|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Geologists responsible for earthquake deaths?
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
This verdict seems to have sent shockwaves through the scientific world. To the effect, how can 'experts' be expected to assess risk in the face of long jail terms if they get it wrong? Is this 'blame culture' pushed to an impossible and counterproductive extreme?
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And people wonder why I think ignorance of science is a bad thing.
This quote from the article would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.
quote:
Italian courts have a reputation for being unafraid to challenge mainstream scientific opinion.
Clueless morons.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This isn't the first time that Italian law's views on what you can be responsible for seemed rather odd.
The article I've seen pointed out that Italy experiences a very large number of small tremors, and most of them do NOT prove to be precursors of a larger quake. So the whole thing reeks of hindsight.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I've heard of tourist-trap-types from Great Britain to Belgium to South Africa rumbling about suing meteorologists over weather forecasts, but aren't earthquakes inherently unpredictable within state-of-the-art seismology?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
As a scientist I find very worrying this demonstration that the LAW IS AN ASS. Maybe not all the time, but certainly in this case.
Is there no appeal before this idiocy becomes the precedent [in the legal sense] for everywhere in the EU?
And one shudders to think what impact it will have in already over-litigious America. for example in California, where every geophysicist knows that the San Andreas fault will certainly quake again catastrophically, and soon (in geological terms). But no-one can say for sure today if this event will happen tomorrow or in 50 years time.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Is there no appeal before this idiocy becomes the precedent [in the legal sense] for everywhere in the EU?
I believe there are at least a couple of levels of appeal available.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I've heard of tourist-trap-types from Great Britain to Belgium to South Africa rumbling about suing meteorologists over weather forecasts, but aren't earthquakes inherently unpredictable within state-of-the-art seismology?
It depends on what you mean by 'unpredictable'. If you mean unable to give a forecast - "the earthquake forecast for LA this morning is for low to moderate chance of tremors at level 4.0 or below, moving to a moderate to high chance of 4.0 tremors with a low chance of 5.0 over night" - then you're right.
On the other hand, whether an increase in frequency of small tremors will increase the chance of a larger quake in the near future is probably within the ability of modern science - although just how big a "larger quake" will be and the duration for "near future" are much less certain. How much confidence we should place in such 'predictions' and what steps we should take in face of such a prediction is another question. Knowledge of seismic history in the area will increase confidence in any predictions - is it somewhere that regularly gets lots of small tremors in quick succession without a major quake, or have previous times when there have been such clusters of tremors has this been followed by a bigger quake on most occasions? How long do groups of small tremors last, and if there have been larger quakes in such sequences of tremors when typically do they occur?
As for what can be done, that will depend in part on what can be inferred from history. If you can say with some degree of confidence "the current sequence of small tremors indicates there may be a bigger quake causing structural damage within the next 2 weeks" then steps can be taken - people can choose to leave, emergency services can be put on heightened alert etc. If the history only tells you that there's a small chance of a bigger quake in the next couple of years then your options for practical steps are fewer - people won't leave their homes for more than a few weeks, emergency services can't be on heightened alert for months, let alone years.
I don't know anything about the particular case (all the geologists at work who deal with earthquakes are working on cases in the western US, and on a different sort of hazard assessment, see below). So, I have no idea whether the plaintiffs had a good argument that the geological history of the area indicated that a series of small tremors implied an increased chance of a major quake over a 1-2 week duration.
The other type of earthquake 'prediction' is in hazard assessment, usually relating to building codes. If a building code specifies that domestic buildings should not suffer major structural failure in a "1 in 2,500 year quake" then you need to know the frequency of different magnitude earthquakes and the predicted ground movement at the location of the proposed domestic building. There are a whole range of different techniques geologists use to produce the data that can allow such frequencies to be estimated. And, in very heavily studied areas like the western US these estimates can be produced more than adequate precision. Of course, such studies tell you nothing about when the next 1 in 2,500 year quake will strike.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I don't know anything about this case, but it seems possible that a geologist could deliberately underestimate risk for some reason (possibly related to being paid to do so by insurance companies or someone). It does seem a tad unlikely though.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You do know that this thread is discussing the same case?
