[hk__2]

"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.

[kranke155]

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 ?

[hk__2]

> 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.

[1]: https://www.newarab.com/news/arab-osint-platform-debunks-dut...

[2]: https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/02/did-earthquake-guru-frank...

[3]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6469019/Top-Austral...

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

[kranke155]

Ok so this is far more substantial. Thanks for sharing.

[hutzlibu]

"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.

[kranke155]

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.

[hutzlibu]

"Galileo"

His opponents were not scientists, but priests.

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.

[kranke155]

This planetary theory could just be a theory that has “unclear data at the time”, the time being now. Or it could not be. All I’m saying is we have to do the research and double check the evidence for it to be disproven.

Just saying that anyone who says “there’s resistance in the scientific community” can be right or wrong. The COVID vaccine rollout and subsequent confirmation of large amounts of vaccine injury was certainly a good case study. Happened just 24 months ago. There was lots of “resistance” until the papers confirmed a lot of what the naysayers were saying on day 30, but the papers arrived on day 300

[DoreenMichele]

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).

[hk__2]

> I know exactly nothing about this guy. I'm the person who asked for a name.

I know that and I’m just commenting his claim; I’m not attacking you in any way.

[DoreenMichele]

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.

[Capricorn2481]

He just said he wasn't attacking you personally, but the fact that it's flying over your head implies that you actually do believe this stuff.

What in the world is an "antibeliever?" I find it kind of telling you chose this phrase instead of anti science.

[DoreenMichele]

Antibeliever is someone who firmly believes the opposite though it's not actually scientifically proven.

For example, people who say Bigfoot or aliens are absolutely not real and anyone who believes in such is clearly a loon rather than saying "It's unproven and seems extremely unlikely."

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Antibeliever is someone who firmly believes...

maybe they should be called a firm believer, then?

like, in science?

the opposite here is the default until you prove your thing true and the default false

[cjaybo]

You seem to be reading into and responding somewhat defensively to subtext that doesn’t appear to exist

[DoreenMichele]

You appear to be making this personal for no reason whatsoever.

[Apocryphon]

We are hardly living in incredulous times.