Earthquake Prediction and Hazards Evaluation in the Year 2000 -- A Dialogue

Abstract

Decisionmakers have different perspectives about geologic hazards than scientists and engineers. These differences, which have been summarized by Szanton (1981, table 3-1), are the reasons that implementation of loss reduction measures are difficult. The differences are: The ultimate objective of the decisionmaker is the approval of the electorate; it is the respect of peers for the scientist/engineer; The time horizon for the decisionmaker is short; it is long for the scientist/engineer; The focus of the decisionmaker is on the external logic of the problem; it is on the internal logic for the scientist/engineer; The mode of thought for the decisionmaker is deductive and particular; it is inductive and generic for the scientist/engineer; The most valued outcome for the decisionmaker is a reliable solution; it is original insight for the scientist/engineer; The mode of expression is simple and absolute for the decisionmaker; it is abstruse and qualified for the scientist/engineer, and; The preferred form of conclusion for the decisionmaker is one of "best solution" with uncertainties submerged; it is multiple possibilities with uncertainties emphasized for the scientist/engineer. With these principles in mind, let us now turn the clock forward to the year 2000 and a discussion between a decisionmaker and a scientist as they seek to resolve their philosophical differences and reach solutions to problems of earthquake-hazards reduction.