Nope. News to me. I only clicked on the thread that had a headline with an obvious connection to the topic!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't know anything about this case, but it seems possible that a geologist could deliberately underestimate risk for some reason (possibly related to being paid to do so by insurance companies or someone). It does seem a tad unlikely though.
For insurance companies that would be other way around. They'd want an inflated risk, so they could justify increasing premiums. A deflated risk means they couldn't justify an increase in premium, while facing an increase in the potential for a payout.
A policy to underestimate risk might be of benefit to local business. Even an increased risk of a big quake will mean that it's still unlikely that there will be a really big quake causing a lot of damage. Yet, if accurately communicating that risk causes half your workforce to decide now would be the time to take the kids on an extended holiday to visit relatives on the other side of the country ... well, that could be a big problem for business.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You do know that this thread is discussing the same case?
Nope. News to me. I only clicked on the thread that had a headline with an obvious connection to the topic!
Likewise, I chose to read a thread with an interesting title. (Though I saw it on the main page as just "Geologists responsible for" and thought it might be one heading for DH, as geologists are so often vilified as leading civilisation to the pit by telling us the world is more than 6000 years old).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't know anything about this case, but it seems possible that a geologist could deliberately underestimate risk for some reason (possibly related to being paid to do so by insurance companies or someone). It does seem a tad unlikely though.
Seismologists rather than geologists. These are scientists in good standing. See this letter of support. Not the least dismal aspect of the business is that their knowledge and expertise will be lost while the case drags on. Plus the effect on earth sciences in Italy and generally.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
All this pro-science ranting is nice, but totally misses the point. These scientists were not prosecuted for their inability to predict earthquakes, they were prosecuted for not properly informing the public - which was the very job they had signed up for out of their own free will.
In the other thread, I've put a link to Nature News (as in the journal Nature), which was written prior to the verdict and which explains this very point.
I have no idea whether they were in fact negligent in their duties (of informing the public). This court thought so. If the court of appeal thinks so as well, then this does not indicate the end of science in Italy. It indicates that scientists in Italy are responsible for the advice they give to the public, in particular when being paid for doing so.
And that, I believe, is not such a bad principle. And I am a scientist.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
Is this 'blame culture' pushed to an impossible and counterproductive extreme?
Yes.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This quote from the article would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.
quote:
Italian courts have a reputation for being unafraid to challenge mainstream scientific opinion.
Clueless morons.
Galileo wouldn't argue.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I agree with IngoB. They were not prosecuted for failing as scientists, but for failing to communicate effectively.
What may be interesting is that the courts prosecuted them as individuals, rather than seeking damages from the agency in which they work. If the same steps are taken against individuals working elsewhere in the Italian government, such as in the finance ministry, then maybe Italian justice isn't so bad after all.
On the other hand, many scientists will be reluctant to take on work like this and thosee who do will issue dire warnings for every possible event.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What exactly were they supposed to communicate?
As far as I've seen, they said 'most small tremors in Italy aren't a precursor of a large quake'. Which AFAIK is correct.
What's the alternative? To say after every small tremor OMG THIS COULD BE THE ONE?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Just a note that I have closed the duplicate thread on this topic and encouraged those who posted there to continue the discussion on this thread.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What exactly were they supposed to communicate?
The Independent (see the OP) states that they have been jailed for "failing to properly communicate the risk". It wasn't therefore what they communicated that was, in the court's opinion wrong, but the manner and possibly means of communication.
quote:
As far as I've seen, they said 'most small tremors in Italy aren't a precursor of a large quake'. Which AFAIK is correct.
What's the alternative? To say after every small tremor OMG THIS COULD BE THE ONE?
