#statstab #529 How Do I Know What My Theory Predicts?

Thoughts: I'd like to see more researchers adopt Dienes' framework and way of thinking about research.

#bayesian #bayesfactor #evidence #epistemology #research #tutorial

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245919876960

A few weeks ago, I moved my desk next to an upstairs window overlooking a Bradford pear tree. For the past 3 weeks, when I sat at the desk during the day, periodically, a flock of about 50 starlings would swoop in and land on the tree,  devouring the shriveled fruits up like grapes. Then, in a whoosh, they would be off. Sometimes I would hear them clamor on the roof. This has happened no less than a dozen times. They seemed hungry. 

On my way home from work over the past month, I noticed crows arcing across the sky across the interstate from as far as I can see from left to right. This happened for several consecutive days in the same place.

This is the behavior of birds. It seems remarkable but not too unusual.

On December 26, we were on the beach in South Carolina near Charleston. It was snowing. There were starfish embedded in the sand. The south was experiencing record cold. It happens. I felt bad for the alligators in the swamps.

Suddenly, we experience such a Fortean start to 2011!  A massive and suspicious bird die-off in Arkansas on New Year’s Eve triggers a wave of mystery, speculation and imaginative explanations fed by more accounts of animal mortality events.  The current media sensation of reporting mass mortality events is very interesting in many ways. Shall we count the ways? Yes, we shall, because it’s fun – fun like outrageous speculation about the end of the world! (Well, if you have a hot-air filled balloon of speculative belief about these things, you won’t think this is fun.)

1. Facts are hard to come by

It began with “More than 1000 birds fall dead in Arkansas”. Within days, the reports are up to 5000 birds. It’s been difficult to follow the changing numbers and expert opinions being offered. I wonder if one report just pulls the high value in the range of a previous report. Most people get their info from reporters, not the original sources. Many others rely on what they are told by friends or family and take that as fact. The “facts” quickly grow into tall tales where the fun is in the telling. Some “facts” are not so at all but become more and more real, in a cultural sense, in the retelling.

2. Slow news period. Why not start the year off with a bang?

This story exploded in the first week of the new year. It was EVERYWHERE. (I went to thesaurus.com to look up a word and there was the red-winged blackbird story at the top of the page!) Unexplained mass death is a frightening story. It doesn’t seem natural, it’s not something we see everyday or even hear about often.  Finding the ground littered with bird bodies or the shoreline covered with carcasses is disturbing and makes for good visuals. We fear for our own safety. Could what killed them harm me? People want to keep tuning in to see if there are any answers or updates. When the answers trickle in, they aren’t always satisfying…

3. Look for mystery and ye shall find

People suddenly became aware of dead animals, especially multiple deaths. A Kentucky woman spots multiple birds (same red-winged blackbirds) dead around her house, fish and seabirds die in New Zealand, starfish and jellyfish wash up on the South Carolina shores, manatees are found dead with no wounds in Florida, 70 dead bats are discovered dead in Arizona. The apparent cause for all these deaths was reported as weather related. The southern US has experienced record cold in the past few weeks. Wildlife succumbed to the cold. The quoted experts were not that concerned. Birds die from winter stress. Food sources may be scarce, the animals weak and susceptible. Even suspicious animal deaths come to light, grouped with the stories of the mass natural deaths.

So, now all animal deaths show up in the news. It is not unlike a shark attack. If a shark attack occurs near a populated area, especially in the summer, suddenly sharks are spotted everywhere. We seek out information of a particular type and discover more of it.  That is not surprising. We engage our selective memory for events and get a clustering effect in time, bombarded with stories of similar nature. But are they really similar?

4. False correlation of events (i.e. It’s all related)

Google has a map of many of the so-called anomalous mass animal deaths.  It’s here we notice that the causes of these mass die-offs are not all related in space and time. There are species clusters, not a sudden mortality of everything in the area. People aren’t affected. A trigger for these correlation of events in the public mind was the fish kill that occurred just after the bird incident and also in Arkansas. With the bird deaths fresh in everyone’s mind, along comes another event that could be weaved into a narrative and connections made in our heads without much effort. It unfolded by surprise, like that game where each person adds a little to the story and the next person has to tie it in, the media was adding bits from around the world.

