There are people who call Economics a science and other who contest that standard, for repeatability has NOT always been possible in economics for the simple reason it is a study on on-going activities not parts that can be isolated to see if they are repeatable.
In other Sciences, the same problem raises its head, an inability to reduce complex systems to see if we have repeatability. In such cases science falls back on other standards (For example in evolution we can NOT repeat what happened in some distance past to see if what evolved then, will evolved now, furthermore evolution also depends on what existed at the start of the period in question, at times we can come close, for example the Brontosaurus type creatures and Elephants, both are large land animals, one a Dinosaur that ate Ferns and Conifers, the other a mammal that ate grasses and deciduous trees, close but not the same thing and thus not a exact repeat due to the difference in the food they ate AND what they evolved from).
Just a comment, that repeatable testing, while the "touchstone" point in Science, is NOT the only way science is developed. In the cases of earthquakes, we may end up with a series of tests if an adequate prediction theory comes about. Failing all the tests would show no earthquakes will occur, passing any of them will show an earthquake will occur. An increase in radon being released may end up as part of one such tests.
As to weather predictions, anything more then three days out is more a guess then a prediction, but it is done all the time. The reason is people often need to have an idea of the weather 5-7 days from today. To a degree we can make an educated guess, but the variables are so many once you go beyond three days, it is to many for even the fastest super computers. At that point most people are happy with 50% Accuracy, if such predictions are that good.
In many ways, the Trial Judges basically said it was improper for the Defendants to not only disagree with the person who made the prediction (and the court said such disagreement was Legal and not liable) and the Defendants could even say the predictions had no basis in fact (also protected speech) but once they said no earthquake WILL OCCUR, they were making a PREDICTIONS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE and people relied on those statements.
Remember that is what the court convicted them of, NOT for disagreeing with the person who made the prediction or for saying that the predictions had no basis in science, BUT going that extra step and PREDICTING none will occur. At that point the Defendants had gone from saying the predictions had no basis in science, to making a prediction of their own. A prediction that turned out to be false (i.e no earthquake would occur, when one did).
Now, the Defendants may get off, for the reason they made the prediction of no earthquakes was that many locals were upset about the prediction for an earthquake and were demanding action. It appears local politicians were the ones asking for the Defendants to said no chance of an earthquake because the local politicians were tied of hearing from people concerned about an earthquake. Thus why the Defendants made their prediction of no earthquake, based on no scientific evidence.
Notice BOTH sides in the debate made PREDICTIONS that are without SOLID Science behind them. Due ot the DEFENDANT'S PREDICTIONS, people stayed in their homes and suffered harm. If they had followed the Predictions of an Earthquake they could have stayed outside and minimize their losses. Thus the Decision of the Court, people suffered harm due to the PREDICTION of the Defendants, a PREDICTION without any scientific basis.
= new reply since forum marked as read
