• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Italian scientists convicted of manslaughter for not predicting earthquake

I am not saying I support this, it may go too far. But there is something to be said for holding scientists accountable for the human consequences of their actions.

Human consequences of their actions? In this case their actions were not being able to predict the unpredictable. No scientist in our history has been able to consistently predict earthquakes.

I could possibly understand if their conclusion was that there was a coming earthquake and they hid the information, but that's not even remotely the case.
 
Human consequences of their actions? In this case their actions were not being able to predict the unpredictable. No scientist in our history has been able to consistently predict earthquakes.

I could possibly understand if their conclusion was that there was a coming earthquake and they hid the information, but that's not even remotely the case.

What's with you? Did you even read my goddamn post? I basically agree with you but your rude was just makes me want to dig in and keep arguing against you out of spite. But I haven't got the time for that, so for chrissakes READ!
 
What's with you? Did you even read my goddamn post? I basically agree with you but your rude was just makes me want to dig in and keep arguing against you out of spite. But I haven't got the time for that, so for chrissakes READ!

No, you didn't agree with me. You only said "I am not saying I support this, it may go too far. But there is something to be said for holding scientists accountable for the human consequences of their actions."

None of which says you agree with me. If your statement about scientists being held accountable for the human consequences of their actions is not even remotely related to the article in the OP, then I wonder why you even posted it here.
 
Can I sue scientists for not correctly identifying the lottery numbers for me? Is there no end to the blame for unfortunate natural events?
 
No, you didn't agree with me. You only said "I am not saying I support this, it may go too far. But there is something to be said for holding scientists accountable for the human consequences of their actions."

None of which says you agree with me. If your statement about scientists being held accountable for the human consequences of their actions is not even remotely related to the article in the OP, then I wonder why you even posted it here.

None of it says I disagree with you, DOES IT?!
 
There's as much Roman Law in the Common Law as there is in Civil Law.

Proof?

The main point was that Common Law is not based on Roman Law, just influenced by it. This was in contradiction of the assertion that the Romans gave us The Law. Wild over-exaggeration.
 
Proof?

The main point was that Common Law is not based on Roman Law, just influenced by it. This was in contradiction of the assertion that the Romans gave us The Law. Wild over-exaggeration.

Romans may not have invented law but it is hardly an exaggeration to say the common law countries owe their law to the Romans. You want proof, you can find it is Coke or Blackstone or Bracton.
 
None of it says I disagree with you, DOES IT?!
Nope. I guess you just enjoy posting ridiculous, unrelated opinions about how scientists should be held responsible for their human consequences in a discussion about scientists being held responsible for human consequences.
 
Romans may not have invented law but it is hardly an exaggeration to say the common law countries owe their law to the Romans. You want proof, you can find it is Coke or Blackstone or Bracton.

I think those writers, particularly Bracton, demonstrate that Roman law influenced, but did not "give us" The Law. But it's a debate that belongs somewhere else.
 
I think those writers, particularly Bracton, demonstrate that Roman law influenced, but did not "give us" The Law. But it's a debate that belongs somewhere else.
You are making an arbitrary distinction. Obviously eight hundred years after the fall of the western empire, English law developed a unique character, but you are ignoring the fact that the early Anglo Saxon law was taken whole cloth from the Roman Law, and what Bracton did was simply codify it. So it is correct to say both that the Romans gave us our law and continues to influence our law through the middle ages. Even after the Anglo Saxon law developed it was constantly reinfused with Roman principles by English jurists looking back to the Roman law.
 
No. They were Christians during the Renaissance. While it is true that Christianity coincided with the fall of the Roman Empire, it wasn't its cause.

And the renaissance came after the dark ages, where the Christian church had dumified the European population. Even during the renaissance certain limits were not to be breached... Galileo comes to mind and many others.

So you can thank Christianity for allowing city states to develop themselves in peace and bringing stability to the region. It is because of the great influence the Vatican had in the region that senseless, brutal wars weren't done there between nations.

LOL okay,.. so there was no wars between city states in Italy... Genoa did not have colonies as far away as Russia and Venice was not a major power in Italy but in all of Europe.
 
Italy joins the race for "worst government on science!" They'll have to step it up a notch if they want to compete with the USA, though.

Paul Broun said:
"I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

This dude has two children, and thinks embryology is a lie? What the **** did he think he was looking at during those ultrasounds!?
 
How is it that you can understand the way in which government and political interference can damage incentives for good science to take place, but, as a liberal, you are unable to understand how government and political interference can damage economic incentives?

I dunno what issue you're referring to, but economics is kinda my thing so I tend to focus a lot on how government affects economic incentives. :2wave:
In any case, it's the topic for another thread.
 
And the renaissance came after the dark ages, where the Christian church had dumified the European population. Even during the renaissance certain limits were not to be breached... Galileo comes to mind and many others.

You have to account for the technological advancement at the time...

LOL okay,.. so there was no wars between city states in Italy... Genoa did not have colonies as far away as Russia and Venice was not a major power in Italy but in all of Europe.

...
That is not what I am saying.

Look. Lets discuss 2 kinds of warfare.

Inter-ethnic warfare and intra-ethnic warfare. Inter-ethnic warfare is wars that are done between like the French and the English for the 100 years war and the intra-ethnic wars are things like the civil war in the USA or the wars between the city states of ancient greece or between the dark ages and renaissance period italian city states wars.

