□ 《议报》作者: July 时间: 2008-5-20 12:52 Ding! LaoLiang has his judgement as well as his heart!作者: pbxie 时间: 2008-5-20 14:45 昨天成都市发布强烈余震警报，广播中反复要求大家离开住房，后来果然有很强的余震发生。作者: weili 时间: 2008-5-20 15:31 “尽管有些人自以为是，固守自己的信仰，不屑于读这类文章，我还是要把它转抄下来。看看吧，国内的知识分子比我们思想更解放，更敢于说真话，更敢于批评政府。歌功颂德不是知识分子的责任，那是太监、弄臣的行当。监督批评才是知识分子的责任。”
其实我们离震中很远，特别是隔着太平洋。这次廖康、宝瑜都坐不住了。为什么啊？不就是因为那些压在废墟下的孩子们，死得太惨了！作者: 月满西楼 时间: 2008-5-20 16:24 逃避事实和责任不是办法。应该勇于面对失职，只有这样以后才会避免所谓的“天灾”。于悲痛中反思，生活总要继续。作者: 笑雨 时间: 2008-5-20 17:09 监督批评不光是知识分子的责任，也是所有公民的责任。尊敬并支持所有真正急民之所急，想民之所想，真正忧国忧民的人。作者: 青冈 时间: 2008-5-20 20:57 读过陈依范的《美国华人史》、林语堂当年是受陈友仁之邀入武汉国民政府外交部工作的，
陈一文的先人都是响当当的。相信他，这次政府应该负责任。
痛心啊，中国政府目前真的是这样的治理模式，陈一文所述有道理。作者: 悟空 时间: 2008-5-20 21:23 Liao Kang, care to comment on this :
In early 2004, a group of scientists at the UCLA, lead by Dr. Vladimir Keilis-Borok, predicted that an earthquake measuring M6.5 in strength would occur in a 12,000 square mile (31,100 km) area of Southern California by September of that year. In April 2004, after a careful evaluation of Keilis-Borok's prediction , the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (CEPEC) reported to the California State Office of Emergency Services.(CSOES) that the "uncertainty along with the large geographic area included in the prediction (about 12,400 square miles) leads (us) to conclude that the results do not at this time warrant any special policy actions in California.” The predicted time window came and went, with no earthquake taking place. Paraphrasing it in plain Englsih, the prediction of those scientists were brushed aside by the California authorities. I guess nobody challenges the decision made by the California authorities was wrong .
What can we learn from this? For most people in their right frame of mind, it can be readily derived that earthquake prediction is very difficult, if not impossible. Not any prediction, even by renowned scientists, should automatically trigger massive policy action. Now, in the article whose viewpoints you hold so dear to, only the few “predictions” that actually materialized are mentioned, but do you know how many he has “predicted” in total? What is his success rate or failure rate? If this person does not have an established track record, if his methodology is not deemed sound by other scientists, why should the authorities follow his advice, not that of others? Having said that, I can understand the indignation of those individuals who felt their predictions were ignored. But as in any other intellectual circles, the scientific community also has its own modus operandi, a time-hornored standard that has overall served science pretty well. Have you heard about the peer-review process?
If one claims he holds a crystal ball of predicting EQs based on current science, I suspect he is positioning himself next to an astrologist. Oh wait a minute, since when has the reputation of astrology become so bad?
Bottom line: Earthquake prediction in its current form is more an art than a science. More precisely, it is an art that is scientifically and socially useful, and will remain so for some time to come. Any correct predictions to date, even the famous Haicheng one, were more coincidental than outcomes of a well-founded, well-established scientific methodology. Someday well into the future, as science and technology advance to a certain level, near-term EQ prediction may become possible. IMHO, nondestructive detection technology, remote sensing and imagery, high speed supercomputing w/ power orders of magnitude beyond today’s level, as well as earth science itself, jointly hold the key to credible EQ prediction. In any event, when mankind finally unlocks the mystery of EQ prediction, I am pretty sure there will be no part for astrology, alchemy, and their siblings to play.作者: 晴山 时间: 2008-5-20 22:42 觉得悟空的这段话本身可圈可点，但用来回应楼主贴文，读来总觉得有点miss target。我觉得那篇贴文的主旨并非是让土法PK进口仪器，也不是讨论scientific rigor, 而是挑出官僚机构的弊端 - 冷漠，迟钝，不作为，畏首畏尾，打压异见，这些弊端发生在其他地方，后果也就是浪费一点国家的银子，但在灾害预防上，可能就是几万人的性命。如果国家地震局能拿出确凿证据证明他们对科学家和民间的地震预报或警告已经采取过如悟空提的CEPEC那般的careful evaluation, 并将其过程和结论公布于众，那至少我是愿意一定程度上原谅他们的。拭目以待。