As I suggested earlier, there could be a lot of "Crying 'Wolf'" as result of this.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I've only heard the headline of this story and haven't as yet read up the details. Please bear with me though as I want to talk about this in the abstract.
If they were genuinely prosecuted because they failed to predict a severe earthquake because that is the limitation of the science then that really is troubling. Much like a doctor being prosecuted because a patient died from pancreatic cancer.
OTOH if they had data that genuinely made the prediction of a major quake in short time frame a reasonable prediction. And they were employed in some kind of public office with a responsibility to make that kind of warning, then there may well be a case. Much like a doctor being prosecuted because a patient died from major haemorrhage and he refused to get out of bed to perform surgery.
I will look at the details with great interest.
Conversely though, there is a big issue of public-understanding of science. I am sure that those in the business of earthquake prediction have a really hard time. On the one hand they may have data about increased likelihoods but if they're not careful they get accused of crying wolf. In the same way that the Department of Health has been ridiculed in the press for its very robust and effective response to the influnenza pandemic threat.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In the other thread, I've put a link to Nature News (as in the journal Nature), which was written prior to the verdict and which explains this very point.
The same publication is now saying The verdict is perverse and the sentence ludicrous. .
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
A failure to communicate, if there was one, is unjustly taken up as a case against individual scientists. It is the agency, and actually government, that has a responsibility to help the scientists communicate.
Also risk is a notoriously difficult concept to communicate. The general public are always going to find it difficult to understand.
Putting an individual scientist in prison for failing to communicate risk is like putting an athlete in prison for an under-par performance at the Olympics. It's a hard thing to do. Failing, if they did fail, isn't negligence.
This is angry people desperate for scape-goats, not justice. What next? Imprisoning doctors whenever their patients die?
[ 23. October 2012, 16:04: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
. It indicates that scientists in Italy are responsible for the advice they give to the public, in particular when being paid for doing so.
And that, I believe, is not such a bad principle. And I am a scientist.
This statement is daft. Seismology, like meteorology, deals with massive systems that are not completely understood.
quote:
they were asked to assess the risk of a major earthquake in view of the many tremors that had hit the city in the previous months, and responded by saying that the earthquake risk was clearly raised but that it was not possible to offer a detailed prediction. The meeting was unusually quick, and was followed by a press conference at which the Civil Protection Department and local authorities reassured the population, stating that minor shocks did not increase the risk of a major one.
Explain how the scientists are culpable?
[ 23. October 2012, 16:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
I've been reading the comments following the Independent article. The most telling to me was from an Italian, saying - apparently approvingly - that in Italian culture, when lives are lost, someone must be held responsible. 'Shite does not just happen'. Someone must be to blame. I've no idea if this is an accurate account of Italian attitudes.
I'm a biologist, not an earth-science specialist, but I have heard it said more than once that frequent minor shocks are a sign that tectonic stress is being released gradually, and that major earthquakes are likely to come out of the blue. If that is so, it seems entirely possible to me that the advice given was in good faith, on the evidence available, in which case the convictions and sentences are incomprehensible.
And the most likely outcome? Scientists may steer clear of such areas of research, or at least keep their mouths shut.
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
This happening in Italy, I have a feeling that the centuries-old connection of seismology with the Jesuits is not entirely coincidental.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
. It indicates that scientists in Italy are responsible for the advice they give to the public, in particular when being paid for doing so.
And that, I believe, is not such a bad principle. And I am a scientist.
This statement is daft. Seismology, like meteorology, deals with massive systems that are not completely understood.
Exactly. If a storm shows up earlier than the metereologists predicted, or drops more rain, and there are subsequently more traffic accidents, will the Italians be throwing the meteorologists into the clink?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
And if, as the same Italian commenter on the article said, Italian courts tend to impose heavy sentences which are reduced by up to 90 percent on appeal, these scientists will still presumably be banned from public employment. As one apparently said, on conviction, 'from tomorrow my life will change forever'.
