In 1995, the 10th issue of “Scientific American” (Chinese edition) published an interesting paper “Earthquake prediction practice and exploring of its formation” written by Sun Wei, and others . Sun Wei practiced earthquake prediction research work since 1995 in China. Unfortunately, as the authors were quite unknown to the outside world, this paper did not draw any significant attention.

1995年第10期《科学美国人》杂志〔中文版〕刊登了一篇有趣的文章“大地震起因的物理学证据”〔作者的原标题为∶“地震预报实践及其成因的探讨”〕1，作者为孙威等人1。孙威从1975年起从事地震预测实践工作。遗憾的是，外界对该文作者们不了解，该文没有引起任何有意义的注意。

Four years later, an important paper “Earthquakes cannot be predicted” , written by Robert J. Geller , and others, was published in 1997 by Science, one of the most important science journals in the USA. This paper played an important influential role, especially on scholars and governmental officials directly related to this field in various countries, including US, Japan and China.

四年后，《科学》杂志，美国最有影响的科学杂志之一，发表了Robert J. Geller2等人的重要文章“地震无法预测”2。该篇文章对包括美国、日本和中国等国直接与该领域有关的学者和政府官员发挥了重大影响作用。

The debate on “earthquake prediction” organized by Nature

《自然》杂志组织的关于“地震预测”的辩论

Another two years later, during Feb. ~ Apr. 1999, Nature, an important European science journal, organized an international debate on “earthquake prediction” at Nature’s website.

又过了两年后，1999年2月～4月期间，《自然》杂志，欧洲一家重要的科学杂志，在《自然》杂志的网站上组织了对“地震预测”的一场辩论。

In the opening Introduction, Ian Main , the mediator, started the debate with the following guidelines:

在开场的“引言”中，Ian Main3, 该场辩论的主持人，用下述导言开始了这场辩论∶ 

“The question to be addressed in this debate is whether the accurate, reliable prediction of individual earthquakes is a realistic scientific goal, and, if not, how far should we go in attempting to assess the predictability of the earthquake generation process?” 

“这场辩论中涉及的问题是，对个别的地震进行准确、可靠的预测是否是一个现实的科学目标，以及，如果不是的话，我们在尝试对地震孕震过程的预测性评定方面应该走多远？”

This makes it clear that this debate calls for a challenge to Robert J. Geller’s paper “Earthquakes cannot be predicted”.

显然，这次辩论正是向Robert J. Geller的文章“地震无法预测”提出挑战。

Robert J. Geller, the main author of “Earthquakes cannot be predicted”, in week 1 of the debate immediately responded with his paper “Earthquake prediction: is this debate necessary?”. And, obviously one of most active participants to this debate, he submitted papers also during week 3: “Earthquake Prediction: What should we be debating?”; week 4: “Without progress no funding”; and week 6: “The need for objective testing”.

Robert J. Geller，“地震无法预测”的主要作者，在辩论第一周立即做出反应，提交的文章题目为“地震预测∶这场辩论是否必要？”而且，显然作为这场辩论最活跃的参加者之一，他陆续提交了几篇文章。第三周∶“地震预测∶我们应当辩论什么？”；第四周∶“没有进展不提供资金”；第六周∶“进行客观试验的必要”。

The debate continued for seven weeks, researchers from Great Britain (Ian Main, Stuart Crampin ), France (Pascal Bernard , Didier Sornette USA (Max Wyss , Christopher Scholz , Leon Knopoff , David D. Bowman and Charles G. Sammis , David Jackson , Andrew Michael ) Japan (Robert Geller2), Denmark (Per Bak ), Italy (Francesco Biagi ) and China (Wu Zhong-liang ), participated with strong arguments on various topics.

这场辩论进行了七周，对不同的主题参加激烈辩论的研究者来自英国〔Ian Main, Stuart Crampin4〕、法国〔Pascal Bernard5、Didier Sornette6〕、美国〔Max Wyss7、Christopher Scholz8、Leon Knopoff 9、David D. Bowman and Charles G. Sammis 10、David Jackson 11、Andrew Michael12〕、日本〔Robert Geller2〕、丹麦〔Per Bak 13〕、意大利〔Francesco Biag14〕和中国〔吴中良15〕。

Furthermore, the contributions submitted by the above scholars for the debate, were based on over two hundred papers, written by themselves and/or by others, on related topics.

此外，上述学者提交参加辩论的文章，又参考了他们自己或者其它人写的相关议题的两百多篇论文。

Accordingly, the in-depth discussions on many related topics by this wide group of so many researchers in this debate from so many countries, acts as an important summary of the research work related to earthquake prediction until 1999. And, accordingly, before more significant achievements are identified in this field, the contradictory views and conclusions drawn from this debate shall continue to play an important influential role, directly or indirectly, on other scholars in this field, as well as on governmental officials related to this field in various countries, including the USA, Japan, and China.

因此，这样多国家这么广泛一群研究者在这次辩论中就许多相关议题进行的深入讨论，起到1999年为止与地震预测相关的研究工作的一次重要总结的作用。因此，在该领域中发现更有意义的成就之前，这场辩论中可引出的相互矛盾的看法和结论，将继续直接或间接，对包括美国、日本和中国等国家该领域有关的其它学者和政府部门官员，发挥重要影响作用。

Accordingly, researchers and practitioners in the field of earthquake prediction in China, before studying, or announcing or promoting any important achievements they have accomplished in this field to overseas scholars and concerned parties, it is essential that they should first carefully study the contradictory views and conclusions drawn from this debate, and tackle them in an effective way. Otherwise, they will eventually run against a rigid wall in both China and in the international academic world, formed by a series of pessimistic theoretical views presently strongly influencing professional seismologists and related decision making governmental officials in both China and abroad, which is clearly reflected in this debate.

因此，中国地震预测领域中的研究者和实践者们，在研究，或向海外学者和团体宣布或推荐他们该领域中实现的任何重要成就之前，有必要首先仔细研究这场辩论中引出的相互矛盾的看法和结论，并有效的对付它们。否则，他们将在中国和海外学术界中最终撞到一堵顽固的墙上。这堵墙由目前对中国和海外专业地震学家和政府部门决策官员产生重大影响的一系列悲观的学术观点构成。这些悲观的学术观点在这场辩论中得到充分的反映。

Through carefully studying the arguments and comments during this debate, people should also pay full attention to the statements/comments by certain Western researchers below:

仔细研究这次辩论中的争执和看法，人们应当对某些西方研究者的如下看法给予充分的重视∶

Didier Sornette recalled parts of the historical development of the seismology as follows:

Didier Sornette回顾了地震学的一部分历史发展性如下∶ 

“Earthquakes are indeed very poorly understood. The standard theory is based on the rebound theory of earthquakes formulated by Reid in 1910 which was later elaborated as a friction phenomenon by Brace and Byerlee in 1966 with many recent developments using Ruina-Dieterich-type laws. This textbook picture still poses many fundamental paradoxes, such as the strain paradox, the stress paradox, the heat flow paradox and so on. Resolutions of these paradoxes usually call for additional assumptions on the nature of the rupture process (such as novel modes of deformations and ruptures) prior to and/or during an earthquake, on the nature of the fault and on the effect of trapped fluids within the crust at seismogenic depths (see ref. 4 and references therein). There is no unifying understanding of these paradoxes.” 

“对地震确实仅有很差的理解。地震学的标准理论是这样建立∶Reid于1910年建立了地震的回弹理论，Brace和Byerlee而后在1966年将其作为一种摩擦现象予以详细阐述，同时考虑了利用Ruina-Dieterich类型规律的许多近期发展。这种课本式的描述仍然造成许多基本的似是而非的说法，如关于应变的说法；关于应力的说；关于热流的说法；等等。对这些似是而非说明的解决方案，往往又引进地震前和／或地震过程中关于破裂过程性质的许多进一步的假说〔如变形和破裂的异常状态〕，关于断裂层的性质，以及地震活动深度地壳内部被困住的流体的影响〔参看参考文献〕。对这些似是而非的说法没有一种统一的理解。” 

“We need fundamentally new approaches for understanding what are earthquakes”, “not only of the source problem but of the full seismic cycles”. 

“我们需要理解什么是地震的基本上新的研究方法”，“不仅对震源问题，而且对整个地震活动循环”。

Leon Knopoff also pointed out:

Leon Knopoff 亦指出∶ 

“It is now time to develop a sound physics-based theory of the precursory process that takes us away from simplistic models.” 

“现在已经到时间对前兆过程发展一个将我们从简单模型引开的合理的物理学为基础的理论。” 

“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.” 

“我们自己对于问清基本的问题前就跳上乐队花车有责任〔编译者注∶指最基本的问题尚没有搞清就对研究方向做出了决定〕∶‘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。”

David D. Jackson also pointed out:

David D. Jackson 也指出∶ 

“Part of our difficulty is a lack of regour in Earth science.l6” 

“我们的部分困难来自于地球科学中缺乏的严格性。”

Robert J. Geller pointed out:

Robert J. Geller 指出∶ 

“Why is prediction so difficult? This question cannot be answered conclusively, as we do not yet have a definitive theory of the seismic source. ” 

“为什么地震预测那么困难？对这个问题不能做出最后的答复，因为我们至今没有对地震成因的一个确定的理论。” 

“All of the debaters, including both Wyss and myself, agree that scientifically sound efforts to improve our knowledge of the earthquake source process should be made.” 

“所有的辩论者，包括Wyss以及我本人，都同意应当做出科学上有效彻底的努力改进我们对于地震源过程的知识。”

Didier Sornette correctly pointed out:

Didier Sornette正确的指出∶ 

“We need fundamentally new approaches for understanding what are earthquakes”, …not only of the source problem but of the full seismic cycles”. 

“我们需要理解什么是地震的基本上新的研究方法……，不仅对震源问题，而且对整个地震活动循环”。

The views by the above Western seismology researchers indicate:

上述西方地震学研究者的看法表明∶ 

The Western seismology researchers themselves do not consider that the prevailing modern seismology theory is a mature science which can not be challenged. 

西方地震学研究者自己没有认为现代地震学是一门不能挑战的成熟的科学。 

Even the Western seismology researchers themselves consider that the prevailing seismology theory is full of contradictive paradoxes. 

即便西方地震学研究者自己都认为现在占优势的地震学理论充满了相互矛盾的似是而非的说法。 

the Western seismology researchers themselves have already stated: “We need fundamentally new approaches for understanding what are earthquakes”, …not only of the source problem but of the full seismic cycles”. 

西方地震学研究者自己都已经提出∶“我们需要理解什么是地震的基本上新的研究方法……，不仅对震源问题，而且对整个地震活动循环”。

Under the above situation, based on the rich earthquake prediction practice experience since 1969 in China, the time is now ripe for the non-mainstream earthquake prediction practicers in China to bravely propose their own creative seismology science concepts to the world.

在上述形势下，基于中国1969年以来丰富的地震预测实践经验，中国非主流的地震预测实践者们大胆提出自己创新的地震科学概念的时机已经成熟。

For the convenience for review and study, I have extracted the original text of some of the main arguments we should pay special attention, or enlightening hints, suggestions and conclusions we can draw from this debate, provided Chinese translation together with the original text in English for readers to check its content..

为便于审视和研究，我将我们可以从这场辩论中引出的应当给予特别注意的争论，或启发性的启示、建议或结论，以原文摘录出来，同时对照提供我的中译文，以便读者对内容进行核对。

Although efforts are made, it is obvious that it is not able to include all points of the debate in this paper. For readers with interest to learn more, they can review or download the full text of all the papers from the Nature website: www.Nature.com

尽管做出努力，显然无法将这场辩论全部要点包括到本文中。那些有兴趣了解更多情况的读者，可以从《自然》杂志的网站查到或下载所有文章的全文∶www.Nature.com

接续后篇∶

——>1.Three different types of earthquake prediction

三种不同类型的地震预测

参考文献

1 Sun Wei, inventor of a patented imminent earthquake prediction warning system; Sun Hong-jun, cooperator and co-holder of the patent; Lu Nian-qing, PHD, Beijing University, international member of the Science Promotion Association of America.

2 Robert J. Geller, Dept. of Earth and Planetary Physics, Graduate School of Science, Tokyo University, Tokyo, Japan.

3 Ian Main, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

4 Stuart Crampin, Centre for Reservoir Geoscience, Dept. of Geology & Geophysics, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

5 Pascal Bernard, Director, Laboratory of Seismogenesis, Seismological Dept, Institue de Physique du Globe de Paris, France.

6 Didier Sornette, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics and Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angelos, USA; Director, Research, National Center for Scientific Research, Universite de Nice – Sophia Antipolis, France.

7 Max Wyss, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

8 Christopher Scholz, Lamont-Doherty Earch Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA.

9 Leon Knopoff, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.

10 David D. Bowman and Charles G. Sammis, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.

11 David Jackson, Southern California Earthquake Center, University of California, Los Angelos, USA.

12 Andrew Michael, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA.

13 Per Bak, Dept. of Physics, Niels Bohr Institute, Denmark.

14 Francesco Biagi, Physics Dept., University of Bari, Italy.

15 Wu Zhong-liang, Institute of Geophysics, China Seismological Bureau, Beijing, China.

16 Sun Wei, Sun Hong-jun, Lu Nian-ching, “Earthquake prediction practice and exploring of its formation”, “Scientific American” (Chinese edition) 55-57, 10th Issue, 1995.

17 Geller, R.J., Jackson, D.D., Kagan, Y.Y. & Mulargia, F. Earthquakes cannot be predicted. Science 275, 1616-1617 (1997).