Liability for Scientists is too high!!
- Thread starter ryansride2017
- Start date
- Status
First of all earthquakes can't be predicted, but there might be more to the story than what is being told.
Quote:
The defendants were accused of giving "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about whether small tremors felt by L'Aquila residents in the weeks and months before the April 6, 2009, quake should have been grounds for a warning.
There are a lot of sociopaths in science. They work (bully) their way to the top, and give the impression that they are experts in their field. They are incompetent and can't make a critical decision when it is needed. If these "earthquake scientists" are sociopaths, they deserve what they got...and more.
Quote:
The defendants were accused of giving "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about whether small tremors felt by L'Aquila residents in the weeks and months before the April 6, 2009, quake should have been grounds for a warning.
There are a lot of sociopaths in science. They work (bully) their way to the top, and give the impression that they are experts in their field. They are incompetent and can't make a critical decision when it is needed. If these "earthquake scientists" are sociopaths, they deserve what they got...and more.
Most people have at best a poor HS eduction in the sciences, so they don't really understand much about it.
Quote:
“I am dejected, desperate,” said Enzo Boschi, former head of the national Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology after the verdict. “I thought I would have been acquitted. I still don’t understand what I was convicted of.”
Prosecutors had sought conviction and four-year sentences during the non-jury trial, which was led by a judge.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/it...ticle-1.1189475
Looks like a kangaroo court with the judge looking to make a name for himself.
“I am dejected, desperate,” said Enzo Boschi, former head of the national Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology after the verdict. “I thought I would have been acquitted. I still don’t understand what I was convicted of.”
Prosecutors had sought conviction and four-year sentences during the non-jury trial, which was led by a judge.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/it...ticle-1.1189475
Looks like a kangaroo court with the judge looking to make a name for himself.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The Italian court are intellectual descendents of those that sentenced Galileo to house arrest for life. They don't understand the process of science.
Nice! Outstanding!
I WOULD like TV weathermen to be paid ONLY when they are right, however!
What good are highly paid experts in earthquakes? Who is paying them? Can they do good, or are they like sportscasters and political reviewers who analyze things afterwards and be self important?
The Italian court are intellectual descendents of those that sentenced Galileo to house arrest for life. They don't understand the process of science.
Nice! Outstanding!
I WOULD like TV weathermen to be paid ONLY when they are right, however!
What good are highly paid experts in earthquakes? Who is paying them? Can they do good, or are they like sportscasters and political reviewers who analyze things afterwards and be self important?
Originally Posted By: Loobed
First of all earthquakes can't be predicted, but there might be more to the story than what is being told.
Quote:
The defendants were accused of giving "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about whether small tremors felt by L'Aquila residents in the weeks and months before the April 6, 2009, quake should have been grounds for a warning.
There are a lot of sociopaths in science. They work (bully) their way to the top, and give the impression that they are experts in their field. They are incompetent and can't make a critical decision when it is needed. If these "earthquake scientists" are sociopaths, they deserve what they got...and more.
So, pray tell, what would you do exactly when you get an educated guess of an earth quake may come soon, that you wouldn't and shouldn't have already done during normal time without these warning?
Shouldn't whatever could be done already been done before there is any estimate or threat of earthquake to begin with?
First of all earthquakes can't be predicted, but there might be more to the story than what is being told.
Quote:
The defendants were accused of giving "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about whether small tremors felt by L'Aquila residents in the weeks and months before the April 6, 2009, quake should have been grounds for a warning.
There are a lot of sociopaths in science. They work (bully) their way to the top, and give the impression that they are experts in their field. They are incompetent and can't make a critical decision when it is needed. If these "earthquake scientists" are sociopaths, they deserve what they got...and more.
So, pray tell, what would you do exactly when you get an educated guess of an earth quake may come soon, that you wouldn't and shouldn't have already done during normal time without these warning?
Shouldn't whatever could be done already been done before there is any estimate or threat of earthquake to begin with?
When I moved back to Indiana in 1990, there was an "earthquake scare" when a scientist made a prediction that the New Madrid fault in Missouri was going to trigger a colossal earthquake. The fault had been quiet since the early 1800's when it actually altered the course of the Mississippi River, and was overdue for an event. The newspapers and local TV news were full of reports for a couple of months, and insurance companies sold some earthquake policies to cautious people (including my dad!). Twenty-two years later, there still has not been a large event from the New Madrid fault, but there it sits, building up strain energy. Then when something fails in the opposing tectonic plates, there is going to be a "Big One".
So was the scientist wrong in predicting an earthquake, even if he was 20+ years off? 20 years on the geologic time scale is but a blink of an eye in our human time scale.
So was the scientist wrong in predicting an earthquake, even if he was 20+ years off? 20 years on the geologic time scale is but a blink of an eye in our human time scale.
