[bsder]

> Forecasting is definitely pseudoscience, but EM-related precursors are a fairly hot (and controversial) research topic at the moment.

It's not pseudoscience because it can be disproven--which is generally what happens.

The issue that everybody forgets is that predictions have FOUR outcomes, not two.

You have the one everybody remembers: "I predicted X and X happened".

You have the one some people remember: "I didn't predict X and X didn't happen."

You have the one that people rarely remember: "I predicted X and X didn't happen."

You have the one nobody remembers: "I didn't predict X, but X happened."

The problem is that for rare events, the "predict X and not X" and "didn't predict X but X" have to be REALLY low probability for a measure to be useful.

[gpm]

Didn't predict X but X can be high probability and it still be a useful predictor. Reporting even 10% of earthquakes hours in advance would be useful.

Predict X and not X is a huge issue though, as you suggest.