5 Responses to “ “Italian scientists convicted over earthquake warning – chicagotribune.com” ”

1. TFBW says:

   October 23, 2012 at 6:37 am

   While it’s hard to view this as anything other than scapegoating, given the short version of the story, the detail seems to be a lot more nuanced. I’m reserving judgement on the basis that I’m pretty sure I don’t have enough information to make an informed decision.

   Consider, for example, this story, published before the trial by Nature magazine — a source that I would reasonably expect to be sympathetic towards the scientists. Here’s a representative excerpt.

   The view from L’Aquila, however, is quite different. Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population.

   The only thing I feel that I can say with confidence on this particular news story is caveat lector: watch out for simplistic and sensational reporting.
2. Dave says:

   October 23, 2012 at 7:49 am

   I have to say I agree with this Blogger (who you may or may not be familiar with):

   “It’s both fascinating and informative, isn’t it. Scientists are absolutely certain that the science is settled and they are more than willing to declare what laws should be passed, what classes should be taught, and what massive economic interventions and intrusions on individual freedom should be suffered due to the absolute reliability of their scientific knowledge.

   But hold them personally responsible for their predictions and declarations? Well, that’s an outrage! Science isn’t actually expected to be reliable, after all! I look forward to seeing climate scientists being similarly prosecuted one day for the complete failure of their predictive models. The evolutionary biologists should be safe, unfortunately, since they don’t even have any predictive models.”

   Full post here:

   http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/la-responsabilita-della-scientista.html
3. Crude says:

   October 24, 2012 at 11:40 am

   National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks

   A few things stand out to me. I’m not sure anyone here will be able to answer these questions.

   * Were the scientists involved drawing a public salary as part of this commission?

   * Is the National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks largely focused on earthquakes? I

   * If so, isn’t the name of the commission deceptively named?

   Here’s another quote from the Nature story:

   Vittorini debated with his wife Claudia and his terrified nine-year-old daughter Fabrizia whether to spend the rest of the night outside. Swayed by what he describes as “anaesthetizing” public assurances by government officials that there was no imminent danger, and recalling scientific statements claiming that each shock diminished the potential for a major earthquake, he persuaded his family to remain in their apartment on Via Luigi Sturzo. All three of them were huddled together in the master bed when, at 3:32 a.m. on 6 April, a devastating magnitude-6.3 earthquake struck the city.

   Reading this makes it sound as if the scientists involved projected a certain image of knowledge to the population, the population accepted the scientists’ authority, and now – after that knowledge turned out to be wrong, and the trust people put in the scientists had deadly consequences – people are holding the scientists liable.

   Given the above, without clarifying information, I’m not convinced the decision in this case was wrong. If in fact the scientists were constantly assuring the public that there was no reason to worry and were neglecting to mention ‘by the way, seismology really isn’t accurate here, the fact is we can’t reliably predict if an earthquake is going to hit this town’, I can easily see justification for this lawsuit. In fact, if THAT is what happened, I applaud it.
4. SteveK says:

   October 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm

   Crude,
   What if the opposite happened…scientists were constantly assuring the public that there WAS imminent danger and a reason to worry — and then nothing happened? Should they be legally liable for all the money spent and emotional stress that needlessly ensued?

   I would say, no, because common sense dictates that nobody can predict the future with 100% certainty so every prediction is really a prediction couched in statistical terms of likelihood, no matter how blustery or pompous the messenger is.

   But now that you mention it, can we sue Dawkins, et al, for saying with all the scientific confidence they can muster that there really is no purpose to life?
5. Crude says:

   October 25, 2012 at 4:10 pm

   SteveK,

   What if the opposite happened…scientists were constantly assuring the public that there WAS imminent danger and a reason to worry — and then nothing happened? Should they be legally liable for all the money spent and emotional stress that needlessly ensued?

   It really depends on how it’s presented. The problem in this case is that the scientists are falling back on the claim that predicting earthquakes is currently impossible – but if that’s the case, then presenting themselves as knowing that an earthquake is or isn’t coming in some time frame, or even ‘is likely coming’ in a tighter timeframe, is potentially problematic.

   But now that you mention it, can we sue Dawkins, et al, for saying with all the scientific confidence they can muster that there really is no purpose to life?

   Lawsuit angle aside, this is something I’ve been going on about for years.