When confronted with a new situation we don’t always know what is relevant to understanding the system, particularly when it comes to predicting or changing its behavior. We have to look at behavior that can be observed and interpolate and create models or stories.
This can be more difficult than it sounds.
Earthquakes happen and we’re not sure when and only have theories about why.
Proposed prediction methods have ranged across shapes of clouds, the movement of animals, the pull of the moon distoring the earth, and an individual’s joint pain.
Opinions abound outside of the generally accepted realm of science. It is possible that someday one of the crazy, out-there ideas will end up being close to the truth. It has happened before. But in the meantime the people who talk about them seem to be including too much information, considering too much to be relevant. Or perhaps they are all correct and the system is sufficiently complicated that no one method is enough.
Accepted science discusses stress fields within the earth and how two faults can be analagous and yet completely different, among other things. It acknowledges that the issue of understanding earthquakes is complicated by the issue of time. Geological time is so much longer than recorded history, much less the career of a researcher, that the potential delays between cause and effect can make it difficult to distinguish between the two.
We can’t know for sure if we’re reaching too far or are instead missing a vital piece.
The fan-like ear that one of the fabled blind men feels might really be a decorative plant and not part of the elephant he is trying to see. Or perhaps none of the blind men felt the trunk and they will be very surprised when the elephant sprays water at them.
We can only move forward with the best model available and keep in mind that there might be a better option.
This post was inspired by reading The Myth of Solid Ground: Earthquakes, Prediction, and the Fault Line Between Reason and Faith