Alex Jones’ Prison Planet blog was a hotbed of activity. They got busy gathering up any possible strange idea, making it sound even more horrific with unsupported claims,  and tying it to the bird deaths. I admire their imagination and zeal, that’s about all the good you can say about that. With their paranoia mongering, and suggestions that things are way worse than you are led to believe, their faithful believers are left sorely misinformed and unduly frightened – not a healthy condition for a democratic society. Imagination can take us to dark places.

5. Let’s speculate on cause

The cause of death of the blackbirds in Arkansas is being explained as disorientation exacerbated by fireworks. The red-winged blackbirds roost at night en masse. Yet, this article reports that locals heard booms, possibly from fireworks before the birds fell. I’m not sure what to do with that information. It’s incomplete.

There is also the possibility that the birds were disturbed by strong weather that passed through the area. Once in flight, they ran into object and each other in the dark. Upon examination, the birds were found to have exhibited blunt force trauma. It took NO time at all for the extreme explanations to crop up. People were not buying this fireworks idea. Birds are expert flyers! Why weren’t there bird deaths all over the place that night? Then, when the other stories immediately came to light, such as the massive fish death also in Arkansas and millions of fish dead in the Chesapeake Bay area, people wondered how to explain the other animal deaths? It’s clear that weather events were the cause of many wildlife deaths. And, as described, this was not unprecedented, it has happened in the past.

I liked this interesting twist where weather radar may have captured the huge flock of blackbirds in Arkansas.  But, based on comments that appeared on the web in response to the news stories, readers were unwilling to accept mundane, simplistic explanations. Instead of considering that some unusual combination of conditions were causing these events, they jumped right to the sensational.

6. Discard the normal explanations because the supernormal is WAY more fun

This “animals dying all over the place” meme has gone way out of control. I’m having a very hard time keeping up with opinions that went from conspiratorial to batshit insane in very short order.

Here we go…

The first alternate explanation I noted in the news stories and comments was poisoning. Poison was related to the BP oil spill. Or, the government injected gas into the ground. Apparently the dead US Air Force official whose body was recently discovered in the landfill knew about it. It was tied to Iraq. It was secret government testing of eco-weapons.

From the more religiously inclined, these die-off are OBVIOUSLY plagues from the Bible. It is the End Times. The world really is going to end on May 11, 2011.  It’s the apocalypse, I mean aflockalypse!

More down to earth but also cause for panic, possibly the New Madrid fault is becoming active again. The animals are experiencing the early effects of the stress buildup. A 7 or 8 or maybe 9 magnitude quake is coming soon. Everyone panic!

Gee, its fun to talk about these wild scenarios. The problem is, there is not a shred of evidence that any of them are true. Commentators are citing other conspiracy theorists or unverified sources, reading between the lines and adding embellishments, linking to past dubious allegations against governmental agencies or referencing concocted reports from potentially fraudulent sources. This is not the way to find answers, it’s just a way to trump up fear and panic.

Frankly, these events are weird but not unheard of. After an event in Louisiana where an estimated 500 red-winged blackbirds fell dead,  a  “search of USGS [US Geological Survey biology] records shows there have been 16 events in the past 30 years involving blackbirds where at least 1,000 of the birds have died seemingly all at once. “These large events do take place,” [said a USGS spokeman] “It’s not terribly unusual.” The USGS tracks these events (for land and air critters, not fish). Here is actually a “Don’t Panic!” story that explains this.

On Jan 4, hundreds of fish are found dead on New Zealand beaches.  The explanation given by an expert was they were starving because of weather conditions or it was an illegal dump of fish or broken net, but an eyewitness didn’t believe this. It seemed too boring an explanation to explain the dramatic sight he witnessed. While, the witness didn’t explain why he thought that cause was wrong, he was CERTAIN that something more deliberate was going on. One can be certain with no evidence if belief is more important than verifiable data. That way of thinking leads you down a blind path.

We want immediate, simple answers to unnerving, strange situations. But figuring out a puzzle takes time and careful collection of measurements to create data points which must be analyzed. Hypotheses must be tested and ruled out. And, worst of all, we might never get a definitive answer. That could be hard to accept for some, so they tie on some emotionally satisfying answer that works for them.

I get angry when off-balance commentators spout nonsensical explanations but that is what the public eats up. I’m not sure why many folks prefer to live in fear and panic instead of telling themselves to calm down and take a rational look. I’m pretty sure that it’s because we humans get a hell of a lot of our information from others, not from doing the work ourselves. Like I said, I was quickly overwhelmed just trying to get a handle on these stories that were coming in fast and furious from all over the world. How do you know what’s true?