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
I've been reading the comments following the Independent article. The most telling to me was from an Italian, saying - apparently approvingly - that in Italian culture, when lives are lost, someone must be held responsible. 'Shite does not just happen'. Someone must be to blame. I've no idea if this is an accurate account of Italian attitudes.
Frankly, it's an accurate accout of attitudes in a lot of places.
We still have litigation here from the 2003 Canberra bushfires. Because hey, we can't have fire conditions so bad they were literally off the scale that was supposed to have 100 as a theoretical maximum. Someone was supposed to have stopped it. And someone was supposed to have given us more warning - apparently, the fact that I knew about the risk 3-4 days in advance doesn't stop people from claiming in litigation that no-one told them enough on the morning the fires hit the city.
The latest version here is the 2011 Queensland floods. There was talk of prosecuting some dam engineers at one point, all these accusations about what they should have done to avoid anyone anwhere being flooded by the largest volume of water ever seen, with the wisdom of Solomon, coupled with claims from the commission of inquiry that they'd doctored their report to make themselves look good - claims that fell apart when scrutinised.
People have this bizarre inbuilt belief that we have control of nature and that it can't hurt us. That there must be a person somewhere who's responsible for hurting us instead.
[ 23. October 2012, 21:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If a storm shows up earlier than the metereologists predicted, or drops more rain, and there are subsequently more traffic accidents, will the Italians be throwing the meteorologists into the clink?
In 1987, hurricane-force winds hit Southern England causing massive damage and some loss of life. The evening before, a BBC weatherman, Michael Fish, said reassuringly: "Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way... well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!".
Not unreasonable of him... after all, "In Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly happen". Tough luck that on that occasion, one did. Was he banged up in jail? No, he wasn't. If anything, he became one of those 'national treasures', and I imagine has been dining out on it ever since.
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People have this bizarre inbuilt belief that we have control of nature and that it can't hurt us. That there must be a person somewhere who's responsible for hurting us instead.
I'm not sure it's inbuilt: I think it's because people don't spend much time there.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ You're probably right to some extent. But then, even if people DO live in the middle of it, they don't relate to it.
The horrible Black Saturday fires in Victoria a few years ago... these happened in the most fire-prone forests in the world. I'm not kidding. A month or two later I was watching David Attenborough's old Life of Plants series. And there he is, in the 1990s, standing in the mountain ash forests using them as the archetypal demonstration of a forest that deliberately encourages fire as a propagation strategy.
Questions are now being asked about whether people should even be allowed to build their homes in the 'lovely setting' of these forests. But of course, the questions weren't asked until after 173 people died. Because everyone was apparently comfortable with the notion that you can buy a plot of land absolutely anywhere and put a house on it.
[ 23. October 2012, 22:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
I'm vaguely concerned that in the "someone must be to blame" game, it's the scientists that have copped it for doing a bad job (whether that is prediction of risk or communication thereof).
Given that most people died in collapsed buildings, what about the builders, building inspectors, those who set the building codes in the first place... Don't they have any culpability, given this town has a history of bad earthquakes every 300 years or so?
Goodness knows what the authorities will do in Naples when Vesuvius next erupts - when I visited Pompeii a couple of years ago they said it's overdue one of it's periodic eruptions. The emergency plan for the region (according to wiki) says: quote:
The plan assumes between two weeks and 20 days' notice of an eruption and foresees the emergency evacuation of 600,000 people.
Wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the seismologist calling that one!
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
Goodness knows what the authorities will do in Naples when Vesuvius next erupts - when I visited Pompeii a couple of years ago they said it's overdue one of it's periodic eruptions. The emergency plan for the region (according to wiki) says: quote:
The plan assumes between two weeks and 20 days' notice of an eruption and foresees the emergency evacuation of 600,000 people.
Wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the seismologist calling that one!
It won't be a seismologist: it will be a vulcanologist.
Volcanoes are a lot more forthcoming about when they are likely to erupt.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The same publication is now saying The verdict is perverse and the sentence ludicrous. .
