kinda like astrology? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
________________________________ From: PEN-L list on behalf of sartesian Sent: Sun 7/11/2004 1:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Oil surprises Oh Jim, you are much too generous. The Hubbert Peak theory, far from even being randomly correct has been shown to be internally inconsistent, and externally inaccurate. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Oil surprises Auerbach writes: >The reference to "Hubbert's peak" -- after the geologist who first made the case for depletion dynamics in the oil patch -- omits to note that the prediction was highly controversial inside and outside of the oil business until the 1980s, when it was proven correct. < no prediction can ever be "proven correct." Just because someone predicts that it's going to rain tomorrow -- and then it does -- doesn't mean that his or her prediction was correct. The prediction can easily be right for the wrong reason, for example, based on astrology or assuming that oil issues can be reduced to mere geology. A better test would be to see if the person is correct _repeatedly_. Unfortunately, outside of physics and other physical sciences, that's pretty difficult. jd
