There are certain realms of scientific inquiry that could be considered predictive, but every single geologist I know (and in my line of work, I know quite a few) would say siesmology is not one of them. It'll never get anywhere in court. The prosecutor is probably just trying to make a point. An ill-advised point, I agree.
Scientists just trying to use their learning to help...
People will be scared to help, to offer opinions. I hope scientists get Good Samaritan laws passed to protect them.
If they had encouraged people to evacuate, and then no earthquake occurred, would they have been sued for the cost of evacuating?
I think the problem stemmed from one of them saying, "No chance of danger" when there was a 1% chance. Should have said, "With only 1% chance of danger, we're not recommending expensive evacuations right now."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jumperfucker) wrote2011-06-04 11:27 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Seismology isn't NICE and PREDICTABLE like frickin' BOTANY! How is...what is...
WHAT.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2011-06-04 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
People will be scared to help, to offer opinions. I hope scientists get Good Samaritan laws passed to protect them.
If they had encouraged people to evacuate, and then no earthquake occurred, would they have been sued for the cost of evacuating?
I think the problem stemmed from one of them saying, "No chance of danger" when there was a 1% chance. Should have said, "With only 1% chance of danger, we're not recommending expensive evacuations right now."
no subject