[Scotty]

Congratulations on taking what I said and turning it into a caricature.

"In some cases, smaller tremors precede larger, more dangerous earthquakes."

Notice how I said exactly the same thing they did, with slightly different wording?  And yet, I'd have successfully 'predicted' the earthquake and wouldn't be up for manslaughter charges.

EDIT:  I feel like I should mention that I don't support the courts in this decision.  It was monstrously stupid.  However, the seismologists didn't exactly help their case any.

[Luis Dias]

Why? They made the caveats you mentioned. An argument could be made that they were used by politicians to ease the fears of a population that was nervous due to the previous small quakes and the fearmongering of a lunatic crackpot who was predicting a major quake.

However, to actually blame them for manslaughter. Man, that takes a lack of any neurons.

[Mongoose]

This is a spectacularly ****awful ruling. 

"Experts in seismic risk assessment"
"gave their assessment that little quakes were not necessarily indications of a large quake"
*Large quake hits*

I'd say they whiffed pretty damn bad.  There's a certain brand of covering your ass that is exactly what people want to hear and is simultaneously not incorrect.  They showed pretty terrible judgement in that respect.

No, they didn't, because that statement is completely true.  There are cases where a swarm of large quakes winds up leading to nothing, just as there are cases where a massive quake occurs with seemingly no warning at all.  At this point in time, there's no way at all to tell the difference, which is what the international scientific community is screaming at the Italian courts.  It would be irresponsible for them to have said anything else, despite what scientifically-illiterate Italian lawyers might say.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, this certainly raises the stakes on all geophysical sciences, and any others that have any impact on society.

Seismologists stop giving any statements to public regarding possible seismic activity, because if they happen to be wrong they can be sued for damages. For example: They make a prediction that causes a large scale evacuation and no quake comes? Pay for the evacuation costs as well as the stress and fear caused on people due to their completely wrong prediction. On the other hand if they make a prediction that can be interpreted that no quake is likely (protip: They are never likely - large quakes are very rare in human life span), obviously they can be convicted of false prediction.

But wait! That's not all!

Meteorologists are now in similar position. Let's say they fail to predict a massive snow storm, there's no time to prepare for it, and hundreds of people die in traffic accidents, plane crashes, or exposure. Aren't they, then, equally guilty of false prediction that put people in harm's way?

What about geologists, then? Let's say a geological survey suggests abundant source of high-concentration ore of some valuable mineral, or maybe an oil or gas reserve - and a multinational enterprise invests millions, if not billions, in massive mine or drilling operation - and then the amount or quality of the ore or oil or gas falls well short of what the survey predicted?

The mining or oil corporations should be able to sue the geologists in this kind of situation, they have caused them massive economical losses and should definitely pay back to the company. Making them indentured servants until the damages have been paid sounds good.

Engineers and architects, too, should be put in charge for any structural failures of their products. They were caused by material defects or errors in production or construction work? Doesn't matter, they should have predicted that and designed the products so that they would work even if they're made of silly putty and assembled by a horde of spastic rhesus macaques. Building inspectors and aircraft mechanics, especially, should have a preternatural sense of detecting hidden defects that are not clearly detectable by the diagnostic procedures they are working from...


Doctors should totally improve their track record of diagnosing illnesses that patients don't complain about, or making false positive diagnoses on no grounds.

And what about all the general research on some wild lark theory that ends up being falsified by the research? Massive waste of time! They should no better than to waste the tax-payers' money on nonsense like that. Why don't they research things that produce positive results?


I can probably think of other similar examples for the future of scientific professions in Italy after this ruling, but this should be a nice start.

[LordMelvin]

Thanks, Herra, for making exactly the kind of point I wanted to make but was too irritated to compose coherently.

[Scourge of Ages]

Does false (and ridiculous) imprisonment count as a violation of basic human rights? If so, then they could very easily appeal to the ECHR, and probably are already appealing up the chain. I doubt very much that the scientists will actually have to serve much of their sentence, and they should be able to recoup damages from any that they do.

[Herra Tohtori]

TL;DR:

Being wrong is integral part of science.

There are no predictions in science that have no error bars.

Therefore, making wrong predictions illegal will destroy any sort of predictive science.

If you can be convicted of making a wrong prediction, then no one should be making any predictions because there's always a chance that it'll be completely wrong, just a little wrong, or sometimes right.


noobs don't know 'bout science


Scource: I expect them to appeal the hell out of the decision, European Court of Human Rights would be one of the higher authorities they could appeal to but who knows whether Italian authorities would actually consider their judgement legitimate on the matter.

[StarSlayer]

[el_magnifico]

noobs don't know 'bout science

Yeah, but we laymans tend to heed the words of doctors and scientists as word of god. At best, we seek a second or third opinion, and if those also say the same, we just assume they are correct and act upon that assumption.
I guess a law forcing scientists doing public statements to actually state, clearly and unambiguously, that they don't have a way of knowing for certain what they are being asked, and if possible to specify the margin of error in their predictions, would help a lot. I don't know if such a thing already exists in Italy.

[Mongoose]

*awesomeness*

This is like taking the (at least theoretical) issues that plague the concept of medical malpractice, and extending them to all of science.  Wheee!

[Black Wolf]

I have no words for this. We absolutely need to see this clamped down on - if this was in my country, I'd be in the streets protesting. Utterly ridiculous.

[Aardwolf]

So uh... I read something once that suggested that the court system in Italy is... weird. Like, the judge is effectively the prosecutor or something? Someone explain/correct plz?