Indeed, and mysteriously so. For they keep on stating key facts that should give one pause before making such harsh judgements.
quote:
“I’m not crazy. I know they can’t predict earthquakes,” the Italian public prosecutor Fabio Picuti told Nature last year. ... Despite the way the verdict has been portrayed in the media as an attack on science, it is important to note that the seven were not on trial for failing to predict the earthquake. ... The meeting [of the official risk commission] was unusually quick, and was followed by a press conference at which the Civil Protection Department and local authorities reassured the population, stating that minor shocks did not increase the risk of a major one. According to the prosecutor, such reassurances led 29 victims who would otherwise have left L’Aquila in the following days to change their minds and decide to stay; they died when their homes collapsed.
Now, here's a key thing to ponder. It quite possibly is a fact that minor shocks do not (appreciably) increase the risk of a major one. It is however also a fact that the established behaviour of many people in this town was to leave their houses when minor shocks occurred, see the earlier article. If they had done so, some people would have likely survived.
The point here is that speaking for an "official risk commission" is not writing a paper. People look to such authorities to determine their behaviour. Statements of fact easily become policy if your advice is considered authoritative.
Imagine the commission had said: "While there is no proven increased risk for a major shock when minor shocks occur, we advise as a matter of precaution to leave your house when shocks occur." Then who could blame anything on them? But they did not say that. Instead they apparently said something like: "There is no proven increased risk for a major shock when minor shocks occur, so do not worry." or even: Each shock diminishes the potential for a major earthquake, so do not worry." (As is suggested in the earlier article.) Is this really blameless? Are you surprised that people gave up their previous practice of leaving their houses after this? There was a 3.9 tremor at 11 pm, before the 6.3 one at 3:32 pm.
Facts are one thing, the effects thereof on the public quite another. A scientist is not just a scientist any longer when working in an advisory role to the public. He then takes on, at least to a degree, the kind of responsibility than a politician has. Whether the verdict in Italy is really appropriate I do not know. But that scientists need to think carefully about this is in my opinion true.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Explain how the scientists are culpable?
And how am I supposed to do that, having no access to the 224 page document filed by the prosecutor? You are simply assuming here that the Italian legal system is so terrible as to not only charge over something silly but also to charge the wrong people. If it was as simple as some officials corrupting the message from the scientists, do you not think that they could have build a successful defence on that?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The problem is that, no matter what area of science you are dealing with, people draw implications and conclusions from science - and they don't usually ask the scientists' permission before doing so.
Even "do not worry" is an implication. We're talking about risks here. Has the risk of a major quake increased? If the answer is 'No', this doesn't mean the risk is zero. It means the risk is the same one that people live with the entire time. If people have a 'do not worry' attitude to that risk the rest of the time, there's nothing particularly rational, in the scientific sense, about them suddenly worrying after a minor quake.
The proposition that it's a scientist's job to advocate the continuation of previous irrational behaviour is a weird one. The fact that, on this particular occasion, the irrational behaviour would have led to a lucky outcome doesn't make the behaviour any more rational.
[ 24. October 2012, 01:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I never catch a plane on a Tuesday. 2 previous crashes that made a particular impression on me happened on a Tuesday, so I have a belief that plane crashes are more likely on Tuesdays.
A friend with a good grasp of statistics demonstrates to me/advises me that in fact there is no greater likelihood of a plane crash on a Tuesday.
I board a plane on a Tuesday. It crashes. Is my friend responsible?
I wouldn't have thought so. It might be different if the friend has asserted that planes never crash on Tuesdays, but that's a completely different proposition.
The reality is that boarding a plane inherently carries a small risk that something might go wrong. Each day of the week.
[ 24. October 2012, 01:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
It won't be a seismologist: it will be a vulcanologist.
Volcanoes are a lot more forthcoming about when they are likely to erupt.