Mother nature predictable? ...that's a good one.
If I lived in a zone where there were quakes or tremors my internal thoughts would be:
'well, this type of event is possible...so will the structure I might be in when said even occurs be safe? if not, what am I going to do about it?'
Sorry, but given any natural event if one doesn't take some thought into the possibilities/outcomes of that event, nature could be selecting them.
If I lived in a zone where there were quakes or tremors my internal thoughts would be:
'well, this type of event is possible...so will the structure I might be in when said even occurs be safe? if not, what am I going to do about it?'
Sorry, but given any natural event if one doesn't take some thought into the possibilities/outcomes of that event, nature could be selecting them.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
When I moved back to Indiana in 1990, there was an "earthquake scare" when a scientist made a prediction that the New Madrid fault in Missouri was going to trigger a colossal earthquake. The fault had been quiet since the early 1800's when it actually altered the course of the Mississippi River, and was overdue for an event. The newspapers and local TV news were full of reports for a couple of months, and insurance companies sold some earthquake policies to cautious people (including my dad!). Twenty-two years later, there still has not been a large event from the New Madrid fault, but there it sits, building up strain energy. Then when something fails in the opposing tectonic plates, there is going to be a "Big One".
So was the scientist wrong in predicting an earthquake, even if he was 20+ years off? 20 years on the geologic time scale is but a blink of an eye in our human time scale.
What people don't realize is our perception of time, compared to geologic time, is quite different.
Sure the fault probably will move, 20 years ago was a good guess, plus or minus 500-1k years.
People have no concept of how this stuff works, its not like predicting the weather.
When I moved back to Indiana in 1990, there was an "earthquake scare" when a scientist made a prediction that the New Madrid fault in Missouri was going to trigger a colossal earthquake. The fault had been quiet since the early 1800's when it actually altered the course of the Mississippi River, and was overdue for an event. The newspapers and local TV news were full of reports for a couple of months, and insurance companies sold some earthquake policies to cautious people (including my dad!). Twenty-two years later, there still has not been a large event from the New Madrid fault, but there it sits, building up strain energy. Then when something fails in the opposing tectonic plates, there is going to be a "Big One".
So was the scientist wrong in predicting an earthquake, even if he was 20+ years off? 20 years on the geologic time scale is but a blink of an eye in our human time scale.
What people don't realize is our perception of time, compared to geologic time, is quite different.
Sure the fault probably will move, 20 years ago was a good guess, plus or minus 500-1k years.
People have no concept of how this stuff works, its not like predicting the weather.
A more nuanced story about what happened in Italy is that, during an ongoing seismic swarm, the scientists said that a large earthquake is unlikely to be triggered by the swarm. That remains true, but note the difference between "is unlikely to be" and "cannot be." Many citizens interpreted the former as the latter and neglected to be mindful of seismic hazards, even though that's something they should be mindful of every day.
The scientists are in that sense guilty of creating an "information vacuum" and neglecting to fill it. It is a fair question to debate whether that's a type of negligence that has criminal or civil liability. Personally, I hope that it not.
In case you guys don't know, I am an earthquake scientist. I am slightly troubled by a couple comments above. Loobed's statement about sociopaths in science is a little harsh, but you might hear me say similar things in a much milder tone. There are some strong personalities in science for sure. Mechtech2 asked,
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
What good are highly paid experts in earthquakes? Who is paying them? Can they do good, or are they like sportscasters and political reviewers who analyze things afterwards and be self important?
First, there are very few highly-paid experts in earthquakes. I am certainly not highly paid and I don't think I ever will be if I stay in this business. This is because, for the most part, earthquake research is funded with taxpayer dollars. There is also some support from the reinsurance industry and, to a much lesser extent, from public utilities that face significant seismic risk.
I think it's a question worth discussing about whether we can do any good. Certainly some of us work on projects that lead to better assessments of hazard (that is, the likelihood of strong ground motion), which is certainly useful information. Many people do work on after-the-fact analyses of what happened, usually with the hope of being able to speculate on what could happen in future earthquakes in analogous situations. That's probably useful as well. There are also many people who work on problems that have several degrees of separation from the studies that yield risk-assessment products. Some of these studies are very good and probably have value that we can't yet foresee. Many aren't.
As I implied earlier, personal prestige is definitely a motivation that some scientists have. Pardon me while I diverge into a rant. To some extent, this is natural human behavior--it happens in all fields. The competition is fairly fierce for the research jobs, so it's no surprise that big personalities exist. Unless you're a talented superstar, you actually need to have at least a slightly overinflated ego to be able to ignore the insignificance of your own work in order to keep plugging away at it. For that reason, among others, this is a business that I'm trying to transition out of.
