthquakes.
These are the experts who 4 years ago PREDICTED that the sort of earthquakes that happened in Christcurch were 1:2,050 year events… and there have been TWO of them in the space of six months! And then they persecute as ‘unscientific’ a chap who says something might happen next week… and it does! By chance… probably… but to Jo Public a helluva lot more accurate than the so-called experts.
Click to access Background_Report_v3_1.pdf
The mind boggles… GNS experts clearly have no idea of when big ones will happen… to claim otherwise puts them into quakery [sic] country.
It’s been an interesting sojourn into the world of so-called sciblogs. The expert science proponents all seem to be qualified in areas outside of those they are commenting on…
It beggars belief… especially when they are the ones claiming Ring in unqualified.
And to think this started because of a very rude interview.
Alison said, “But on the individual level I think that you are impugning those same geologists who have got stuck in as members of their communities to help their friends, neighbours, colleagues, & total strangers through this incredibly difficult time. That’s the human side of the aftermath that broad-brush comments about professions tend to ignore.”
Alison, that has nothing whatever to do with being a scientist or not… it has everything to do with being a decent human being… even just an ordinary human being. Members of my family travelled over 1,000km with shovel in boot to help out. 10 days of hard physical labour… sleeping on a floor… out of love and compassion… walking up to vacant houses and digging silt… people who had left ChCh… and came back to find complete strangers had stacked bricks and cleared silt… not because of their profession, but because they are decent/compassionate human beings who were able to do it.
petersmith,
so you are not going to answer my question about what you think geologists could have done to be more comforting or reassuring?
Regarding the 1 in 700 year comment. This does not mean that an event will occur every 700 years (wouldn’t be nice in nature was that predictable), it just means that if you look over a very long period of time, that typically an event will occur every 700 years. This does not rule out the possibility of two events occurring within a year of each other (and then perhaps there being no more events for thousands of years). Such comments are typically based on historical data, so as time progresses and more data is gathered, the figures will change. This is how science works.
Science, particularly in areas such as climate science, medicine and seismology, does not offer absolutes, rather it seeks to reduce uncertainty.
Unfortunately, it is natural for human beings to want certainty, which is probably why, when science cannot offer certainty, the promises of pseudoscience look more tempting.
(pseudoscience being that which uses the terminology of science and which claim to be sciences but which does not follow the scientific method).
And just because geology/seismology does not provide certainty now about when earthquakes will occur, that does not mean it will not be possible in the future. Every area of science has to start somewhere. Chemistry started out as alchemy, while medicine started out with some very unscientific treatments which were gradually discarded for those with a scientific basis (e.g. the use of carbonic acid as a disinfectant, the development of germ theory).
“The expert science proponents all seem to be qualified in areas outside of those they are commenting on”
As one of your arguments has been that everyone, including non scientists/the general public is entitled to a view about science then does this not conflict with your statement above?
I would be very wary of anyone on here who starting talking in detail about subjects outside their scientific areas. However, much of the conversation here has been around science and the scientific method/approach in general. I think most people who have worked in science are well qualified to take about how science works.
petersmith, did you even look at that presentation from Lincoln University?
Ken Ring’s predictions are horoscopes. If you wish to live your life on the basis of horoscopes, well, good luck with that. Welcome back to the middle ages.
Scientists give an opinion based on the best evidence available AT THE TIME. This is an important thing to understand about science – it evolves in response to evidence. That is a key reason why Mr Ring’s approach is not scientific – it does not evolve in response to evidence. According to Mr Ring, the moon causes earthquakes (and weather patterns) and that is that. it’s amazing to see the contortions he goes through to bend the evidence to fit his theories.
It took a while for plate tectonic theory to be widely accepted but no geologists seriously doubt it now. Of course our understanding of earthquake risks in NZ will grow and evolve in response to the Canterbury earthquakes. Apart from the table of expected earthquake frequencies in the main centres, what part of the GNS report do you have a problem with? It looks pretty useful to me (and no, I am not a GNS employee). Consider liquefaction potential: geologists provided this information to local authorities who acted on it in various ways. In the case of Pegasus subdivision just to the north of Christchurch, the investors invested a significant sum in soil engineering measures to mitigate against the liquefaction hazard – and the subdivision came through both earthquakes with hardly a scratch. Clearly in this case science was not as useless as you seem to think it is.
“The expert science proponents all seem to be qualified in areas outside of those they are commenting on”
Well, Peter, consider the possibility that our seismologists are too busy right now to be spending time justifying their existences to you.
Alison, the Lincoln lectures are interesting… Helen Colhoun’s should be widely distributed… esp from 16:50 on… very pragmatic, but by and large not a scientific output from the ChCh Sept EQ but from general expert knowledge. It’s excellent… but would be interested to see her redo it bearing in mind she highlighted the lack of deaths as an important aspect of the Sept 2010 EQ… ie, some of this may be inappropriate for post Feb 2011.
In Tom Wilson’s presentation is interesting if only to provide some insights, but essentially it is an introduction… it’s key message seems to be “Earthquakes don’t have an address.”
And Carol… do you expect me to comment on 1-2 hrs of audio before taking the time to listen???
Good on you for taking the time to check out the presentation, Peter. I hope we can find some common ground.
Carol, the first presentation is mostly academic but is an interesting one in that it provides a basic understanding of what happened in Sept… it needs to be reworked in terms of Feb 2011… the second one should be widely distributed as it highlights pragmatic ways of managing liquefaction… the third one would have been useful and in parts still is, but I suspect needs to be reworked in light of the significant number of deaths associated with the Feb 2011 earthquake.
One I’d like to see widely distributed is how to make a pragmatic sustainable compost toilet. Chemical toilets are not sustainable. They are messy, overfill if not emptied regularly, and are not designed for high volume use.
Grant, your silence is deafening!