Strange days, indeed.

Natural disasters happen every day. The people who can help prepare society for them are not psychics or crank pseudoscientists but those who study events inside out and upside down – scientists. Those who consider prediction a part of their research and responsibility range from weather forecasters to seismologists and volcanologists.

It’s a great responsibility to be tasked warning officials and the public about probable natural disasters. Warnings of impending danger cause predictable social and economic effects that must be considered along with achieving the primary goal, which is safety and minimizing loss of life. If a disaster prediction is wrong, several million people might be unnecessarily affected (Olsen, 1989 p. 107) and the region may suffer economic losses. If it is correct, but delivered inadequately, disaster is inevitable.

Accuracy of predictions is based on what is possible to observe and data that can be collected. For example, hurricane predictions are very accurate because scientists have extensive weather instruments and well-tested forecasting techniques to use. Volcanic hazard areas and shorelines prone to tsunamis are mapped based on zones identified through historical records – scientists can find geologic evidence that the land was affected by lava, ash or debris flows or inundated with waves of debris.

For many predicted events (volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods, blizzards), there is time to deliver the message and adequately prepare for the event. The worst situation is certainly earthquakes. There are no widely accepted precursors for quakes. Reliable prediction are long-term and large-scale — relatively unhelpful for preparation. With the potential for large seismic events to kill huge numbers of people, earthquake prediction theories have been particularly problematic and fraught with ethical dilemmas for the scientific community, public authorities and media.

It’s important to distinguish between predictions from the scientific community and those arising from the nonscientific community (pseudoscientific speculation, psychics and cranks). Scientific predictions must be supported by background theory and data and withstand skeptical scrutiny to be considered credible. The foundation mechanisms, explanations, calculations and assessments are expected to have gone through the gauntlet of peer review in order to gain acceptance. If the foundation is valid, then short-term, specific predictions will be credible. Predictive successes that have followed the conventional route include volcanic evacuations (Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, and the island of Montserrat) and severe weather alerts. Psychic and pseudoscientific predictions are not supported by theory or data and are not credible. I’ll not be addressing the ethics of those predictions as they are in a whole other realm.

Failed predictions fall on an impact scale from low (creating public inconvenience) to high (massive death tolls) with economic losses and potential career destruction in between. The following are some notable examples that highlight the major pitfalls inherent in predicting (or ignoring predictions of) natural disasters.

The Brady-Spence Debacle

In 1976, Dr. Brian Brady, a U.S. government scientist, made a specific prediction for a huge seismic event to take place in Lima, Peru in July of 1981. While the prediction itself was remarkably detailed, the theory supporting it was completely opaque (Olsen, 1989 p. 41). Brady’s theory had not been tested or published for peer review. During the lead up years to the event, things got complicated. Egos, priorities, agendas and protocol hijacked opportunities for proper, coherent, scientific critique. Peruvian officials and the public were confused by the lack of a reliable feed of information. The unstable political situation at the time led Peruvian citizens to think that their government was using the prediction to continue military control (Olsen, 1989 p. 131; Sol & Turan, 2004). The predicted quake did not occur. But, widespread disorder, decline of tourism, decrease in property values, and general public unrest resulted in an estimated economic damage in Lima of $50 million (Mileti & Fitzpatrick, 1993 p. 55).

The lack of following scientific protocol led to the situation getting out of hand. This episode is an example of a loss of objectivity by the chief scientist, the failure of the scientific community to address a serious situation in a coordinated way, and government agencies accepting rumors and pursuing misguided agendas without accurate information.

Armero

In 1985, Columbian scientists knew that villages in the valleys around the Nevado del Ruiz volcano were prone to disaster from eruptions. Yet, money was not allotted by the government to monitor the active volcano. The data that could be collected was ignored or not taken seriously by officials. When the media reported that an eruption would produce deadly mudflows that would obliterate the village of Armero, civic leaders called these press reports “volcanic terrorism”.

Church leaders added to the propaganda by telling people of the village not to fear. The poor population made no preparations to evacuate. Inevitably, the volcano erupted. That night, those who attempted to evacuate did not know where to go. Civil defense tried to get people out of the town but many refused to go – telling rescuers they were certainly mistaken. 23,000 people perished when a flood of meltwater and warm mud buried the town. Armero no longer exists, bodies were incased in dozens of feet of debris.