Usually, Europeans tried to civilize war and the most successful means of civilizing war have always been done in intra-ethnic warfare. The ancient greeks, the romans, the americans during the civil war and countless examples during the dark ages nad before justify this. inter-ethnic warfare has, for the majority of history, been unaddressed in regards to civilizing it. making it abide by certain rules and conducts... the only real effort done in this regard was after WW1. When the "glory" of war has been replaced with the gory reality of the issue. The pope had played a part, at least at times, as a peacekeeper in western Europe and we should be thankful to religion... and at times it has played the part of the agitator.

The point I am trying to make is that the reason why the itallic peninsula was a more peaceful place to live in than the rest of Europe for a few centuries was because of a mixture of ethnic genetics and religion. Race and ethnicity plays a part in helping people coming together... hence the reason why intra-ethnic wars have always been blessed, at least in Europe, with codes and regulation regarding warfare. And religion sealed the deal.
 
:shock:

Holy. Crap. People are so ****ing stupid. Aside from the injustice and the human tragedy associated with this case, this verdict will have a chilling effect on science. What has happened to Italy? It used to be a modern country, but over the past decade it has devolved into a banana republic.


If the scientists were creating a new deadlier for of a disease like those dutch scientists who decided to make a even deadlier form of SARs. But not being able to predict when or what type of earthquakes is going to happen is not one of those things we should be jailing people over. Heck if I was a weatherman I would seriously think about moving to another country. Because if they can jail you for failing to accurately predict earthquakes then they can jail you because you didn't predict flooding rains, how dangerous a storm might be or what ever else.
 
In other words, you have no answer.

Intervention is intervention. Government intervention in this case harms the ability and desire of scientists to do what they do.

Likewise, government intervention in the economy harms the ability and desire of entrepreneurs and businesspeople to do what they do.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in your earlier statement, then you're beyond reach.


I dunno what issue you're referring to, but economics is kinda my thing so I tend to focus a lot on how government affects economic incentives. :2wave:
In any case, it's the topic for another thread.
 
I am not saying I support this, it may go too far. But there is something to be said for holding scientists accountable for the human consequences of their actions.

What human consequences are that? Lack of foresight? Inability to precisely forecast the future? Lack of a proper time machine?
 
In other words, you have no answer.

Intervention is intervention. Government intervention in this case harms the ability and desire of scientists to do what they do.

Likewise, government intervention in the economy harms the ability and desire of entrepreneurs and businesspeople to do what they do.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in your earlier statement, then you're beyond reach.

Mmmk. Since you decided to get hostile without even bothering to explain what political issue you're talking about or why you're so pissed off about it, I think I'm done responding to you here. :2wave:
 
I thought you were done responding the last time? You've already implied that you don't have a good response, and I can easily tell you why that isn't a surprise...

Like so many liberals, you are fine being an unprincipled hypocrite, as long as you get free handouts from the government (paid for by others who actually do productive work).

"Free" stuff is more important to liberals like you than actually having a consistent viewpoint based on some sort of principled argument.

Mmmk. Since you decided to get hostile without even bothering to explain what political issue you're talking about or why you're so pissed off about it, I think I'm done responding to you here. :2wave:
 
An element that's being ignored here is that these are government scientists, employed by the government to do risk assessment. People, for right or wrong, trusted the government when they said it'd be okay/safe, the government was going off the recommendations of their own risk assessment panel. The folks on the panel got it wrong and thus the government left it's people at increased risk while saying things would be okay.

There was more than your typical scientitist's duty to this government risk assessment panel. And the government had a higher duty to be more aware and communicate as well.
 
What human consequences are that? Lack of foresight? Inability to precisely forecast the future? Lack of a proper time machine?
How about improperly claiming certainty?
 
An element that's being ignored here is that these are government scientists, employed by the government to do risk assessment. People, for right or wrong, trusted the government when they said it'd be okay/safe, the government was going off the recommendations of their own risk assessment panel. The folks on the panel got it wrong and thus the government left it's people at increased risk while saying things would be okay.

There was more than your typical scientitist's duty to this government risk assessment panel. And the government had a higher duty to be more aware and communicate as well.

What should they have done differently? The scientific knowledge to predict earthquakes does not exist...government scientists are no exception. All they can do is study the likelihood of an earthquake, and there is no particular reason to believe that their methods were unsound.
 
What should they have done differently? The scientific knowledge to predict earthquakes does not exist...government scientists are no exception. All they can do is study the likelihood of an earthquake, and there is no particular reason to believe that their methods were unsound.

As I've stated before, and from what I've read here, the results of the panel were announced to the public by a politician. Whomever made the announcement should face part of the blame. But as for the scientists on the risk assessment panel, as I said, they faced a greater duty than just to science. They had a duty to educate and in the end place their determination in terms the average citizen could understand.

We don't have the text of the announcement, and it would be good if we did as then we could contrast it with the public announcements we see here. Generally when we see such an announcement there are huge disclaimers and a lot of education that goes along with them.
 
How about improperly claiming certainty?

What was the claim, did they say 0% chance of earthquake? What evidence did they have on hand to make that claim? Did the evidence they had on hand support the claim?
 
What was the claim, did they say 0% chance of earthquake? What evidence did they have on hand to make that claim? Did the evidence they had on hand support the claim?

I don't know and neither do you. Why are you jumping to conclusions?
 
Back
Top Bottom