Apologies for getting the wrong speciality. And I understand volcanoes do give more notice (gases, magma movement, earthquakes etc). But is it an exact enough science? Will the vulcanologists really have 14 - 20 days certain notice of eruption and the scale of that eruption in order to evacuate the 600,000 people in and around Naples? If they get it wrong and people die, (which could equally happen directly from the volcano or the chaos of a false alarm panic), are they going to be prosecuted too?
This case and verdict has set a very bad precedent for any scientist in the business of trying to predict natural phenomena. "Get it* wrong and you go to jail" is the kind of reaction you'd expect in some of the more totalitarian regimes, not Western Europe. (*where it is the science, the policy, advice and/or the communication).
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
If you live in an old house made from plaster and ancient timbers in a town built in a sandy lake bed in a notorious earthquake zone, it's not the seismologist's fault that you weren't warned of earthquakes and the dangers that might attend them.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
they were prosecuted for not properly informing the public - which was the very job they had signed up for out of their own free will.
Of course the predictable effect of the judgment is that this is no longer a job that any Italian seismologist will sign up to out of their own free will.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Explain how the scientists are culpable?
And how am I supposed to do that, having no access to the 224 page document filed by the prosecutor? You are simply assuming here that the Italian legal system is so terrible as to not only charge over something silly but also to charge the wrong people. If it was as simple as some officials corrupting the message from the scientists, do you not think that they could have build a successful defence on that?
Hmmm, ISTM, you are making a case for the prosecution with the same lack of evidence.
From the article you link:
quote:
When asked during the meeting if the current seismic swarm could be a precursor to a major quake like the one that levelled L'Aquila in 1703, Boschi said, according to the meeting minutes: "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded." The scientific message conveyed at the meeting was anything but reassuring, according to Selvaggi.
quote:
Two members of the commission, Barberi and De Bernardinis, along with mayor Cialente and an official from Abruzzo's civil-protection department, held a press conference to discuss the findings of the meeting. In press interviews before and after the meeting that were broadcast on Italian television, immortalized on YouTube and form detailed parts of the prosecution case, De Bernardinis said that the seismic situation in L'Aquila was "certainly normal" and posed "no danger", adding that "the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, it's a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy".
ISTM, it is this small group at fault, if anyone actually is.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The same publication is now saying The verdict is perverse and the sentence ludicrous. .
Indeed, and mysteriously so. For they keep on stating key facts that should give one pause before making such harsh judgements.
quote:
“I’m not crazy. I know they can’t predict earthquakes,” the Italian public prosecutor Fabio Picuti told Nature last year. ... Despite the way the verdict has been portrayed in the media as an attack on science, it is important to note that the seven were not on trial for failing to predict the earthquake. ... The meeting [of the official risk commission] was unusually quick, and was followed by a press conference at which the Civil Protection Department and local authorities reassured the population, stating that minor shocks did not increase the risk of a major one. According to the prosecutor, such reassurances led 29 victims who would otherwise have left L’Aquila in the following days to change their minds and decide to stay; they died when their homes collapsed.
Now, here's a key thing to ponder. It quite possibly is a fact that minor shocks do not (appreciably) increase the risk of a major one. It is however also a fact that the established behaviour of many people in this town was to leave their houses when minor shocks occurred, see the earlier article. If they had done so, some people would have likely survived.
The point here is that speaking for an "official risk commission" is not writing a paper. People look to such authorities to determine their behaviour. Statements of fact easily become policy if your advice is considered authoritative.
It is quite possible that the Italian system is different from the system I'm used to in the UK. In the UK the whole series of events, as reported in the earlier Nature piece you linked, would have been very irregular. I've been privileged to be part of a Science Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) during an exercise, which is a scientific group that receives, digests and assesses data passing on summaries of important data and recommendations to the Cabinet Office - who then make the policy decisions and handle press conferences etc. The Italian scientists in this case were part of a similar committee. Within the UK such a group would not meet in open session (in case, for example, the press gets hold of an erroneous datum and runs with it even if the meeting decides it's not reliable), such a group would not communicate with the press at all - and most certainly not via an ad-hoc press conference as they left (or, even worse, entered) the meeting. The SAGE I was in did prepare some statements, that were passed onto the Cabinet Office and the CO passed them onto the media with their policy announcement (which might just have been "we have determined that such and such an area is safe").