Government inaction in this entirely preventable situation was devastating. The situation was a heartbreaking testimony to the vulnerability of the poor to manipulation by authority  (Bruce, 2001).

Browning’s New Madrid prediction

Iben Browning was a scientist with unconventional ideas who took his claim directly to the media who gave it wide coverage. He pronounced that an earthquake on the New Madrid fault in the US Midwest would be triggered in December 1990 by tidal forces. In light of his prediction, serious social disturbances occurred. When the quake did not occur, he was ridiculed. Sol & Turan (2004) note that one can not use the defense of free speech to support predictions such as this since they create social disturbances with harmful consequences. Your speech has consequences.

Mr. Browning rejected scientific protocol and valid criticism but used the press to create a stir. While these actions were unethical if one subscribes to the ideals of the scientific community, the media also shares some blame for giving Browning’s opinion credibility it did not deserve. Several cranks persist in using this same “tidal forces” idea, unsupported by science, to gain attention from the media.

Katrina

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the costliest and one of the deadliest hurricanes ever to hit the United States. A US House Committee (2006) investigated the catastrophe and found, though the forecasts were remarkably good, the right information did not get to the right people on time and decision-makers seriously underestimated the threat.

It was well known how vulnerable New Orleans was to hurricanes yet there were inadequate provisions, few acts of leadership, government ineptitude, misguided advice, and media hype of violence that together resulted in a pathetic governmental response and heightened death toll. Katrina also revealed ugly issues of race and class treatment which showed that being poor and black put one at a distinct disadvantage in a disaster situation. Previous federal government cuts for disaster preparedness had increased the vulnerabilities and taught a hard lesson about paying now or paying later.

Boxing Day Tsunami

The Sumatra-Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 was an example of lack of coordinated monitoring, notification and evacuation procedures that caused an enormous and mostly preventable loss of life (Revkin, 2004). Fifteen minutes after the offshore quake that generated the deadly tsunami, U.S. scientists at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii sent out a warning bulletin. In spite of attempts they made to contact counterparts in other countries, the calls were not answered; the information and warning did not get through. Thousands died along populated coastlines completely unaware of the incoming surge scientists knew was coming.

Back in 2003, Dr. Phil Cummings of Australia had pushed for an expansion of the tsunami network into the Indian Ocean. Formation of a study group was met with resistance from participating countries and the network was never expanded. In hindsight, it was noted that Dr. Cummings had accurately predicted the damage that would be done to Sumatra and India. This event put the new word “tsunami” into the vocabulary of many citizens around the world.

L’Aquila, Italy

Giampaolo Giuliani forecasted the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake in Italy based on radon ground emission readings – a scientifically questionable (but not outlandish) theory. Giuliani was reported to authorities for “spreading panic” by broadcasting his warnings weeks before the predicted event. Italian scientists assured the townspeople that quakes were not predicable and officials forced Guiliani to remove warnings from the internet (Neild, 2009; Mackey, 2009). When the predicted quake did not occur on the expected date, March 29, the Italian Civil Protection Agency denounced Guiliani as “an imbecile” (Israely, 2009). A quake occurred on April 6 destroying the central city of L’Aquila and killing more than 300 people.

In this case, a desperate scientist had made an attempt to do what he thought was the right thing. The government agency chose to use ridicule and censorship instead of providing a measured, coordinated response to a questionable scientific prediction. What might have been the result if a different tactic was undertaken?

In 2012, an Italian court convicted six of the scientists and a government official of manslaughter for failing to give adequate warning of the deadly earthquake. Were they at fault or just mistaken? What happens when scientists are held THIS accountable for a correct guess in an uncertain situation? The public will suffer.

The parties involved

Most crises are not instantly obvious. They take time to develop, sometimes from vague or contradictory signals (Boin & t’Hart, 2006 p. 49). Citizens expect public official to make critical decisions, provide direction and issue emergency warnings (Barberi et al., 2008). Because they are not experts on scientific topics, officials are vulnerable to misunderstanding and mischaracterization (Olsen, 1989, p. 38 and 139). Social scientists note “the public wants to hear things from people they trust” and “they want to hear things repeated”. Miscommunication can occur all too easily when an official speaks outside his area expertise and/or garbles the message. Constant, and correct communication is the key.

