ad: M2Ant-1

Interesting connection between solar activity, propagation and earthquakes

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by VE7DXW, Oct 9, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: OK1UUad-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: FBNews-1
ad: Left-3
  1. K8UA

    K8UA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not trying to support any one side of the discussion - but as an active researcher myself, I would not trust anything that is published in a sketchy journal like this. It has no credibility in the scientific world at all - regardless of whether it is officially recognized as "predatory" or not. (If not - it's only a matter of time till it will be). The broad scope of the journal is the first (but only one of the most obvious) sign of its below-reasonable credibility, as they fail to attract enough quality original research in any one more specific subject area. (Not to be confused with such journals as Science and Nature).
    K4AGO and N0TZU like this.
  2. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    They have a list of publishers too, and it looks like I copied the wrong publisher initially, my apologies.

    The correct publisher of Natural Science is Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), which is ALSO on the list of predatory publishers. Here's an excerpt from the list (bolding is mine)

    No, I have not "taken offense". But I do spend some time investigating pseudoscience claims that I find interesting for one reason or another. I'm no stranger to researching and reading technical journals so it doesn't take me very long to look up and read the papers, if readily available.

    There is so much pseudoscience, poor research, and fake research (for commercial or political purposes) on the internet these days that I feel some obligation to try to point it out when I encounter it. It wouldn't be right to stand by and be silent; that is tantamount to acceptance in my book.
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019
    K4AGO, NH7RO, KA0HCP and 1 other person like this.
  3. KK4NSF

    KK4NSF Ham Member QRZ Page

    understood.. thanks for the clarification. I'll look at the links

    My point was / is not if the paper is good or bad. (I really don't know one way or the other. ) Rather, that as we debate various topics we as a group would do better to avoid confrontational / harsh language which is often read by others as mean-spirited. That tends to limit the conversation, and often pushes people away from a rational truth, toward an emotional response..... which as we know can often be quite the opposite from the truth.

    As far as pseudo-science goes, we certainly have far too much of it nowadays. In fact, it is widely misused by the media to sway public opinion in very detremental ways. So we are in agreement on that point.

    K4AGO, NH7RO, KA0HCP and 2 others like this.
  4. K8JHR

    K8JHR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Huh. Meh.

    I side with N0TZU because there is no real evidence the phenomena under consideration are CAUSALLY RELATED. This is a basic concept and underlies the logic behind the "post hoc, ergo property hoc" type of fallacy; i.e., the fact different phenomena appear to occur at the same time, and, perhaps, at the same frequency, more or less, does not PROVE or substantiate either is caused by the other. In court, the proponent often must prove both correlation and causation - i.e., correlation often merely suggests EVENT A actually CAUSED EFFECT A - it does not necessarily prove the event caused the effect - and the question remains: "Coincidence?" And the answer is, "perhaps, but maybe not."

    Bottom line - correlation does not always constitute proof of actual causation - even if there was high correlation - and here there is neither.

    Just MY take. K8JHR
    K4AGO, NH7RO, N0TZU and 1 other person like this.
  5. K8UA

    K8UA Ham Member QRZ Page

    All you need to know about correlations (but makes sense, no? ;))

    K4AGO, NH7RO, W7UUU and 3 others like this.
  6. K8UA

    K8UA Ham Member QRZ Page

    All in all - there is no connection unless the mechanism is shown and reasonably proven. You cannot claim that there is a causal relationship based solely on a correlation - no matter how excellent it is. Period.
    K4AGO, WQ2H and N0TZU like this.
  7. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    And the first step in the chain is to actually calculate the correlation, not simply eyeball the data (with benefit of hindsight)!
    AG6QR likes this.
  8. WN1MB

    WN1MB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Fear monger much?
    NH7RO and KA0HCP like this.
  9. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    If you will play by your own rules, stop posting your nonsense topic. You have posted once. Please go away! Thanks. :)

    [edited for clarity]
    K4AGO and NH7RO like this.
  10. WQ2H

    WQ2H QRZ Lifetime Member #214 Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Wow, do you mean "evidence-based science" and "stochastic independence" actually have value?

    As Christiaan Huygens would have said: ".....go figure."



Share This Page