<p>If you have no prior information that event B depends on event A, it's a logical error to claim event A causes event B just because you find they are correlated.</p>

<p>Let's say you collect a large data set of how people use their computer-mouse, and show that there is some change in a statistic of this data preceding an earthquake. That cannot not prove that the anticipation of an earthquake is causing people to behave differently, because the data will always correlate just as well with some other unrelated event C (such as a swing in the stock-market.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-04T15:42:55.110Z
Computer expert systems could point some global trends on huge datasets. Time and space scale should be maximised. But I agree that it would be difficult to have formal proofs of such correlations.
j-p
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-04T14:31:49.553Z
2014-11-04T14:31:49.553Z
Mark Rovetta
<p>Documented strange behaviors of animals before an earthquake could invite us to believe that some of them anticipate tectonic activity. We also know that human complex organization makes it difficult for all of us to get in touch with our deepest instinct.</p>

<p>Is it possible that this hypothetical natural ability to anticipate earthquakes still remains as some instinctive input in our daily behavior?</p>

<p>If yes, and to try to measure how much global human activity could reflect some anticipation, I think we could with modern technologies, monitor all our connected device hmi's (Mouse, touchpad, keyboard, phone, voice spectral data's) (anonymously of course) and study delta's on long periods.</p>

<p>I also want to point a risk: Is it not dangerous to do so if those anticipations are among the strongest booster of human intellect and progress in general?  (Pandora box problem)</p>

<p>But maybe, those hypothetical intuitions are source of evil momentum...</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-03T01:29:43.057Z
What evidence is there that any animals anticipate earthquakes? You claim we know this, based on what evidence? Animals, including human animals, react to an earthquake after they happen, but it has never been demonstrated that they anticipate earthquakes before they occur. This is an old hypothesis, but it has never stood up to a meaningful test.
Mark Rovetta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-03T09:12:55.270Z
You are right, it's not formally proofed. It's opinion based. I'll moderate my introduction...
j-p
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-03T09:19:27.710Z
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html this article ends with an astonishing event.
j-p
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-03T15:08:27.997Z
@MarkRovetta See http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/6/1936 and references therein (esp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00700.x ) for some evidence. Not strong enough to be conclusive but too strong to dismiss out of hand. I think the problem is not that the hypothesis has been tested and found wanting, but that it's a difficult hypothesis to test due to the unpredictable nature of earthquakes. Most reports seem to involve aquatic or burrowing species, so humans might be a poor candidate for such research. The actual question seems outside the scope of earth science, though.
Pont
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-03T15:21:48.873Z
@pont It's geophysics related, but I concede that the scope of the question is maybe too metaphysics related
j-p
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-03T15:43:54.043Z
@j-p I think the first two paragraphs are on topic and the idea of crowdsourcing human behaviour measurements for geophysical monitoring is an interesting one, reminiscent of http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50786/full . But the last paragraph containing the question itself is, as you say, verging on the metaphysical -- it could perhaps be interpreted as a scientific question but not really a geoscientific question.
Pont
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-03T16:14:02.940Z
@Pont I agree. I've just wanted to underlined the potential risk of delegating such intuitions to machines. I may set the final question as a comment, and ask first the relevance of the measure...
j-p
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-03T16:22:32.440Z
@Pont : several personal consideration made me think that humans are good candidates.
j-p
<geophysics><geology><tectonics><technology>
Would it be wise to monitor real time human activity to anticipate earthquakes?
j-p
# Would it be wise to monitor real time human activity to anticipate earthquakes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-11-02)

Documented strange behaviors of animals before an earthquake could invite us to believe that some of them anticipate tectonic activity. We also know that human complex organization makes it difficult for all of us to get in touch with our deepest instinct.

Is it possible that this hypothetical natural ability to anticipate earthquakes still remains as some instinctive input in our daily behavior?

If yes, and to try to measure how much global human activity could reflect some anticipation, I think we could with modern technologies, monitor all our connected device hmi's (Mouse, touchpad, keyboard, phone, voice spectral data's) (anonymously of course) and study delta's on long periods.

I also want to point a risk: Is it not dangerous to do so if those anticipations are among the strongest booster of human intellect and progress in general? (Pandora box problem)

But maybe, those hypothetical intuitions are source of evil momentum...

**Tags:** geophysics, geology, tectonics, technology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What evidence is there that any animals anticipate earthquakes? You claim we know this, based on what evidence? Animals, including human animals, react to an earthquake after they happen, but it has never been demonstrated that they anticipate earthquakes before they occur. This is an old hypothesis, but it has never stood up to a meaningful test.  
> **username_0**: You are right, it's not formally proofed. It's opinion based. I'll moderate my introduction...  
> **username_0**: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html this article ends with an astonishing event.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 See http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/6/1936 and references therein (esp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00700.x ) for some evidence. Not strong enough to be conclusive but too strong to dismiss out of hand. I think the problem is not that the hypothesis has been tested and found wanting, but that it's a difficult hypothesis to test due to the unpredictable nature of earthquakes. Most reports seem to involve aquatic or burrowing species, so humans might be a poor candidate for such research. The actual question seems outside the scope of earth science, though.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 It's geophysics related, but I concede that the scope of the question is maybe too metaphysics related  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I think the first two paragraphs are on topic and the idea of crowdsourcing human behaviour measurements for geophysical monitoring is an interesting one, reminiscent of http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50786/full . But the last paragraph containing the question itself is, as you say, verging on the metaphysical -- it could perhaps be interpreted as a scientific question but not really a geoscientific question.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I agree. I've just wanted to underlined the potential risk of delegating such intuitions to machines. I may set the final question as a comment, and ask first the relevance of the measure...  
> **username_0**: @username_2 : several personal consideration made me think that humans are good candidates.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-11-04. Score: 5

If you have no prior information that event B depends on event A, it's a logical error to claim event A causes event B just because you find they are correlated.

Let's say you collect a large data set of how people use their computer-mouse, and show that there is some change in a statistic of this data preceding an earthquake. That cannot not prove that the anticipation of an earthquake is causing people to behave differently, because the data will always correlate just as well with some other unrelated event C (such as a swing in the stock-market.)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Computer expert systems could point some global trends on huge datasets. Time and space scale should be maximised. But I agree that it would be difficult to have formal proofs of such correlations.  

---