There were irregularities that didn't help the people of L'Aquila (though, shouldn't have been a problem to them either). There was no need for the commission to meet in L'Aquila, scientists don't need to have their feet on the ground to assess large bodies of data. It certainly shouldn't have been open to the public and press without prior arrangement for all involved (I've been involved in work presented in public meetings, and you need to be very well prepared in advance). The scientists should not have interacted directly with the press, unless they were a) prepared to do so, for example having been given specific training in press relations, and b) had a prepared statement to deliver - and even then such a statement would have been better delivered by a government official who had had time to digest it and prepare an additional policy statement.
Someone arranged a public meeting in such a tense situation, having the press hanging around recording every word (rather than just considered, prepared statements) and having everything happen over a relatively short timescale of a quick meeting. It put the scientists in an impossible position. It put the government officials in a difficult position too.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
But is it an exact enough science? Will the vulcanologists really have 14 - 20 days certain notice of eruption and the scale of that eruption in order to evacuate the 600,000 people in and around Naples?
I don't know - ask the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. But I doubt if they'll be keen to tell you.
Ask a scientist for an opinion of risk and s/he will give you the distillate of their experience, which will be expressed as probability, and, as has been said above, this amounts to saying 'the risk is what it always is for this situation'.
If non-scientists refuse to understand probability, and insist that everything be understood as a statement of certainty, then I cannot see how scientists can say anything. Which, AIUI, is the reason for the resignation of Maiami and the others .
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
I find this whole thing chilling. As a former news person and someone newly in the role of disaster public information officer (on call and hopefully they won't need me) I get to be the mouthpiece who gives these predictions that can change on a whim. in our recent flooding, I told the public that the river hydrology showed creek levels going down and likely we'd seen the worst of it.* 8 hours later they evacuated my whole town. (an event I blissfully slept through after just coming home from a 16 hour shift)
My colleagues took a lot of criticism for the evacuation order. After all, nobody died, right? and some people wanted to stay home and protect their goddamn pianos. but nobody was taken by surprise, and nobody did die, because those guys were willing to take a big risk and issue the evac order.
Nature is bigger than us and we can't control the weather or the tectonics. we can do our best, but it's not exact. I have no doubt that if those seismologists had run around screaming that the sky was falling and nothing happened, they'd get sued for people's loss of business or whatever. you can't please everyone and some people really need to lay blame. it's the job of society in general and the legal system in particular to protect those who are trying to help us in a world of unpredictability. We need them.
Where I live, we have little temblors every damn day. Rightly or wrongly, I take a little bit of solace in thinking these are nature's way of letting us down easy and keeping The Big One Elizabeth™ a little further down the road. but we also get big ones - I've personally lived through two 7+ quakes. I know it's a matter of when, not if. Blaming the people who do their level best to understand it all and give us all the information they can is crazy. And it makes me fear that they'll quit giving us this needed information.
*there was still one creek on the rise that we were watching. that one turned out to be the killer one. despite all the advances in hydrology, there was no way to know that the one little creek was a sign of a big old river blowing it's banks. too many variables.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem is that, no matter what area of science you are dealing with, people draw implications and conclusions from science - and they don't usually ask the scientists' permission before doing so.
However, you have no evidence that this was the reason for the public's reaction. Indeed, you have strong evidence that this was not the case in the simple fact that a prosecutor decided that he could prosecute and a judge decided that he could sentence. It is really a massive slur on the Italian justice system to immediately claim that they cannot distinguish between a crass misinterpretation on the side of the public and crass carelessness on the side of the commission. (Or a muddle thereof, which is best left alone.)
