scientist herethe_physicistOctober 23 2012, 09:07:30 UTC
and i'm going to disagree with all of you.
the scientists are not being punished for what they said in the official minutes of the March 31st meeting. in that, the scientists were clear and don't seem to have made any wrong calls.
they are being punished for something else, namely for statements made outside of that meeting.
let me just throw this quote out there to put this all into more perspective:
director of the nation-wide emergency task-force: "After these afternoon quakes there is nothing to be feared, I can assure you. My fellow colleague and quake researcher can tell you the same", and one of the convicted scientists adds: "Sure, there is nothing to be feared. Indeed, these small earthquakes have released a lot of energy, making a big earthquake impossible". The scientists thought they could get away with miscommunicating risks to the public. OH, they were perfectly clear on the risk in a meeting that included many experts on the topic and where they could talk to 'non stupid people
( ... )
Re: scientist heretiger0rangeOctober 24 2012, 14:50:10 UTC
That is just plain stupid shit. So they were wrong. Guess what, that happens all the time in science.
It's morons like you that makes it so hard to make scientific progress. The sensationalistic program was as much to blame. The propaganda push was as much to blame. Get a real understanding of how to listen to scientists. They should never say impossible and if they do, you don't listen to them. They are not government or safety officers. If they are being used as mouthpieces for them, then it's your job not to listen to them. Scientists are allowed like no other people in society to be wrong. It's because they are society's way to explore what is right. Once we are sure of what is right it moves to the domain of engineering or such. You can tell a scientist s/he is wrong. You can discredit him/her if they are grossly wrong. You do not make a scientist the officer of your safety because if the answer was that clear you wouldn't need a scientist.
Re: scientist herethe_physicistOctober 24 2012, 15:15:53 UTC
Scientists are allowed like no other people in society to be wrong.
Guess what? Other people don't get away with nothing if they fuck up in their job and it costs lives. Doctors get sued for malpractice, engineers get sued if they make a building that collapses because they did something wrong.
These scientists accepted the job of advising the general public and they fucked up big time in that job. just like anyone else in such a position they must take responsibility.
eta:
then it's your job not to listen to them.
oh and this? it's the job of the lay person to make themselves experts enough to evaluate whether the experts are worth listening to or not, is it? yeah, no. it's the experts job to do their job properly.
Re: scientist heretiger0rangeOctober 24 2012, 16:44:44 UTC
It's NOT THEIR JOBS to be safety officers. They are advisors at the very worst. We don't blame a mayor's or president's advisors because the buck stops at the president or mayor. It's their job. Not the scientists'.
Re: scientist herethe_physicistOctober 24 2012, 18:07:53 UTC
Do you even understand what they were convicted of? I don't think you do. Did you even read a word of what I wrote?
It's because they are society's way to explore what is right. Once we are sure of what is right it moves to the domain of engineering or such
They were not convicted for incorrect science, but for giving out information that they knew to be incorrect to the public.
You said the public should have known better than to trust the experts. An informed person can be sceptical based on real information, someone who is informed can only make the decision on who to trust or not based on how trustworthy a source is. Scientific experts generally have the public's trust, just as a patient generally trusts the doctors. That trust is eroded when you lie to them, to their face. And then try to say "they're allowed to lie!".
I'd also appreciate if you didn't call me a moron or patronise me by telling me about what it is scientists are there for.
Re: scientist heretiger0rangeOctober 25 2012, 01:51:02 UTC
Look, I don't know you from Adam, so I take it that you really are a physicist. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's some sort of applied physics field and that your lab isn't some computer slaved to a server farm or something playing with glorified math problems
( ... )
Re: scientist herethe_physicistOctober 25 2012, 08:20:42 UTC
You might say that it's a seismologist's job to predict earthquake.
nope. no one is saying that at all. no one is accusing him of sitting at home drinking cocoa instead of warning people either. you aren't reading a word of what i'm saying.
It's not in any scientist's job description. It's not in my contract. It's not in yours.