The scientists are in that sense guilty of creating an "information vacuum" and neglecting to fill it. It is a fair question to debate whether that's a type of negligence that has criminal or civil liability. Personally, I hope that it not.
In case you guys don't know, I am an earthquake scientist. I am slightly troubled by a couple comments above. Loobed's statement about sociopaths in science is a little harsh, but you might hear me say similar things in a much milder tone. There are some strong personalities in science for sure. Mechtech2 asked,
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
What good are highly paid experts in earthquakes? Who is paying them? Can they do good, or are they like sportscasters and political reviewers who analyze things afterwards and be self important?
First, there are very few highly-paid experts in earthquakes. I am certainly not highly paid and I don't think I ever will be if I stay in this business. This is because, for the most part, earthquake research is funded with taxpayer dollars. There is also some support from the reinsurance industry and, to a much lesser extent, from public utilities that face significant seismic risk.
I think it's a question worth discussing about whether we can do any good. Certainly some of us work on projects that lead to better assessments of hazard (that is, the likelihood of strong ground motion), which is certainly useful information. Many people do work on after-the-fact analyses of what happened, usually with the hope of being able to speculate on what could happen in future earthquakes in analogous situations. That's probably useful as well. There are also many people who work on problems that have several degrees of separation from the studies that yield risk-assessment products. Some of these studies are very good and probably have value that we can't yet foresee. Many aren't.
As I implied earlier, personal prestige is definitely a motivation that some scientists have. Pardon me while I diverge into a rant. To some extent, this is natural human behavior--it happens in all fields. The competition is fairly fierce for the research jobs, so it's no surprise that big personalities exist. Unless you're a talented superstar, you actually need to have at least a slightly overinflated ego to be able to ignore the insignificance of your own work in order to keep plugging away at it. For that reason, among others, this is a business that I'm trying to transition out of.
Originally Posted By: Daily News
The 6.3-magnitude quake killed 308 people in and around the medieval town and forced survivors to live in tent camps for months.
Obviously, the scientists are guilty on not using enough sheeps bladders to prevent the earthquake.
The 6.3-magnitude quake killed 308 people in and around the medieval town and forced survivors to live in tent camps for months.
Obviously, the scientists are guilty on not using enough sheeps bladders to prevent the earthquake.
my Q is the Italian court living in the 1400 or 1600?
Had to take off before I wrapped up my rant. The bottom line is that there can be hubris and outsized egos and all sorts of other human foibles in science, but in spite of the flaws a lot of what gets done is worth doing.
In general, it's not deserving of public suspicion, though rational skepticism is welcome. And it really shouldn't be cause for criminal liability!
In general, it's not deserving of public suspicion, though rational skepticism is welcome. And it really shouldn't be cause for criminal liability!
Some earthquake scientists here are watching Italy closely. But the Christchurch faults had been inactive for 1600 years, before any human habitation, and there were no warning tremors. Depending on if you consider the first large no damage quake was a warning for the later lesser but far more destructive quake.
These days with the blame trail going all the way to the top...those at the top are protecting themselves. After the Spring Creek mining disaster where management were dragged in and held accountable, it's becoming apparent this government is wanting to step away from underground mining. It's ok for rank and file to get hurt, but when the hurt goes to the top, they are going to cut themselves loose.
These days with the blame trail going all the way to the top...those at the top are protecting themselves. After the Spring Creek mining disaster where management were dragged in and held accountable, it's becoming apparent this government is wanting to step away from underground mining. It's ok for rank and file to get hurt, but when the hurt goes to the top, they are going to cut themselves loose.
Originally Posted By: Stu_Rock
A more nuanced story about what happened in Italy is that, during an ongoing seismic swarm, the scientists said that a large earthquake is unlikely to be triggered by the swarm. That remains true, but note the difference between "is unlikely to be" and "cannot be." Many citizens interpreted the former as the latter and neglected to be mindful of seismic hazards, even though that's something they should be mindful of every day.
The scientists are in that sense guilty of creating an "information vacuum" and neglecting to fill it.
If the scientists did indeed say "unlikely to be" instead of "cannot be", they are blameless. They shouldn't be held accountable for other people's failure to understand.
A more nuanced story about what happened in Italy is that, during an ongoing seismic swarm, the scientists said that a large earthquake is unlikely to be triggered by the swarm. That remains true, but note the difference between "is unlikely to be" and "cannot be." Many citizens interpreted the former as the latter and neglected to be mindful of seismic hazards, even though that's something they should be mindful of every day.
The scientists are in that sense guilty of creating an "information vacuum" and neglecting to fill it.
If the scientists did indeed say "unlikely to be" instead of "cannot be", they are blameless. They shouldn't be held accountable for other people's failure to understand.
Maybe Courtroom financial greed will get so bad that someone sues a large denomination Church over 'acts of God'.
- Status
Similar threads