It seems to me that there's an automatic assumption here that if anyone is guilty of anything, then it is the prosecutor and the judge. I don't particularly see why. Can scientists screw up? Sure they can. Can scientists screw up when dealing with the public more or less directly? Heck, I think there's considerable likelihood of that. Most scientists I know are not good at "people management".
Is it possible that the Italian justice system got this one horribly wrong? Sure it is. But we need to hear a lot more about what actually happened before we take sides. Or at least I do.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The proposition that it's a scientist's job to advocate the continuation of previous irrational behaviour is a weird one. The fact that, on this particular occasion, the irrational behaviour would have led to a lucky outcome doesn't make the behaviour any more rational.
I disagree with this, by the way. I think it confuses being rational about scientific claims with being rational about risk evaluation. The counter-measure (getting out of your house) is comparatively "cheap". The risk (injury, death) is massive. The scientific claim has some degree of certainty, but neither is any scientific claim ever fully certain, nor is seismology the most exact of sciences. Finally, local "folklore" may well contain important information for this location, which gets lost in general statements. If I lived in L’Aquila, and if experienced a long series of minor shocks where the local traditions was to take to the streets, I would probably leave the building. Better safe than sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Of course the predictable effect of the judgment is that this is no longer a job that any Italian seismologist will sign up to out of their own free will.
Or at least, that they will only sign up if protected by a layer of "people-handling officials", as Alan explained for the UK. And that seems like an excellent outcome to me.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hmmm, ISTM, you are making a case for the prosecution with the same lack of evidence.
Sure. But since the near universal conclusion here seems to be that the scientists are blameless and the justice systems is terrible, hence I consider it fair to take the side of the justice system until we get sufficient information to decide who is really to blame here. And I do not think that we have been given enough information.
The judge apparently still has to explain his ruling. Let's see what he has to say (it should be more accessible than the prosecutors "book" on the case...). Furthermore, let's see what an appeals court has to say. The justice system has its own checks and balances, give them a chance to work.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I disagree with this, by the way. I think it confuses being rational about scientific claims with being rational about risk evaluation. The counter-measure (getting out of your house) is comparatively "cheap". The risk (injury, death) is massive.
Yes, but the point is that "getting out of your house" applies equally regardless of whether there was a minor tremor or not. The TIMING of acting to mitigate the risk isn't rational.
If you lived in l'Aquila, you had a small but recognisable risk of injury or death. That risk has been there for centuries. It didn't suddenly appear because there was a small tremor.
In other words, you have a bunch of people accepting the same risk for most days of their lives.
[ 24. October 2012, 10:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is really a massive slur on the Italian justice system to immediately claim that they cannot distinguish between a crass misinterpretation on the side of the public and crass carelessness on the side of the commission. (Or a muddle thereof, which is best left alone.)
It's no more of a 'slur' than I would cast on the justice system in my own country when it careers down bizarre paths in particular cases (from Lindy Chamberlain's murder conviction down). The world is full of instances of groupthink where strange outcomes are reached because no-one actually managed to say "hang on, this doesn't make sense".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Nature is bigger than us and we can't control the weather or the tectonics. we can do our best, but it's not exact. I have no doubt that if those seismologists had run around screaming that the sky was falling and nothing happened, they'd get sued for people's loss of business or whatever. you can't please everyone and some people really need to lay blame. it's the job of society in general and the legal system in particular to protect those who are trying to help us in a world of unpredictability. We need them.
This.
It's madness to imprison them. If they are found to be wrong, give them a reprimand or fine.
Prison? No, never. They are not criminals!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Can scientists screw up? Sure they can. Can scientists screw up when dealing with the public more or less directly? Heck, I think there's considerable likelihood of that. Most scientists I know are not good at "people management".
If there is considerable likelihood then it makes it doubly perverse to imprison the individual scientists involved rather than looking at the overall organisation that led to this happening.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