[Klaustrophobia]

Engineers and architects, too, should be put in charge for any structural failures of their products. They were caused by material defects or errors in production or construction work? Doesn't matter, they should have predicted that and designed the products so that they would work even if they're made of silly putty and assembled by a horde of spastic rhesus macaques. Building inspectors and aircraft mechanics, especially, should have a preternatural sense of detecting hidden defects that are not clearly detectable by the diagnostic procedures they are working from...

this already DOES happen to some extent.  i was forced to take a class my last semester in school called "engineering catastrophes" which was basically a platform for the liberal arts department to sling mud at engineers.  (some of you may remember me venting about the idiocy that went on in that class here.)  i saw several examples of witch hunts in the weekly case studies for that class.  one example that sticks out to me was a sky walk collapse at some hotel in the 70s or 80s that trapped and/or killed a lot of people at a dance.  the ultimate cause was the contractor not following the plans and leaving a support piece out of the hangers for the walkway.  the chief architect/engineer noticed immediately when he got there to inspect the wreckage and was pissed off that the plans weren't followed.  he still ended up taking most of the heat.  i can't remember any actual criminal or civil convictions from the stuff in the class (thank god), but there WERE trials, and careers were ended and reputations thrashed.  at the very least there's a PR witch hunt when stuff like this happens.

[watsisname]

So uh... I read something once that suggested that the court system in Italy is... weird. Like, the judge is effectively the prosecutor or something? Someone explain/correct plz?

The judge also looks like this. 

[newman]

Well, this certainly raises the stakes on all geophysical sciences, and any others that have any impact on society.

Seismologists stop giving any statements to public regarding possible seismic activity, because if they happen to be wrong they can be sued for damages. For example: They make a prediction that causes a large scale evacuation and no quake comes? Pay for the evacuation costs as well as the stress and fear caused on people due to their completely wrong prediction. On the other hand if they make a prediction that can be interpreted that no quake is likely (protip: They are never likely - large quakes are very rare in human life span), obviously they can be convicted of false prediction.

But wait! That's not all!

Meteorologists are now in similar position. Let's say they fail to predict a massive snow storm, there's no time to prepare for it, and hundreds of people die in traffic accidents, plane crashes, or exposure. Aren't they, then, equally guilty of false prediction that put people in harm's way?

What about geologists, then? Let's say a geological survey suggests abundant source of high-concentration ore of some valuable mineral, or maybe an oil or gas reserve - and a multinational enterprise invests millions, if not billions, in massive mine or drilling operation - and then the amount or quality of the ore or oil or gas falls well short of what the survey predicted?

The mining or oil corporations should be able to sue the geologists in this kind of situation, they have caused them massive economical losses and should definitely pay back to the company. Making them indentured servants until the damages have been paid sounds good.

Engineers and architects, too, should be put in charge for any structural failures of their products. They were caused by material defects or errors in production or construction work? Doesn't matter, they should have predicted that and designed the products so that they would work even if they're made of silly putty and assembled by a horde of spastic rhesus macaques. Building inspectors and aircraft mechanics, especially, should have a preternatural sense of detecting hidden defects that are not clearly detectable by the diagnostic procedures they are working from...


Doctors should totally improve their track record of diagnosing illnesses that patients don't complain about, or making false positive diagnoses on no grounds.

And what about all the general research on some wild lark theory that ends up being falsified by the research? Massive waste of time! They should no better than to waste the tax-payers' money on nonsense like that. Why don't they research things that produce positive results?

That's exactly what I've been saying. This is a very dangerous and bad precedent which can have lasting ramifications on the scientific community, leading to scientists having to be scared to do their jobs and either come out with information or not. Sort of reminds you of some glorious past times of the middle ages, though we're much too civilized to burn them at the stake now - now, we just ruin their lives. Worse, there's not enough of an uproar about this. If anything, this case says more about the people in the legal system than it does about scientists.

[Starman01]

This is just unbelievable. With every passing day you simply need to be more ashamed to be part of the human race. What's next ? Are they people nailing on crosses again, because they say the world is a sphere and rotates AROUND the sun ?

This is a giant setback for the science and the society. Maybe the judge lost someone that day, and this is personal ? I simply cannot imagine that a neutral objektive judge could make such a laughable descision. It's just a shame for the modern human being. Earthquakes are (and will most likely ever be) unpredictable, because we cannot measure where the pressure is loading, they can only measure where it's releasing due to shockwaves. Same for volcanos.

We can only hope, that this will not make any followers in justice circles, so that scientist really have to start to get afraid again, and rather don't say anything before saying something false.

[MP-Ryan]

I wouldn't worry about this expanding anywhere outside of Italy.  In any country with a justice system based on common law, this wouldn't even see charges.

That said, it's already being appealed.  I can't see the Italian Court of Cassation upholding a ruling as ridiculous as this.  Let's all remember that lower court judges make asinine rulings all.  the.  time.  That's why appeals courts exist.

[Luis Dias]

Herra, hear hear!

[Al-Rik]

I wouldn't worry about this expanding anywhere outside of Italy.  In any country with a justice system based on common law, this wouldn't even see charges.

That said, it's already being appealed.  I can't see the Italian Court of Cassation upholding a ruling as ridiculous as this.  Let's all remember that lower court judges make asinine rulings all.  the.  time.  That's why appeals courts exist.

That's the reason why I'm no being upset by the court's decision. It shows the consequences of the public opinion about a guaranteed risk less live - and the stupidity of Lawyers.

Engineers, Chemist and Biochemists  face the same problem that the public demands products what are safe.
While it's always possible to minimize a risk, it's impossible to reduce it to zero, so a safe product is impossible.

[Klaustrophobia]

some kind of B.S. degree should be a prerequisite for law school.  everyone in the legal system needs to have a base in reality.