In his immediate respond to this debate, Robert J. Geller wrote11:

在他对这场辩论的迅速反应中，Robert J. Geller写道11∶ 

“If reliable and accurate prediction is impossible now and for the foreseeable future, why is it being debated on Nature's web site? The answer seems to be sociological rather than scientific. Certain research topics are fatally attractive to both scientists and the general public, owing to the combination of their extreme difficulty and great potential reward” 

“如果可靠和准确的预测现在不可能，在可以预见到的未来也不可能的话，为什么我们在《自然》杂志的网站还要辩论这个问题？对这个问题的答案看来是社会学性的，而不是科学性的。某些研究题目，因其极大困难性与巨大的潜在奖赏结合在一起，极不幸的既对科学家又对公众有吸引力。” 

“The examples of alchemy and perpetual motion machines show that the only way to 'prove' something is impossible is by developing a satisfactory theory of the underlying phenomenon (nuclear physics and thermodynamics, respectively). No satisfactory theory of the earthquake source process exists at present. Further work should be encouraged, but it will probably lead to a better understanding of why prediction is effectively impossible rather than to effective methods for prediction.” 

“炼金术和永动机的例子表明，对其基于的现象提出令人满意的理论〔对这两种例子分别为核物理、热力学〕是‘证明’某种事不可能的唯一方式。目前，对地震成因过程不存在任何令人满意的理论。应鼓励进一步的研究工作，但它可能会导致加深对地震预测为什么不可能，而不是导致进行预测的有效的方法。”

Clearly against the above view, Adrew Michael stated76:

明显反对上述看法，Andrew Michael指出76∶ 

“In conclusion, scientists are now making societally useful predictions based on both the behaviour of the population of earthquakes and of individual events, although these predictions are best posed in terms of at least small populations. Progress in this field might be difficult but we should heed Sir Peter Medawar's advice25 : "No kind of prediction is more obviously mistaken or more dramatically falsified than that which declares that something which is possible in principle (that is, which does not flout some established scientific law) will never or can never happen."” 

“作为结论，基于地震所涉及的地震群体以及个别地震的行为，科学家目前正在做出对社会有益的一些预测，尽管这些预测在最好的情况下仅涉及较小的人群。该领域中的进展可能是困难的，但是我们应当留意Peter Medawar先生的忠告95∶‘没有预测比声称某种原则上本来可能的事〔即不轻视已经公认的科学法则的事〕永远不会发生或永远不能发生更加明显的错误或更严重伪造的。’”

In a following paper, Robert J. Geller stressed an interesting logic as follows7:

在后续的一篇文章中，Robert J. Geller强调一种有意思的逻辑如下7∶ 

“Finally, prediction proponents should refrain from using the argument that prediction has not yet been proven to be impossible as justification for prediction research.” 

“最后，地震预测的支持者们应当避免使用这样的争论，即，将预测目前仍然未能证明可能作为进行地震预测研究的正当理由。”

Leon Knopoff also clearly pointed out53:

Leon knopoff清楚的指出53∶ 

“Challenges not insolubles” 

“挑战，而不是不能解决的” 

“The recent paper by Geller et al.82 is in error on two counts. First, it states that the model of SOC shows that earthquakes are unpredictable. In fact, SOC 'predicts' stresses more readily than do chaotic systems. I have indicated above that the model of SOC is inapplicable to earthquakes on several counts: the data fail to show scale independence, the data fail to show long-range correlations in the stress field, and individual faults are remarkably inactive before large earthquakes.” 

“Geller最近的文章2在两个问题上存在着错误。首先，它声称SOC〔‘自组成临界性’〕的模型表明地震是不可预测的。事实上，SOC本身已‘预测’强调它比混乱无次序系统更加容易。我在前边已表明，SOC在几项计算上对地震不适用∶有关的数据未能反映标度方面的独立性；有关数据未能表示应力场里的长范围相关性；个别的断层在大地震之前有显著的非活动性。” 

“Second, the paper82 states that the problem is too difficult, and we should therefore give up trying. I believe the opposite. The community has indeed tried the seemingly easy methods, and they have failed. For 25 years the leadership of our national programmes in prediction have been making the assumption that the problem is simple and will therefore have a simple prescriptive solution.” 

“第二点，他的文章2声称问题过于困难，我们因此应当放弃进一步的努力。我相信相反的看法。科学界确实试了表面上看来较容易的方法，并且失败了。过去25年里，我们的国家地震预测计划的领导者一直假定这个问题是简单的，并认为因此应当有简单的次第方案。” 

“We have been guilty of jumping on bandwagons without asking the basic questions, "What is an earthquake? What determines its size, and why is it likely to occur where and when it does?" These are physics questions; they are not likely to be solved by statistically unsubstantiable means. We have so far been unsuccessful at prediction because laboratory and theoretical studies of the physics of deformation and fracture have been largely unsupported. The problem is not simple; however, that does not mean it is insoluble. As I have indicated, there are weak solutions at present for large space-time windows. The short-term problem is much more difficult.” 

“我们自己对于问清基本的问题前就跳上乐队花车有责任∶‘什么是地震？是什么决定其大小，以及为什么它看来在哪里和什么时候发生？’这些都是一些物理学方面的问题；它们不象能够由统计学的非实质性手段来解决。我们在预测方面到目前为止不成功，因为未能获得变形和破裂的物理状况的实验室研究的和理论研究的支撑。问题并不简单；然而，那并不意味着它是不能解决的。如我表示的那样，在较大的空间—时间误差带条件下目前有一些较薄弱的解决方案。短期预测的问题则更加困难。”

Andrew Michael pointed out :

Andrew Michael指出96∶ 

“It is certainly possible to define the reliable prediction of individual earthquakes so narrowly that success is impossible. For instance, in Main's level 4 he refers to predictions with such precision and accuracy that a planned evacuation can take place. None of the contributors have yet to suggest that this is a possibility and I agree with Wyss that using this straw man as the standard will not lead to a useful debate.” 

“当然可能将对于个别地震进行可靠预测的定义确定的很狭窄，以至使其成功成为不可能。例如，在Main的第4级预测中，他谈到预测须精确和准确到可以实施计划中的撤离。这场辩论的所有参加者中到目前为止没有任何人建议这是可能的。我同意Wyss的看法，将这样一个稻草人立作标准不会指导出一次有用的辩论。” 

“Proving that earthquakes are truly unpredictable will help us deal with the problems posed by less scientific approaches. However, our current understanding of earthquake physics can not prove this point. For instance, the majority of contributions to this debate have discussed self-organizing criticality models but there is no agreement on what they imply for earthquake prediction or if they are a good explanation for earthquakes (see contributions from Per Bak, David Bowman & Charles Sammis, and Chris Scholz).” 

“即便证明地震是确实无法预测的会帮助我们更好的处理由于采用较差科学方法所造成的一些问题。然而，我们目前对地震物理学的理解并不能证明这一点。例如，对这次辩论提交的大部分论文对SOC〔‘自组成临界性’〕模型进行了讨论，但是，SOC适用于地震预测的什么，或者，SOC是否是地震的良好解释，均未取得一致意见〔参看Per Bak，David Bowman & Charles Sammis，以及Chris Scholz的论文〕。”

接续后篇∶

——>8.Is the reliable prediction of individual earthquakes a realistic scientific goal?

对个别的地震做可靠的预测是否是一个现实的科学目标？

参考文献

Medawar, P.B. Pluto’s Republic (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1982).

Andrew Michael, Realistic predictions: are they worthwhile? 25 March, Nature debate on earthquake prediction (1999).