31–40 of 112 posts
presumably the result of the quake would have been the same if the scientists didn't give a reassuring message? And now they are in jail, if another quake strikes, the same will happen again. Surely it is better that scientists are at least trying to predict the quakes, even if they get it wrong sometimes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone understand the title of Nature article? "Italy puts seismology in the dock" ? is it meant to be "in the dark" ?
Definition of DOCK : the place in a criminal court where a prisoner stands or sits during trial — in the dock : on trial http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dock Commonly used in British/Commonwealth English, and Nature is based in London. I don't think I've ever heard it used in American English.
Unbelievable. At first I assumed that the scientists must have been out drinking, or must have made up the data ... but, no, they simply gave the best prediction they could, as they should. I guess that forecasters of quakes and weather in Italy now have two alternatives: always claim a disaster is upon them, or move to a country where judges understand statistics.
Obviously, I don't know if the accusations are true or false, but, knowing Italy, where "famous" scientists are usually very close to politicians, it would not surprise me at all.
I can wholeheartedly recommend a documentary called Draquila – L'Italia che trema [1] about the L'Aquila earthquake. As many of my Italian friends tell me, Italy is an absolutely corrupt shit hole. I remember a scene where they showed recordings of civil protection officials gloating about the disaster on the phone, right after it happened. They talked about the opportunity to make money [2]. The head of the national…
Not all of Italy, only the South. That's why the biggest party in the north is a secessionist party. A lot of cool stuff comes out of the North, like Arduino.
Also, I bumped into a lot of Lega Nord people (the secessionist party) while I lived there and generally found them to be little more than racists and fascists. When I had to obtain my Permesso di Soggiorno, a group of us, all english turned up on the same day. We were all given 2 year stamps, except my black friend. They would only give him 6 months. I found the north of Italy to be jaw dropingly racist across the board.
At least, that was my experience. Don't get me wrong, I love Italy, but it's only because I let myself be blissfully ignorant of it's fundamental flaws when I'm there.
But beyond that, it seems the scientists offered no such assurances at the meeting in question. To quote the Nature article (perhaps biased in favor of the scientists):
The minutes of the 31 March meeting, though, reveal that at no point did any of the scientists say that there was "no danger" of a big quake. "A major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out," Boschi said. Selvaggi is quoted as saying that "in recent times some recent earthquakes have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event". Eva added that "because L'Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake". Summing up the meeting, Barberi said, "there is no reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a sure predictor of a major shock". All the participants agreed that buildings in the area should be monitored urgently, to assess their capacity to sustain a major shock.
To continue the analogy with medicine, it seems similar to a group of scientists suggesting that a particular course of treatment is likely safe, then receiving blame when the treatment goes awry. But blaming medical researchers, or earthquake scientists, could discourage innovative new treatments.
As one final point, I'd point out that the occurrence of an earthquake does not disprove the scientists: the likelihood of an earthquake given the data could still have been small, just non-zero. If medical researchers were held accountable for every death resulting from heart transplants gone wrong, we'd never have the overall benefit they provide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definition of DOCK : the place in a criminal court where a prisoner stands or sits during trial — in the dock : on trial http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dock Commonly used in British/Commonwealth English, and Nature is based in London. I don't think I've ever heard it used in American English.
"On the stand" would be the equivalent US idiom.
Only criminal defendants are in the dock.
This is crazy, but I'll note that it isn't a peculiarly Italian form of crazy. People rush to find scapegoats after every disaster. In the future, consider being as skeptical of those accusations as you were when people accused folks you identify with, like scientists.
Predicting an earthquake is predicting when a bent wooden ruler will snap. Sometimes it creaks before it snaps. Sometimes it creaks, and doesn't snap. Sometimes it just snaps. The way to prevent deaths from earthquakes is to ensure buildings can survive them. Modern buildings collapsed in the quake. I wonder if they were built to standard, or if a few corners were cut?