Predictions have a way of leaking to the press. The media can be an effective and critical means to deliver warnings and will look to experts for information and confirmation. Scientists, however, have not traditionally been open to making themselves available to address the public. One can argue that it is their ethical obligation to be accessible in such a situation and they MUST do so to establish and retain their place as a credible source of information. Otherwise, alternate, not-so-credible sources step in to fill the void.

New electronic media means word-of-mouth takes on a whole different scale as warnings from credible and non-credible sources are passed instantaneous around the world. “Prediction” via email or social network platforms is popular. Likely unaware that a warning is scientifically baseless, and without an easy way to judge its credibility, a receiver feels that she is doing a good deed by passing on a warning of impending doom. Warnings like this can cause undue concerns and economic effects.

The elemental question in predictive scenarios is: when is the evidence adequate to make a prediction to the public? Many prognosticators feel they have potentially life-saving information and are overcome with a moral obligation to inform the public regardless of protocol. They can’t seem to adequately assess the potential fallout if they are wrong. The public, however, considers costs of all kinds and is not always compelled to follow scientific advice. The public may be misled by a manufactured scientific controversy (such as vaccine dangers or global warming).

Science gets accused of oppressing unorthodox ideas that may form the basis of innovative prediction theory. The punishment for a scientific maverick can mean the end of a career. Desperate scientists with unorthodox ideas, rejected by their peers, will put forth their ideas to the community who will listen – the media and public.

The modern public generally has veneration for science and scientists (Posner, 2004 p. 97; Barberi et al., 2008). Yet, science can not deliver absolutes or provide guarantees. The prediction scenario must take public perception into account or the prediction will cause harm whether the event occurs or not.

The world’s most vulnerable population is the poor. Keys et al. (2006) asserts that expensive warning systems are a hard political sell if it is just to save the poor populations.

Governments and citizens will hesitate to undertake precautions that are expensive and time consuming. The public, however, is influenced by seeing others in the community (or, these days, online) taking a warning seriously (Mileti & Fitzgerald, 1993, p. 87). Where the people are poor, uneducated or distrustful of government (Bolin, 2006 p. 129), there can be a reluctance to accept an “official” warning to evacuate. People who feel they are in control of their lives take action to survive. Those who feel their lives are controlled by an external force will passively await whatever fate will come. Fatalistic attitudes, especially as a result of religious beliefs, are still encountered today, most notably in poor populations (Quarantelli et al., 2006 p. 19, and Bruce, 2001 p. 19). Leaders must be forthright to convince citizens to take the most reasonable course of action. Compassion for personal human concerns must be displayed for a warning to be heeded. Government must be prepared to follow through with obligations to the population whether the event occurs or not.

Conclusion

Many predictions are valid attempts to do the right thing under uncertain circumstances. There are social and political reasons why a prediction is taken seriously or completely ignored. The media and public may give a baseless prediction credence where the scientific community does not.

When the public, media and politicians become involved, a prediction becomes socially complex. Warnings must be delivered in relation to social conditions (Rodrigues et al, 2006b p. 486).

Government and scientists have an obligation to learn from historical events and not repeat mistakes. Even false alarms do not diminish future response if the basis and reasons for the miss are understood and accepted by the public (Sorensen & Sorensen, 2006 p. 196-7). Therefore, authorities should be willing to prepare their citizens without hesitation if the prediction is supported by science.

Science has an established process to be followed for a theory to gain acceptance. Scientists should be discouraged from short circuiting this process and appealing directly to the public. However, the scientific community must evolve its process to include modern technology and the new media in consideration of basic human needs and various responses to life-threatening events.

References
Barberi, F., M.S. Davis, R. Isaia, R. Nave, T. Riccia (2008). “Volcanic risk perception in the Vesuvius population.” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172: 244 – 258.

Boin, A. and P. ‘t Hart (2006). “The Crisis Approach”. Handbook of Disaster Research. H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, R. R. Dynes. NY, Springer: 42-54.

Bolin, B. (2006). “Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Disaster Vulnerability”. Handbook of Disaster Research. H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, R. R. Dynes. NY, Springer: 113-129.

Bourque, L. B., J.M. Siegel, M. Kano, M. M. Wood (2006). “Morbidity and Mortality Associated with Disasters”. Handbook of Disaster Research. H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, R. R. Dynes. NY, Springer: 97-112.

Bruce, V. (2001). No Apparent Danger. NY, Harper Collins.

Bryant, E. (2005). “Personal and Group Response to Hazards”. Natural Hazards, Cambridge Univ Press: 273-287.

