|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 07:48 AM EDT |
Then prosecute the non scientist, if he's the
one responsible for garbling the message. And
frankly, that's stupid too. People are human,
and nobody can know for certain if there will or
will not be an earthquake on a certain day.
And prosecute the people who didn't investigate
for themselves and figure out whether it was
wise to listen to a non scientist. I know. That's
stupid too.
Now, if there was evidence of deliberate lying,
because the government wanted to avoid
panic and whatever, that's a different story. I
mean, to me the government advice in place to give
to the NE in the case of a nuclear attack in NYC
is absolutely culpable. They say to stay where
you are, because they know there is no escape,
when there are so many people tightly packed into
such a small area, and if they all try to leave
at once, not only will they not make it due to
congestion, but then the bombing will spread
to a larger area.
Should we sue them? Or should people living
there think about that report and make their
own plan, whether moving away now or forming
a plan of escape while others are staying put
because the guy on the TV said it's safe?
The bottom line is, it's like prosecuting
the weather man because
he said it wouldn't rain and it did. You
might listen to the weather report, but if
it's critical that you not get wet, you
do need to figure out your own contingencies.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ailuromancy on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
The prosecution made it crystal clear all
along that their case was
about poor risk communication;
it was built on an accusation of giving out
"inexact, incomplete and contradictory
information".
the seismologists got the science right,
but left the job of public communication to a civil
protection official with
no specialist knowledge of
seismology. His statement to the press was, to put
it
mildly, a grossly inaccurate reflection of the
situation: "The scientific
community tells us there is no
danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of
energy.
The situation looks favourable." At this point, the
seismologists
should have stepped in.
But they did not, and the message
stuck.
The civil protection engineer's statement does not
contradict itself, but the prosecution said
"contradictory". Clearly someone
stood up and said
the opposite. When faced with contradictory we at
Groklaw
look for the source material: Here it is.
L'Aquila is roughly in the middle of
the map (published in 2006), in the top
part of the
purple area.
This cannot continue. Scientists
valued for
their expertise should speak for themselves rather than
letting
others speak for them. Lives are at stake.
One scientist
working alone can speak for himself.
A scientist who is part of a team should
point at
a report that has been agreed upon by the team.
If a bunch of
scientists each talk individually,
the press will take one short sound bite
from each and
the results will be "inexact, incomplete and
contradictory",
which is apparently a crime in Italy.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
The article says the prosecution 'was built on an accusation
of giving out
"inexact, incomplete and contradictory
information".'
Like failing to give
an exact and complete
prediction of when an earthquake would
happen? So in
what way do you think the English press reports are
incorrect?
These guys are researchers trying to gain a better
understanding of earthquakes, at least in part because they
want to save lives
in the future. Well, if they want to
continue trying to save lives that way
once they are
released from jail, I guess they had better do it in some
other
country. And maybe join all the other ex-Italian
researchers into subjects that
could possibly help save
lives one day. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: yacc on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
Because fact checking is hard work. Especially if these
dorks don't speak American. You might need to use Google
Translate, engage your brain, potentially try to locate an
Italian speaking buddy to make sense of it.
Considering that many "journalists" nowadays don't even
check English-language data/sources for plausibility, that's
not really anything to wonder about, is it? (E.g. I
personally liked most in the last week or so the "Spec-only"
comparisons of the 7" tablets, where the iPad mini had the
advantage of the best screen, which was slightly contrary to
the specs table just on top of that paragraph.)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|