It is this sense of loss of control that really matters. In such situations, many people prefer to reject expert evidence in favour of alternative explanations that promise to hand control back to them, even if those explanations are not supported by evidence. Debora MacKenzie
During times of uncertainty people often look for explanations and reassurance. This partially explains the enduring appeal of prophecies such as Nostrodamus. Unfortunately, it is usually only wishful thinking – the interpretation of information and events according to what one would like to be the case rather than according to the actual evidence.
The Christchurch earthquake and Ken Rings predictions are a case in point. These predictions have had widespread coverage. Mr Ring claims his predictions (although he claims not to make predictions but just give opinions; however it is what it is, irrespective of what he chooses to call it) have a scientific basis, so lets examine them using the tools of science.
The scientific method goes something like this;
First look at the subject you are interested in e.g. observe, define or measure it (characterisation). Devise a theory that explains it (hypothesis). The hypothesis must be in a form that lets you forecast further characteristics of your subject (prediction). You then test your prediction (experiment).
To use a particularly New Zealand example – I observe a paddock of sheep and note they are all white (characterisation). I decide that all sheep must be white (hypothesis). I surmise that all further sheep I see will be white (prediction). I then test my prediction looking at other paddocks, maybe asking people I know about their experiences with sheep colour etc. (experiment).
The thing is, all the white sheep I see doesn’t prove my hypothesis is correct – if I believe it does then I’m committing a logic error called affirming the consequent. The great thing about science is that experiments are designed to try to prove that a hypothesis is incorrect – this is known as falsifiability. So, one black sheep would prove my hypothesis incorrect, and I would need to develop a new hypothesis for testing. If I decide to ignore the black sheep, or explain it away so I can keep my hypothesis as it is, then what I have is no longer a scientific theory - it’s now a belief.
So does Mr Rings claims stand up to this scrutiny?
His hypothesis is that weather patterns, and earthquakes, are correlated to the movement of the moon. David Winter, who unlike me has a science degree, has suggested a mechanism for the earthquake claim;
“the moon exerts a tidal force on the planet and there really are “land tides”, tiny swells and lulls in the crust of the earth analogous to the ocean’s tides, that ebb and flow through the day.
It’s just possible that a fault that has been loading up with pressure for hundreds of years is more likely to give way when then moon is close and the tidal forces are stronger.”
He also then goes on to point out that for predictive purposes, you not only need to know the position of the moon, but also which faults are loaded sufficiently to give way – something the hypothesis doesn’t do.
Mr Winter provides charts of both the lunar phases and the distance between the earth and the moon against earthquake intensity, and finds no correlation. He also helpfully compares the predictions of earthquakes that Mr Ring makes against actual earthquakes and finds examples both of predictions that didn’t come true, and earthquakes when there was no prediction – lots of black sheep in other words.
This has also apparently been demonstrated by other researchers in relation to Mr Rings predictions of weather conditions, through the systematic comparison of his predictions against the actual weather.
So if the hypothesis isn’t in a form that should be able to make predictions, and the predictions that have been made have been falsified, why does he still have any credibility?
A lot of studies have shown that we are inclined to believe falsehoods that sound plausible. We do this because of mental shortcuts we use and we also don’t often bother to check the veracity of what we’re told.
Sillybeliefs.com reprints Mr Ring’s prediction for September 2010:
"you'll be reading about floods and winds and earthquakes and snow over the next week or so, particularly the South Island"
You’ll note that of the four weather events predicted only one eventuated. This is a hindsight technique called “shotgunning” - when your prediction is in fact many predictions, designed to cover a range of events and you claim credit even if only one of them happens. Our inbuilt confirmation bias often means we recall information selectively and then interpret it in a biased way – you don’t see Mr Ring’s other claims for September remembered: only the earthquake.
Predicting an earthquake for New Zealand to happen with a particular month isn’t a particularly big deal. GeoNet statistics averaged from 1960 are about one 4-4.9 magnitude earthquake per day, two magnitude 5-5.9 earthquakes per month, and two 6-6.9 magnitude earthquakes per year. Earthquakes are so statistically likely in New Zealand that Mr Ring would have been unlucky if his prediction hadn’t come true.
You will note that Mr Ring just used the word “earthquake”, some of his predictions are more specific - such as his opinion for 15-25th of February; “Over the next 10 days a 7+ earthquake somewhere is very likely.” Mr Rings original prediction for 20 March was that another big earthquake could strike the South Island "just before noon" on 20 March and that it "could be another for the history books". He later changed this to “I do not hold that 20 March WILL bring a severe earthquake to Canterbury, but an extreme weather event is possible that day worldwide, and an earthquake within 500kms of the Alpine Fault is a risk on that date. More likely to be a 4-6 mag.”
You can see that the more specific the claim made, the more inaccurate it has proved to be; and that both the September earthquake prediction and the final March one are so general that they can be interpreted in hindsight to cover a number of events. It is common when making predictions to use this technique of vagueness, for example, predicting a "disaster" of some kind but not what it is, or a prediction that does not state dates or places, or allows a large window of possible dates.
Statistical likeliness also explains the earthquake at 9.47 pm on the 20th March - a quake measuring 5 or higher occurred once every 11 days since 4 September and was within the range expected with aftershock pattern.
Another shortcut we use, rather than verifying for ourselves, is to rely on communal reinforcement - after all "millions of people can't all be wrong" – this is where an idea is repeated so often it becomes regarded as fact and accepted without question, regardless of evidence for its accuracy.
So although Mr Ring’s theory is unlikely, and his predictions, when specific enough to accurately check are no better than chance, there are powerful forces at work within our brains to believe him. I guess the last word should go to the psychologist Leon Festinger:
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
No comments:
Post a Comment