Hinman, L. M. (2005). “Hurricane Katrina: A ‘Natural’ Disaster?” San Diego Union-Tribune. San Diego, CA. Sept. 8, 2005.

Israely, J. (2009) “Italy’s Earthquake: Could Tragedy Have Been Avoided?” Time Retrieved April 7, 2009 from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1889644,00.html.

Johnson, B. F. (2009) “Gone and Back Again”. Earth (07 Apr 2009) Retrieved April 20, 2009 from http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/1fe-7d9-4-7.

Keys, A., H. Masterman-Smith, D. Cottle (2006). “The Political Economy of a Natural Disaster: The Boxing Day Tsunami, 2004.” Antipode 38(2): 195-204.

Mackey, R. (2009). “Earthquake Warning was Removed from Internet”. NY Times News Blog (The Lede) (06 April 2009) Retrieved April 6, 2009 from http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/earthquake-warning-was-removed-from-internet

Mileti, D. S. and C. Fitzpatrick (1993). The Great Earthquake Experiment. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.

Neild, B. and G. Deputato (2009) “Scientist: My quake prediction was ignorned”. CNN.com (06 April 2009) Retrieved April 6, 2009 from http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/06/italy.quake.prediction.

Olsen, R. S. (1989). The Politics of Earthquake Prediction. Princeton, NJ, Princeton Univ Press.

Posner, R.A. (2004). Catastrophe: Risk and Response. Oxford Univ Press.

Quarantelli, E. L., P. Lagadec, A. Boin (2006). “A Heuristic Approach to Future Disasters adn Crises: New, Old and In-Between Types”. Handbook of Disaster Research. H. Rodriguez, E.L. Quarantelli, R. R. Dynes. NY, Springer: 16-41.

Revkin, A. C. (2004). “How Scientists and Victims Watched Helplessly”. New York Times. December 31, 2004.

Rodriguez, H., E.L. Quarantelli, R. R. Dynes (2006a). Handbook of Disaster Research. NY, Springer.

Rodriguez, H., W. Diaz, J. Santos, B.E. Aguirre (2006b). “Communicating Risk and Uncertainty: Science, Technology, and Disasters at the Crossroads”. Handbook of Disaster Research. H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, R. R. Dynes. NY, Springer: 476-488.

Scanlon, J. (2006). “Unwelcome Irritant or Useful Ally? The Mass Media in Emergencies”. Handbook of Disaster Research. H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, R. R. Dynes. NY, Springer: 413-429.

Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina (2006). “A Failure of Initiative”. Washington, D.C., US House of Representatives.

Sol, A. and H. Turan (2004). “The Ethics of Earthquake Prediction.” Science and Engineering Ethics10(4): 655-666.

Sorensen, J. H. and B. V. Sorensen (2006). “Community Processes: Warning and Evacuation”. Handbook of Disaster Research. H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, R. R. Dynes. NY, Springer: 183-199.

USGS (1999). “Most Recent Natural Disasters Were Not the Century’s Worst, USGS Says.” News release – US Dept of Interior, USGS (Geologic Hazards) (30 December 1999).

* I use the term prediction throughout this post since I am referring to the cases where a particular event was said to occur within a discrete time frame in a certain location. Please see this post in which I distinguish forecasting from prediction.

Originally published on this blog on 28 Mar 2011

ガラクタ語の旋律　Мелодія мови Ґаракута
次世代への負債に他ならない。
зсув відбирає сенс.

https://note.com/poison_raika/n/nf35321fb9bd5

<>

#ＡＩ生成 #walk #hold #map #katakana #lost #compass #need #cross #ocean #sound #substitute #real #ear #grow #use #symbol #brain #reject #authentic #not #mere #habit #evidence #coordinate #cognition #have #say #final

ガラクタ語の旋律　Мелодія мови Ґаракута
次世代への負債に他ならない。
зсув відбирає сенс.

https://note.com/poison_raika/n/nf35321fb9bd5

<>

#ＡＩ生成 #walk #hold #map #katakana #lost #compass #need #cross #ocean #sound #substitute #real #ear #grow #use #symbol #brain #reject #authentic #not #mere #habit #evidence #coordinate #cognition #have #say #final

More #evidence that #poverty kills... What stops us from building a fairer, more supportive world?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44360-026-00106-0

#Evidence that #mRNA #influenza #vaccines provide higher levels of protection than the standard one. #vaccination #vaccine

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2516491