Guilty scientists.. or not?

[AndrewJ]

Why do scientists that study earthquakes ask for our money so they can keep looking for a way to predict earthquakes when the majority view held here is "its 100% impossible to name the day and time a big one will hit?"

Why study Cancer??? ( they want more money than the seismologists )
Why study anything.
Why not Just live in caves and "hope" all goes well?????

It not possible to understand earthquakes "at present"
Most "research" is done because we dont know/understand things,
and until we do, scientists/doctors etc do "research".
The first few heart/major organ transplants didnt go so well,
but now are commonplace.
The study of DNA was very poor in its early days, but the benefits of continued study are now flowing in all directions ( some good some bad )
Until its a confirmed science, you just treat the data with the degree of scepticism warranted, but you dont suppress the data.
This ruling will eventually suppress data,
and that wont help anyone.

Andrew

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Remember the Italian justice system has the benefit of hindsight, the scientists did not have that luxury.
While the system had 3 years of investigation, the science has been around a lot longer, nearly 15 years since the peer reviewed paper indicated the precursor conditions are not a reliable indicator for predicting major earthquakes. While the official line is that the scientists were not prosecuted for their predictions or rather the lack of it, the fact is that their function. They are not risk assessors.

Until you understand IT IS NOT ABOUT PREDICTIONS OR LACK OF, this will go nowhere.

that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population.
and the scientists
provided "incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information"
and
The basis of the charges is not that they didn't predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L'Aquila." Part of that risk assessment, he says, should have included the density of the urban population and the known fragility of many ancient buildings in the city centre. "They were obligated to evaluate the degree of risk given all these factors," he says, "and they did not."

The Wikipedia article only reinforces the case of the scientists being the scapegoats in particular when no charges were laid over the poor building standards.

It does not reinforce that at all. The following suggests investigations are continuing

L'Aquila's chief prosecutor has opened a probe into possible criminal blame for the collapses.

another wikipedia quote

The prosecutors cited a scientific opinion that the low-level tremors ahead of the 6 April quake were typical of the seismic activity preceding major convulsions, but the defendants had classified them as a "normal geological phenomenon".[9] They were criticised in court for being "falsely reassuring" and Judge Marco Billi gave them a six-year jail sentence on 22 October 2012,[7] reasoning that they had provided "an assessment of the risks that was incomplete, inept, unsuitable, and criminally mistaken"

If the engineers/builders had been investigated first, then it would be them to wrongly claim they are the scapegoats.
The ongoing investigation may even find others in the government may have some blame apportioned to them. Time will tell.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

Until you understand IT IS NOT ABOUT PREDICTIONS OR LACK OF, this will go nowhere.

One can't even claim there are some nuances in the judgement, the inconsistencies in the judgment are quite obvious.
If you want to be sheep like and blindly accept the standard line that's your prerogative, but don't impose it on others.

Your quotes only reinforce the inconsistencies.

For example...

The basis of the charges is not that they didn't predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L'Aquila." Part of that risk assessment, he says, should have included the density of the urban population and the known fragility of many ancient buildings in the city centre. "They were obligated to evaluate the degree of risk given all these factors," he says, "and they did not."

Part of the local and international furore over of the decision is on the very point of risk assessment. When does a seismologist's responsibilities include risk assessment of "the density of the urban population and the known fragility of many ancient buildings in the city centre"?
Why have the urban planners and engineers that shoulder this process not been prosecuted as well?
Explain to me the relationship between public policy and seismology?

It does not reinforce that at all. The following suggests investigations are continuing
L'Aquila's chief prosecutor has opened a probe into possible criminal blame for the collapses.

That was back in 2009.
This is from livescience.com Oct 22 2012

No charges have been brought in L'Aquila regarding building codes or standards.)

The prosecutors cited a scientific opinion that the low-level tremors ahead of the 6 April quake were typical of the seismic activity preceding major convulsions, but the defendants had classified them as a "normal geological phenomenon".[9] They were criticised in court for being "falsely reassuring" and Judge Marco Billi gave them a six-year jail sentence on 22 October 2012,[7] reasoning that they had provided "an assessment of the risks that was incomplete, inept, unsuitable, and criminally mistaken"

This is going around in circles.
In case you missed it the response is to this.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...6&postcount=45

Here the issue is on "risk communication" as opposed to "risk assessment".
If the scientists or civil defense individual poorly communicated the information on Giuliani's work resulting in misinterpretation then they deserve a kick up the backside or at worse being fired but definitely not a jail sentence.

If the engineers/builders had been investigated first, then it would be them to wrongly claim they are the scapegoats.
The ongoing investigation may even find others in the government may have some blame apportioned to them. Time will tell.

This is an argument based on a logical fallacy "argumentum ad ignoratiam" or appeal to ignorance. Unless you show me your crystal ball that indicates this I refuse to believe it.

Steven

[space oddity]

It was rather stupid to say definately no risk. Such a bold statement is going to give false hope, so some sort of punishment is valid. Does rather remind me of a certain Climate Commissioner and the predictions that even if rain fell, it would not swell the river systems and dams. On the basis of these alarmist claims, Sydney has the expensive white elephant of a 2 billion dollar plus desalination plant. Do note, this certain fellow is NOT a climate scientist.So certain were the predictions that I believe he is personally partially responsible and as such requires prosecution. Severe punishments should also be handed down to those who manipulate science for political or personal gain.

"Nothing so sullies the integrity of humanity as the subversion of science for the servitude of politics."- Space Oddity.

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Unless you show me your crystal ball that indicates this I refuse to believe it.

That's so funny. Ignore all the facts and prefer to believe in my crystal ball predictions

[andyc (Andy)]

Originally Posted by space oddity

It was rather stupid to say definately no risk. Such a bold statement is going to give false hope, so some sort of punishment is valid. Does rather remind me of a certain Climate Commissioner and the predictions that even if rain fell, it would not swell the river systems and dams. On the basis of these alarmist claims, Sydney has the expensive white elephant of a 2 billion dollar plus desalination plant. Do note, this certain fellow is NOT a climate scientist.So certain were the predictions that I believe he is personally partially responsible and as such requires prosecution. Severe punishments should also be handed down to those who manipulate science for political or personal gain.

"Nothing so sullies the integrity of humanity as the subversion of science for the servitude of politics."- Space Oddity.

Risk management cuts both ways. Would you prefer the scenario where no desal plant was built and droughts had continued? Do you complain that the seatbelts or side-impact bars in your car are unnecessary expense and weight because they are almost never used? Are you going to be similarly dismissive the next time there is a drought (and there will be, sooner or later)?

We can experiment with how cities with growing populations in excess of 4 million cope with severe water shortages, but it is much more prudent to prepare for the difficulties rather than imagine that they will never happen, especially when observations indicate otherwise. With greater evaporation in a warming world and an enhanced hydrological cycle (this has already been observed), we expect the wet years to be wetter, and importantly, the dry years to be drier and hotter. That's a physical reality that Sydney and Melbourne need to plan for. We've had a run of La Ninas, and so the last few years have been wet, and it's fair to say unusually wet. What do you think will happen with the next run of El Ninos? One day you'll be glad of the desal plant, just like the seatbelts ... it just so happens that today is not the day.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

That's so funny. Ignore all the facts and prefer to believe in my crystal ball predictions

You are on a roll with the logical fallacies.
Now it's the straw man argument.