Yes, there is much resistance within the scientific community regarding the influence of the planets and the Moon. But there's no extended research that 'disproves' it. It's merely an assumption. In fact, a scientific paper in Nature suggests otherwise.
"there is much resistance within the scientific community" is the usual euphemism used by pseudo-scientists to justify their claim. There’s absolutely no evidence that you can predict earthquakes by looking at the positions of the planets, and this "researcher" is known for his very vague "predictions" that sometimes appear to be true, sometimes not. It’s the scientific equivalent of a broken clock.
This could have been said before every major scientific discovery.
The scientific community must be wrong by definition if science is to learn something new. It’s more than proven that things most scientists find absurd and impossible end up being doable and proven.
I’d give this person more leeway. He’s not reading astrology, he’s working patterns and clearly has not determined whether his research is accurate yet or not. He himself says there’s not enough data in some regards.
So what is your resistance based off outside of reflexive skepticism ?
> So what is your resistance based off outside of reflexive skepticism ?
This has been debunked over and over [1][2][3][4] and is by no mean different from fortune telling. He has not published a single paper nor has detailed its method, which is summarized by various sources as making a lot of predictions about earthquakes in regions that are known to often have earthquakes. Most of these predictions end up wrong, but we only talk about the "right" ones.
"It’s more than proven that things most scientists find absurd and impossible end up being doable and proven"
Are there many examples besides quantum physics? And eventually and in quite short time, they made their way into the mainstream science, because they modelled the world better. So if this guy can show that his approach can reliable help with predication of earthquakes, he will win. Simple as that. So far I am not convinced, but sure, the moon and the planets are a real force.
Tectonic plates were considered ridiculous. Evolution was debated for decades. Galileo went on trial. Pasteur afaik didn’t find it easy to convince people. Virtually all breakthroughs I can think of, “eminent men” came and told everyone it was hogwash, till it wasn’t.
That’s not say you should defend bad science. Just that great Science might appear like nonsense - at first.
Resistance against evolution likewise. Fueled by religion, not science.
And tectonic plates was just a theory among many, with unclear data at that time. Pasteur likewise.
Real scientists also made mistakes, more so when their reputation is based on the old theory. But in general if there is a new theory that provides a model that works (its calculation fit reality), then it will be adopted. I don't know of a case where this did not happen.
I know exactly nothing about this guy. I'm the person who asked for a name.
I was just quoting his own Twitter feed where he himself indicates this is not scientifically proven.
He apparently calls it research. I'm personally fine with that and followed him before it was said here he predicts this based on planetary influences (and hadn't noticed it myself).
Okay, for the record, you are officially an antibeleiver who thinks simply asking the question and investigating it and trying to answer it makes one a nutter.
For the record, I hate this out-of-hand dismissal of anyone who asks "What if..." about anything outside the current Overton Window.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-position-moon-or-planets-affec...
Or a similar idea about a correlation between solar activity and earthquakes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3