It certainly would be if I agreed to take on the role they did. And it is part of my job description. What, you think all I do as a scientist is write down vague ass interpretations of data sets and talk about that at conferences? Please. I have responsibilities beyond that. I have responsibilities to students I teach, I have responsibilities with regards to risk and safety toward the PhD students/RAs/post docs etc who I instruct in the use of equipment. Especially equipment I'm in charge of, for which I did the risk assessments - assessments people will take my word on, because I'm the expert in those machines/for those procedures. If i know there is a small risk someone could lose their eyesight while
( ... )
Re: scientist heretiger0rangeOctober 25 2012, 18:11:02 UTC
This discussion is going too far afield of the main point. Even janitors have the kind of responsibilities you are describing. Look, you aren't going to change my mind that science requires a degree of objectivity that precludes advocacy, no matter the topic. Allowing scientists to be used as shields for bad policies sets a dangerous precedent. The scientists should be dismissed and disgraced, but not jailed because this sets scientists up to be future pawns in political maneuvers.
The people who should be jailed are the people who pressured the scientists in the first place.
Re: scientist herethe_physicistOctober 25 2012, 20:58:06 UTC
dude, it's totally on topic and also seems to have make you acknowledge that such a responsibility may actually have been part of their 'job' in that circumstance. now you are only contesting the sentence. and if you read what i actually said, the sentence might not even be something i even agree with. but that they were found guilty for what they were actually charged with - that's what i'm agreeing with
( ... )
the scientists are not being punished for what they said in the official minutes of the March 31st meeting. in that, the scientists were clear and don't seem to have made any wrong calls.
they are being punished for something else, namely for statements made outside of that meeting.
let me just throw this quote out there to put this all into more perspective:
director of the nation-wide emergency task-force: "After these afternoon quakes there is nothing to be feared, I can assure you. My fellow colleague and quake researcher can tell you the same", and one of the convicted scientists adds: "Sure, there is nothing to be feared. Indeed, these small earthquakes have released a lot of energy, making a big earthquake impossible". The scientists thought they could get away with miscommunicating risks to the public. OH, they were perfectly clear on the risk in a meeting that included many experts on the topic and where they could talk to 'non stupid people ( ... )
Reply
It's morons like you that makes it so hard to make scientific progress. The sensationalistic program was as much to blame. The propaganda push was as much to blame. Get a real understanding of how to listen to scientists. They should never say impossible and if they do, you don't listen to them. They are not government or safety officers. If they are being used as mouthpieces for them, then it's your job not to listen to them.
Scientists are allowed like no other people in society to be wrong. It's because they are society's way to explore what is right. Once we are sure of what is right it moves to the domain of engineering or such. You can tell a scientist s/he is wrong. You can discredit him/her if they are grossly wrong. You do not make a scientist the officer of your safety because if the answer was that clear you wouldn't need a scientist.
Reply
Guess what? Other people don't get away with nothing if they fuck up in their job and it costs lives. Doctors get sued for malpractice, engineers get sued if they make a building that collapses because they did something wrong.
These scientists accepted the job of advising the general public and they fucked up big time in that job. just like anyone else in such a position they must take responsibility.
eta:
then it's your job not to listen to them.
oh and this? it's the job of the lay person to make themselves experts enough to evaluate whether the experts are worth listening to or not, is it? yeah, no. it's the experts job to do their job properly.
Reply
Reply
It's because they are society's way to explore what is right. Once we are sure of what is right it moves to the domain of engineering or such
They were not convicted for incorrect science, but for giving out information that they knew to be incorrect to the public.
You said the public should have known better than to trust the experts. An informed person can be sceptical based on real information, someone who is informed can only make the decision on who to trust or not based on how trustworthy a source is. Scientific experts generally have the public's trust, just as a patient generally trusts the doctors. That trust is eroded when you lie to them, to their face. And then try to say "they're allowed to lie!".
I'd also appreciate if you didn't call me a moron or patronise me by telling me about what it is scientists are there for.
Reply
Reply
nope. no one is saying that at all. no one is accusing him of sitting at home drinking cocoa instead of warning people either. you aren't reading a word of what i'm saying.
It's not in any scientist's job description. It's not in my contract. It's not in yours.
It certainly would be if I agreed to take on the role they did. And it is part of my job description. What, you think all I do as a scientist is write down vague ass interpretations of data sets and talk about that at conferences? Please. I have responsibilities beyond that. I have responsibilities to students I teach, I have responsibilities with regards to risk and safety toward the PhD students/RAs/post docs etc who I instruct in the use of equipment. Especially equipment I'm in charge of, for which I did the risk assessments - assessments people will take my word on, because I'm the expert in those machines/for those procedures. If i know there is a small risk someone could lose their eyesight while ( ... )
Reply
The people who should be jailed are the people who pressured the scientists in the first place.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment