7 ms·

Italian seismologists to be tried for manslaughter

140 points by andrewcooke 15y ago

andrewcooke 15y ago
playing devil's advocate here (from what i've read, i don't think this is a good idea at all), my limited understanding (i develop software related to seismic detection, but was not educated as a geophysicist) is that we really have no clue about earthquake prediction. so the "best" scientific advice may well have been "we don't know"; perhaps they were guilty of being too confident?
- saulrh 15y ago
  It looks like they gave some politician a detailed, comprehensive explanation that boiled down to "We don't know, but if we really had to give a definite answer we'd guess that a major earthquake is comparatively unlikely, because...". That politician turned around and told the public "Definitely no earthquake, everything is completely safe, go back to work." It's like a game of telephone where everybody in the middle is drunk or stupid and one side is getting sued for what came out the other end.
- mturmon 15y ago
  There's a nice quote from a geophysicist in the other Nature article on this: Scientists are often asked the wrong question, which is 'when will the next earthquake hit?' The right question is 'how do we make sure it won't kill so many people when it hits?'
barrkel 15y ago
That's phenomenally stupid. Rather than getting best estimates, they are explicitly requesting that scientists over-estimate the probability of disaster and cry wolf. That in turn will mean they will have even less warning should something genuine turn up.
- zdw 15y ago
  Ever hear of "defensive medicine" where doctors will prescribe extra courses of care and tests, just to validate what they already know to be true in order to avoid possible litigation in the rare case that they might be wrong? Asking for certainty in areas where it can't be mathematically guaranteed is extremely expensive.
  - Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
    A real pain. And the phenomenon has spread far and wide. Even though not everyone has such litigious systems the costs relating to defensive medicine are spreading.
  - ckuehne 15y ago
    "just to validate what they already know to be true" Not to forget, making money from it, or, at least, bringing money to the associated laboratories or doctors.
gacba 15y ago
As a former science major, this kind of stuff is scary... 1) Scientists, with a crapton of data, interpret results to the best of their ability. 2) Scientists report results, with caveats, to Country. 3) Country reported results to Public, (possibly without caveats) in an effort to "look good". 4) Public ignored caveats (if given), took Scientists words as absolute proof. 5) Public ignored Common Sense during what must have been a major seismic event, and instead of blaming themselves, blame the Scientists. Oh, what a demon Science hath wrought.
- hartror 15y ago
  Assuming the court has any sense they will agree with: Low probability of X doesn't mean X isn't going to happen.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    I've seen so little evidence of common sense anywhere in the last 10 years that I wouldn't hold my breath. My guess (based on zero evidence and being fairly cynical) is that they will be found guilty.
    - stretchwithme 15y ago
      You better be right about this common sense deficit or I will have to drag you into court.
      - epochwolf 15y ago
        Drag him anyway, he'll probably settle. It's what all the latest patent companies are doing. I see no reason why it can't work on a smaller scale.
        stretchwithme 15y ago
        And if he doesn't settle, I can always sue you for saying so. :-)
Bud 15y ago
What's next, jailing doctors who fail to predict the common cold? I bet there won't be very many seismological press conferences in the near future.
- marshray 15y ago
  Sure doctors in the US get sued for malpractice all the time. If they were advising a large population (e.g., they were on TV) and gave bad advice which led to many people's deaths, you can darn well bet there'd be consequences.
  - pyre 15y ago
    In this case, it seems like like the difference between <scientist> There is a low probability of a major quake and <politician> Scientists assure me that you are all completely safe That and a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics by the general population (e.g. low probability == no going to happen).
    - epochwolf 15y ago
      So they should be hanging the politician...
      - mturmon 15y ago
        Yes, and leave the scientists out.
  - andrewpi 15y ago
    Suing implies civil charges. We are talking about criminal charges here (i.e. the threat of jail time).
  - jarin 15y ago
    In that case, I can't wait for Kevin Trudeau's trial.
- pyre 15y ago
victoro 15y ago
Reason #347 the Italian justice system should be used as a Model of what NOT to do...
sks 15y ago
As someone working in the field of earthquake engineering this is very scary for me. Earthquakes are caused due to buildup of stress between two giant pieces of rocks trying to slide past each other. A swarm of small earthquakes can sometime release the stress thus lowering the probability of a big earthquake, so the scientists were not entirely wrong in their statements. Also earthquake predictions are discouraged since false positives can have huge adverse economic impact (people and businesses fleeing the region) the best way to prepare for an earthquake for a community is to build good safe earthquake resistant houses rather than blaming scientists for not predicting some inherently random phenomenon.
- SlipperySlope 15y ago
  Taking your argument one step further ... At what point are the number of earthquake deaths more economically costly than repeated unnecessary evacuations? Perhaps 300 deaths is worth keeping hundreds of thousands at their workplaces over an extended period of time. Consider that millions of Americans use public roadways every year at the cost of 30K fatalities. I wonder if the politicians made the correct economic decision but the wrong ethical decision?
marshray 15y ago
Aside from the question of whether or not these seismologists gave truly criminally bad advice in this case, it's a good bet that after this prosecution Italy is going to have a very hard time getting anyone with a clue about seismology to go on record with their objective scientific opinion.
saulrh 15y ago
Old news (May 2010), but worth revisiting.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  ?? The article is dated May 2011.
  - saulrh 15y ago
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html The charges were originally filed over a year ago. The news now is that, after procedural delays, the judge succumbed to idiocy and actually let them go to court.
    - trafficlight 15y ago
      Then it's not old news, is it?
alexqgb 15y ago
This isn't the first time Italy has reduced itself to the status of reactionary backwater by attacking scientists, Galileo being a case in point. In the wake of that travesty, Louis XIV didn't have a hard time convincing Cassini to abandon his post in Bologna and emigrate to France, where he could continue his work safely. Given the extraordinary military advantage conveyed by Cassini's work in improving cartography through increasingly sophisticated astronomical observation, the Netherlands and England were quick to join the seventeenth-century's war for technical talent. Not grasping the extent to which the world was passing it by, the Papacy kept Galileo's works on the list of banned books until the mid-nineteenth century. By the time they came off, Italy's once formidable lead had been squandered permanently. File this current fiasco under 'lessons not learned'.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  Pope Urban VIII's beef with Cassini wasn't over his assertion that Copernicus was right, but rather because Cassini was asserting that which he could not prove. He was basically saying that he was right and everyone else was wrong and they should just believe him because he was right. The pope said (rightly so) that unless Cassini could offer proof as to the cause of planets allegedly circling the sun, he should present both the Copernicus and Ptolemy model and leave it up to the reader to make up his mind. (He couldn't prove it because the theory of gravitation was not known at the time) Instead, Galileo tricked a priest into printing his book without a papal seal of approval, after he had promised the pope that he would present the Copernicus model as a hypothesis and not as proven fact. So, in this case, the church was on the side of the scientific method. You don't just assert something extraordinary without some extraordinary evidence to back it up.
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    I think you mean "Pope Urban VIII's beef with Galileo...", not Cassini. For what it's worth, Galileo made two critical observations with his telescope - specifically, his discoveries of the Jovian moons and the phases of Venus. The former demonstrated that the universe contained more than one center of gravity. This served as a fundamental contradiction of the Aristotelian metaphysics that anchored the Ptolemaic scheme, and which the Church had, by then, adopted as canonical. The latter phenomena made no sense in the context of a terracentric cosmos, but was perfectly consistent with a heliocentric model. In other words, Galileo was not "saying that he was right and everyone else was wrong and they should just believe him because he was right." Rather, he was offering observational proof of the Copernican theory. His own theories about gravity, and specifically, WHY there could be multiple centers were - at this stage - irrelevant. The mere fact of these other centers' existence was enough to upset the intellectual status quo. Indeed, the real bone of contention had nothing to do with the Church insisting on evidence in support of theory. The evidence was right in front of them. The problem was the inconsistency formed between the the revelation that Earth is a orbiting planet, and the (repeated) Biblical assertions that it wasn't. For instance, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30), “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...” (Psalm 93:1), “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...” (Psalm 96:10), “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...” (Isaiah 45:18), etc. The obvious solution - a concession that the Bible made heavy use of metaphor, and should not be taken literally - presented intractable political problems for an institution that had amassed formidable power around interpretations that treated large amounts of the Bible as actual history. Really, the notion that "the church was on the side of the scientific method" could not be further from the truth - not least of all because the scientific method depends on the freedom of consciousness, and the ability to change one's mind based on observable reality - regardless of contrary views based on scripture, fiat, or tradition. This degree of liberty was - quite literally - anathema to an institution that claimed something approaching a property right in the laity's souls. To say they were supporting it is flatly absurd.
sliverstorm 15y ago
there is no danger Was that a misquote, or what the seismologists actually said? Their position is a little more shaky (ha, ha) if they said there is NO danger
- mturmon 15y ago
  Here's a more complete article: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html It seems like the committee contained 6 geophysicists who reported to a civil defense bureaucrat (who has a PhD in Fluid Mechanics - think Civil Engineering). The geophysicists said the standard things ("we can't rule it out"). Then these deliberations were summarized by the bureaucrat for the press conference, which the geophysicists did not attend, as (presumably in Italian ;-): "The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable." And there's your trouble spot. It is wrong to misrepresent appropriately-hedged claims where life and limb are at stake. It should be a scandal. And incidentally, this is why it's really hard to be the technical person who stands in front of the press conference. Doing it well is a gift.
noonespecial 15y ago
Next week's news: Italy suffers severe shortage of qualified seismologists. Government officials are baffled.
- wisty 15y ago
  On the upside, government officials don't have to explain why a small city that's plagued by earthquakes had such poor building practices that a 6.3 earthquake killed 0.4% of the population.
  - noonespecial 15y ago
    You mean those building code things weren't just a way to make a quick buck by selling exemptions for every building?
  - BasDirks 15y ago
    I've been to L'Aquila twice before the quake. Many buildings consisted (at least in part) of old structures. The city was founded in 1258.
    - davidw 15y ago
      > The city was founded in 1258. For an Italian city, that's fairly recent, actually!
stretchwithme 15y ago
The possibility of going to jail for interpreting data will certainly deter scientist from interpreting data. Which is great, because the average person can just look at the seismic data each morning and decide for themselves. Right after they sift through the weather data to see if any tornados might have swung by while they were sleeping.
VladRussian 15y ago
like in the good old times when court astrologist would be rewarded until the day of disaster when he would be beheaded. It was just a professional risk of being an astrologist, and i don't see any difference between an astrologist and seismologist making any definitive predictions - both ride the chance presenting it as scientific result and harvest benefits until the chance is in their favor.
Lucadg 15y ago
I am not sure what to think of it but when De Bernardinis said “the scientific community tells me there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable”, it occurs to me that "there is no danger" is incorrect. And dangerous. A more precise statement would have been "there is danger, but we have no way to know the probabilities of an earthquake". Am I right or missing something here?
InclinedPlane 15y ago
The old world seems to be eager to dig themselves into a luddite grave. They want to live in a world with a "safe" internet and predictable, politically malleable science. We've been down such roads before, they're not good roads (the result is oppression; intolerance; corruption; stagnation of society, political thought, science, technology, and commerce).
- Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
  Not sure that the new world is any better. All those specified areas have direct new world examples. Can everyone be going backwards? We are where I am...
blue1 15y ago
contrarily to what I'm reading here, I think that it is a good idea that the trial goes on. The point is not that a best estimate was wrong, but rather that the conclusions could have been steered by political pressures, which is actually not unlikely, considered the history of man-made or man-facilitated disasters in Italy (e.g. the Vajont dam). I believe that the purely scientific advisors will be cleared at the end, but bringing everyone to trial is inevitable as the firt step. ("inevitable" in standard italian judiciary practice, that is).
daniel-cussen 15y ago
Is that lawsuit against Google over that one Youtube video still going on there?
simonh 15y ago
26 May - Scientists fail to predict earthquake, internet rallies to defend scientists. 21 May - Harold Camping fails in rapture prediction. Internet piles in on Camping as a fraud. Just saying ;)
- saulrh 15y ago
  Scientists make best prediction they can based on three hundred years of observation, experimentation, and careful, systematic application of the scientific method; politician makes idiotic statement based on fundamental misunderstanding of scientists' report; scientists end up in court for politician's idiocy; internet rallies, along with every other person with a brain. Harold Camping makes prediction based on no observation, no experimentation, no method, only madness; Camping is fractally wrong, refuses to admit that he made a mistake; internet attacks, along with every other person with an unimpaired brain. I suspect you're trollan, but I figure there's no such thing as "too safe".
ordinary 15y ago
This is just the latest demonstration of the precautionary principle[1] at work. People in authority act as if the worst-case scenario will happen (regardless of the actual risk of that) because it's self-preservative. We're so focused on always looking for a scapegoat when something goes wrong that the only way to pre-empt potential persecution (either by the mob or the press or the justice system or whoever) is to always cover your ass, regardless of what the actual risk analysis tells you. Warning against events like terrorist attacks and earthquakes is a win/win: if they do occur, you're the heroic prophet who saw it all coming. If they don't, no one will call you out on needlessly spending large amounts of money on their prevention. There is quite a bit of precedent for this kind of reasoning. For examples, see Blair's role in the invasion of Iraq (45 minutes, remember?) and the United States' Homeland Security Advisory System (never lower than "Elevated"). And did anyone get nailed to the metaphorical cross for the enormous sums of money flushed down the toilet to protect against Y2K? To dismiss this as a uniquely Italian issue, as many of my fellow HN'ers seem to be doing, is a failure to see the wider picture. Don't kid yourself, this happens everywhere. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
crocowhile 15y ago
I am Italian (although I don't live in Italy). Those seismologists are being accused to have made statements and claims of "no worry" without bearing sufficient scientific support. The trial will likely end in a mediatic bubble (hopefully). It may also help you knowing that the main man behind this accusations is Guido Bertolaso. He is very close to Berlusconi's government and got his own, more serious, legal troubles having to do with bribes after constructions in disastered area and prostitution. As usual, things in Italy are more complicated than what it may look. Edit: adding this link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7025719.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article70...
- dan_c 15y ago
  It may be helpful to remember that they were not 'scientists' at a meeting. They were members of a committee (Grandi Rischi), part of a government agency (Protezione Civile). They are accused because of their public 'role'. The title is somewhat misleading, it should be: "Italian Major Risks Committee to be tried etc.", if you search in italian press the trial is called "Processo grandi rischi", "Major Risks trial". (My opinion is that the congress was just a 'public relations' thing to 'reassure' people. The words "the scientific community tells me there is no danger", served, very likely, as an excuse for the 'politicians' to do nothing in order to prevent risks [because of the typical italian cynicism, I can't assure they were not aware of the misuse of their words.] Please note that after the earthquake the public debate was focused on the stupid problem of 'prediction of earthquakes'. Yes we can't predict earthquakes, but we can predict the effect and take measures in order to prevent risks. And it is clear that nothing was done.) [Excuse me for my bad english.]
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    yeah, someone at work just reminded me that the context was that someone was going round warning about a major earthquake (based on argon release? which i think hasn't been found a reliable predictor) and this was all in response to that. while the scientists were probably correct that the earthquake warnings were not justified, it turns out that the prediction was vaguely correct (iirc the time was off by long enough that evacuations would have been impractical). [edit: radon, not argon - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-predict7 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-predi... - and he didn't have the correct location or time, but was close]
fmarz 15y ago
Be wary in drawing clear distinctions between scientists and bureaucrats, because figures such as presidents or directors of scientific institutions, here in Italy, are usually more bureaucrats or politicians than scientists, and their actions or statements might not be motivated by science alone. So while it might be fun to imagine us italians running with our pitchforks after a bunch of lab-rats to burn them at the stake for their failure at quake-prediction, what's really happening is that a prosecutor has doubts about the “quality” of work of some people paid lotsa public money to be part of a committee whose task was to assess seismic risks for that area at that time. Was the risk assessed correctly or not? And if not, why? Note how (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html) nobody is willing to take responsibility for the reassuring statements that in the end convinced the otherwise alarmed population to stay at home. The scientists say that the meeting was too short to consider all the data, while the civil protection agency responds to them that they should have not waited six months to object to that. An aside: back in 2009, before and after the quake, there was one guy claiming to be able to foresee when and where earthquakes would strike with a certain precision by measuring radon emissions. Except the quake he foresaw a week earlier nearby L'Aquila never happened, and after the big one caused 300 deaths, he went on record saying to have foreseen it by something like 6 to 24 hours, depending on which interview. He became somewhat popular at the time, and probably still is, to the point that the public opinion might be left with the notion that quakes can indeed be foreseen - this trial might not be that bad thing for science after all.

140 points by andrewcooke 15y ago

playing devil's advocate here (from what i've read, i don't think this is a good idea at all), my limited understanding (i develop software related to seismic detection, but was not educated as a geophysicist) is that we really have no clue about earthquake prediction. so the "best" scientific advice may well have been "we don't know"; perhaps they were guilty of being too confident?

saulrh 15y ago
It looks like they gave some politician a detailed, comprehensive explanation that boiled down to "We don't know, but if we really had to give a definite answer we'd guess that a major earthquake is comparatively unlikely, because...". That politician turned around and told the public "Definitely no earthquake, everything is completely safe, go back to work." It's like a game of telephone where everybody in the middle is drunk or stupid and one side is getting sued for what came out the other end.
mturmon 15y ago
There's a nice quote from a geophysicist in the other Nature article on this: Scientists are often asked the wrong question, which is 'when will the next earthquake hit?' The right question is 'how do we make sure it won't kill so many people when it hits?'

barrkel 15y ago

That's phenomenally stupid. Rather than getting best estimates, they are explicitly requesting that scientists over-estimate the probability of disaster and cry wolf. That in turn will mean they will have even less warning should something genuine turn up.

zdw 15y ago
Ever hear of "defensive medicine" where doctors will prescribe extra courses of care and tests, just to validate what they already know to be true in order to avoid possible litigation in the rare case that they might be wrong? Asking for certainty in areas where it can't be mathematically guaranteed is extremely expensive.
- Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
  A real pain. And the phenomenon has spread far and wide. Even though not everyone has such litigious systems the costs relating to defensive medicine are spreading.
- ckuehne 15y ago
  "just to validate what they already know to be true" Not to forget, making money from it, or, at least, bringing money to the associated laboratories or doctors.

gacba 15y ago

As a former science major, this kind of stuff is scary... 1) Scientists, with a crapton of data, interpret results to the best of their ability. 2) Scientists report results, with caveats, to Country. 3) Country reported results to Public, (possibly without caveats) in an effort to "look good". 4) Public ignored caveats (if given), took Scientists words as absolute proof. 5) Public ignored Common Sense during what must have been a major seismic event, and instead of blaming themselves, blame the Scientists. Oh, what a demon Science hath wrought.

hartror 15y ago
Assuming the court has any sense they will agree with: Low probability of X doesn't mean X isn't going to happen.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  I've seen so little evidence of common sense anywhere in the last 10 years that I wouldn't hold my breath. My guess (based on zero evidence and being fairly cynical) is that they will be found guilty.
  - stretchwithme 15y ago
    You better be right about this common sense deficit or I will have to drag you into court.
    - epochwolf 15y ago
      Drag him anyway, he'll probably settle. It's what all the latest patent companies are doing. I see no reason why it can't work on a smaller scale.
      - stretchwithme 15y ago
        And if he doesn't settle, I can always sue you for saying so. :-)

Bud 15y ago

What's next, jailing doctors who fail to predict the common cold? I bet there won't be very many seismological press conferences in the near future.

marshray 15y ago
Sure doctors in the US get sued for malpractice all the time. If they were advising a large population (e.g., they were on TV) and gave bad advice which led to many people's deaths, you can darn well bet there'd be consequences.
- pyre 15y ago
  In this case, it seems like like the difference between <scientist> There is a low probability of a major quake and <politician> Scientists assure me that you are all completely safe That and a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics by the general population (e.g. low probability == no going to happen).
  - epochwolf 15y ago
    So they should be hanging the politician...
    - mturmon 15y ago
      Yes, and leave the scientists out.
- andrewpi 15y ago
  Suing implies civil charges. We are talking about criminal charges here (i.e. the threat of jail time).
- jarin 15y ago
  In that case, I can't wait for Kevin Trudeau's trial.
pyre 15y ago

victoro 15y ago

Reason #347 the Italian justice system should be used as a Model of what NOT to do...

sks 15y ago

As someone working in the field of earthquake engineering this is very scary for me. Earthquakes are caused due to buildup of stress between two giant pieces of rocks trying to slide past each other. A swarm of small earthquakes can sometime release the stress thus lowering the probability of a big earthquake, so the scientists were not entirely wrong in their statements. Also earthquake predictions are discouraged since false positives can have huge adverse economic impact (people and businesses fleeing the region) the best way to prepare for an earthquake for a community is to build good safe earthquake resistant houses rather than blaming scientists for not predicting some inherently random phenomenon.

SlipperySlope 15y ago
Taking your argument one step further ... At what point are the number of earthquake deaths more economically costly than repeated unnecessary evacuations? Perhaps 300 deaths is worth keeping hundreds of thousands at their workplaces over an extended period of time. Consider that millions of Americans use public roadways every year at the cost of 30K fatalities. I wonder if the politicians made the correct economic decision but the wrong ethical decision?

marshray 15y ago

Aside from the question of whether or not these seismologists gave truly criminally bad advice in this case, it's a good bet that after this prosecution Italy is going to have a very hard time getting anyone with a clue about seismology to go on record with their objective scientific opinion.

saulrh 15y ago

Old news (May 2010), but worth revisiting.

tedunangst 15y ago
?? The article is dated May 2011.
- saulrh 15y ago
  http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html The charges were originally filed over a year ago. The news now is that, after procedural delays, the judge succumbed to idiocy and actually let them go to court.
  - trafficlight 15y ago
    Then it's not old news, is it?

alexqgb 15y ago

This isn't the first time Italy has reduced itself to the status of reactionary backwater by attacking scientists, Galileo being a case in point. In the wake of that travesty, Louis XIV didn't have a hard time convincing Cassini to abandon his post in Bologna and emigrate to France, where he could continue his work safely. Given the extraordinary military advantage conveyed by Cassini's work in improving cartography through increasingly sophisticated astronomical observation, the Netherlands and England were quick to join the seventeenth-century's war for technical talent. Not grasping the extent to which the world was passing it by, the Papacy kept Galileo's works on the list of banned books until the mid-nineteenth century. By the time they came off, Italy's once formidable lead had been squandered permanently. File this current fiasco under 'lessons not learned'.

kstenerud 15y ago
Pope Urban VIII's beef with Cassini wasn't over his assertion that Copernicus was right, but rather because Cassini was asserting that which he could not prove. He was basically saying that he was right and everyone else was wrong and they should just believe him because he was right. The pope said (rightly so) that unless Cassini could offer proof as to the cause of planets allegedly circling the sun, he should present both the Copernicus and Ptolemy model and leave it up to the reader to make up his mind. (He couldn't prove it because the theory of gravitation was not known at the time) Instead, Galileo tricked a priest into printing his book without a papal seal of approval, after he had promised the pope that he would present the Copernicus model as a hypothesis and not as proven fact. So, in this case, the church was on the side of the scientific method. You don't just assert something extraordinary without some extraordinary evidence to back it up.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  I think you mean "Pope Urban VIII's beef with Galileo...", not Cassini. For what it's worth, Galileo made two critical observations with his telescope - specifically, his discoveries of the Jovian moons and the phases of Venus. The former demonstrated that the universe contained more than one center of gravity. This served as a fundamental contradiction of the Aristotelian metaphysics that anchored the Ptolemaic scheme, and which the Church had, by then, adopted as canonical. The latter phenomena made no sense in the context of a terracentric cosmos, but was perfectly consistent with a heliocentric model. In other words, Galileo was not "saying that he was right and everyone else was wrong and they should just believe him because he was right." Rather, he was offering observational proof of the Copernican theory. His own theories about gravity, and specifically, WHY there could be multiple centers were - at this stage - irrelevant. The mere fact of these other centers' existence was enough to upset the intellectual status quo. Indeed, the real bone of contention had nothing to do with the Church insisting on evidence in support of theory. The evidence was right in front of them. The problem was the inconsistency formed between the the revelation that Earth is a orbiting planet, and the (repeated) Biblical assertions that it wasn't. For instance, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30), “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...” (Psalm 93:1), “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...” (Psalm 96:10), “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...” (Isaiah 45:18), etc. The obvious solution - a concession that the Bible made heavy use of metaphor, and should not be taken literally - presented intractable political problems for an institution that had amassed formidable power around interpretations that treated large amounts of the Bible as actual history. Really, the notion that "the church was on the side of the scientific method" could not be further from the truth - not least of all because the scientific method depends on the freedom of consciousness, and the ability to change one's mind based on observable reality - regardless of contrary views based on scripture, fiat, or tradition. This degree of liberty was - quite literally - anathema to an institution that claimed something approaching a property right in the laity's souls. To say they were supporting it is flatly absurd.

sliverstorm 15y ago

there is no danger Was that a misquote, or what the seismologists actually said? Their position is a little more shaky (ha, ha) if they said there is NO danger

mturmon 15y ago
Here's a more complete article: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html It seems like the committee contained 6 geophysicists who reported to a civil defense bureaucrat (who has a PhD in Fluid Mechanics - think Civil Engineering). The geophysicists said the standard things ("we can't rule it out"). Then these deliberations were summarized by the bureaucrat for the press conference, which the geophysicists did not attend, as (presumably in Italian ;-): "The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable." And there's your trouble spot. It is wrong to misrepresent appropriately-hedged claims where life and limb are at stake. It should be a scandal. And incidentally, this is why it's really hard to be the technical person who stands in front of the press conference. Doing it well is a gift.

noonespecial 15y ago

Next week's news: Italy suffers severe shortage of qualified seismologists. Government officials are baffled.

wisty 15y ago
On the upside, government officials don't have to explain why a small city that's plagued by earthquakes had such poor building practices that a 6.3 earthquake killed 0.4% of the population.
- noonespecial 15y ago
  You mean those building code things weren't just a way to make a quick buck by selling exemptions for every building?
- BasDirks 15y ago
  I've been to L'Aquila twice before the quake. Many buildings consisted (at least in part) of old structures. The city was founded in 1258.
  - davidw 15y ago
    > The city was founded in 1258. For an Italian city, that's fairly recent, actually!

stretchwithme 15y ago

The possibility of going to jail for interpreting data will certainly deter scientist from interpreting data. Which is great, because the average person can just look at the seismic data each morning and decide for themselves. Right after they sift through the weather data to see if any tornados might have swung by while they were sleeping.

VladRussian 15y ago

like in the good old times when court astrologist would be rewarded until the day of disaster when he would be beheaded. It was just a professional risk of being an astrologist, and i don't see any difference between an astrologist and seismologist making any definitive predictions - both ride the chance presenting it as scientific result and harvest benefits until the chance is in their favor.

Lucadg 15y ago

I am not sure what to think of it but when De Bernardinis said “the scientific community tells me there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable”, it occurs to me that "there is no danger" is incorrect. And dangerous. A more precise statement would have been "there is danger, but we have no way to know the probabilities of an earthquake". Am I right or missing something here?

InclinedPlane 15y ago

The old world seems to be eager to dig themselves into a luddite grave. They want to live in a world with a "safe" internet and predictable, politically malleable science. We've been down such roads before, they're not good roads (the result is oppression; intolerance; corruption; stagnation of society, political thought, science, technology, and commerce).

Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
Not sure that the new world is any better. All those specified areas have direct new world examples. Can everyone be going backwards? We are where I am...

blue1 15y ago

contrarily to what I'm reading here, I think that it is a good idea that the trial goes on. The point is not that a best estimate was wrong, but rather that the conclusions could have been steered by political pressures, which is actually not unlikely, considered the history of man-made or man-facilitated disasters in Italy (e.g. the Vajont dam). I believe that the purely scientific advisors will be cleared at the end, but bringing everyone to trial is inevitable as the firt step. ("inevitable" in standard italian judiciary practice, that is).

daniel-cussen 15y ago

Is that lawsuit against Google over that one Youtube video still going on there?

simonh 15y ago

26 May - Scientists fail to predict earthquake, internet rallies to defend scientists. 21 May - Harold Camping fails in rapture prediction. Internet piles in on Camping as a fraud. Just saying ;)

saulrh 15y ago
Scientists make best prediction they can based on three hundred years of observation, experimentation, and careful, systematic application of the scientific method; politician makes idiotic statement based on fundamental misunderstanding of scientists' report; scientists end up in court for politician's idiocy; internet rallies, along with every other person with a brain. Harold Camping makes prediction based on no observation, no experimentation, no method, only madness; Camping is fractally wrong, refuses to admit that he made a mistake; internet attacks, along with every other person with an unimpaired brain. I suspect you're trollan, but I figure there's no such thing as "too safe".

ordinary 15y ago

This is just the latest demonstration of the precautionary principle[1] at work. People in authority act as if the worst-case scenario will happen (regardless of the actual risk of that) because it's self-preservative. We're so focused on always looking for a scapegoat when something goes wrong that the only way to pre-empt potential persecution (either by the mob or the press or the justice system or whoever) is to always cover your ass, regardless of what the actual risk analysis tells you. Warning against events like terrorist attacks and earthquakes is a win/win: if they do occur, you're the heroic prophet who saw it all coming. If they don't, no one will call you out on needlessly spending large amounts of money on their prevention. There is quite a bit of precedent for this kind of reasoning. For examples, see Blair's role in the invasion of Iraq (45 minutes, remember?) and the United States' Homeland Security Advisory System (never lower than "Elevated"). And did anyone get nailed to the metaphorical cross for the enormous sums of money flushed down the toilet to protect against Y2K? To dismiss this as a uniquely Italian issue, as many of my fellow HN'ers seem to be doing, is a failure to see the wider picture. Don't kid yourself, this happens everywhere. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

crocowhile 15y ago

I am Italian (although I don't live in Italy). Those seismologists are being accused to have made statements and claims of "no worry" without bearing sufficient scientific support. The trial will likely end in a mediatic bubble (hopefully). It may also help you knowing that the main man behind this accusations is Guido Bertolaso. He is very close to Berlusconi's government and got his own, more serious, legal troubles having to do with bribes after constructions in disastered area and prostitution. As usual, things in Italy are more complicated than what it may look. Edit: adding this link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7025719.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article70...

dan_c 15y ago
It may be helpful to remember that they were not 'scientists' at a meeting. They were members of a committee (Grandi Rischi), part of a government agency (Protezione Civile). They are accused because of their public 'role'. The title is somewhat misleading, it should be: "Italian Major Risks Committee to be tried etc.", if you search in italian press the trial is called "Processo grandi rischi", "Major Risks trial". (My opinion is that the congress was just a 'public relations' thing to 'reassure' people. The words "the scientific community tells me there is no danger", served, very likely, as an excuse for the 'politicians' to do nothing in order to prevent risks [because of the typical italian cynicism, I can't assure they were not aware of the misuse of their words.] Please note that after the earthquake the public debate was focused on the stupid problem of 'prediction of earthquakes'. Yes we can't predict earthquakes, but we can predict the effect and take measures in order to prevent risks. And it is clear that nothing was done.) [Excuse me for my bad english.]
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  yeah, someone at work just reminded me that the context was that someone was going round warning about a major earthquake (based on argon release? which i think hasn't been found a reliable predictor) and this was all in response to that. while the scientists were probably correct that the earthquake warnings were not justified, it turns out that the prediction was vaguely correct (iirc the time was off by long enough that evacuations would have been impractical). [edit: radon, not argon - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-predict7 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-predi... - and he didn't have the correct location or time, but was close]

fmarz 15y ago

Be wary in drawing clear distinctions between scientists and bureaucrats, because figures such as presidents or directors of scientific institutions, here in Italy, are usually more bureaucrats or politicians than scientists, and their actions or statements might not be motivated by science alone. So while it might be fun to imagine us italians running with our pitchforks after a bunch of lab-rats to burn them at the stake for their failure at quake-prediction, what's really happening is that a prosecutor has doubts about the “quality” of work of some people paid lotsa public money to be part of a committee whose task was to assess seismic risks for that area at that time. Was the risk assessed correctly or not? And if not, why? Note how (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html) nobody is willing to take responsibility for the reassuring statements that in the end convinced the otherwise alarmed population to stay at home. The scientists say that the meeting was too short to consider all the data, while the civil protection agency responds to them that they should have not waited six months to object to that. An aside: back in 2009, before and after the quake, there was one guy claiming to be able to foresee when and where earthquakes would strike with a certain precision by measuring radon emissions. Except the quake he foresaw a week earlier nearby L'Aquila never happened, and after the big one caused 300 deaths, he went on record saying to have foreseen it by something like 6 to 24 hours, depending on which interview. He became somewhat popular at the time, and probably still is, to the point that the public opinion might be left with the notion that quakes can indeed be foreseen - this trial might not be that bad thing for science after all.