Reply [to “Comment on ‘Coupling semantics and science in earthquake research’”]



We thank Thorne Lay and Susan Schwartz for their comment on our Forum article (Eos, 85(18),4 May 2004, p. 180). They agree with our main point that slip rates of a fault should not be confused with stress conditions or frictional properties, but they criticize our use of the word “locked” and the interseismic deformation model we used to illustrate a conceptual error. We agree with Lay and Schwartz that the term “locked” has connotations beyond purely kinematical and that “no slip” may be more appropriate. The present reply is to further discuss the meaning of the simple deformation model.