Starship Asterisk*

Thought this article was worth highlighting on the forum.

By falsely equating knowledge with opinion, postmodernists and antiscience conservatives alike collapse our thinking back to a pre-Enlightenment era, leaving no common basis for public policy. Public discourse is reduced to endless warring opinions, none seen as more valid than another. Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right—the classic definition of authoritarianism.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -democracy

Public discourse is reduced to endless warring opinions, none seen as more valid than another. Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right—the classic definition of authoritarianism.

I think that a very big problem is just the fact that all opinions are seen as equally valid. Imagine having a debate between one scientist and one member of the "Pigs can fly" cult. Imagine a TV show giving equal time to both these people, one of them claiming that pigs can't fly and one of them claiming that they can. And afterwards, you might send a reporter out among the audience, or maybe out in the streets, to ask people whether or not they believe that pigs can fly. Imagine the headlines the next day:

45% Say Pigs Can Fly

Ann

Ann wrote:45% Say Pigs Can Fly

I guess pictures must not be worth much anymore.

Wow, Beyond. You've almost made join those 45%!

Ann

Be sure to read the accompanying articles, the candidates' responses to 14 top science questions, SciAm's evaluation of their responses, and Congress' stand on science.

bystander wrote:Be sure to read the accompanying articles, the candidates' responses to 14 top science questions, SciAm's evaluation of their responses, and Congress' stand on science.

I thought comment #7 about Congress' stand on science was interesting Winged pigs won't help to align the economic strategy of our species with the scientific method.

People that want to be politicians probably shouldn’t be.

The U.S. isn't the only country with problems...

L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626

Is this for real?

emc wrote:People that want to be politicians probably shouldn’t be.

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

geckzilla wrote:L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626

Is this for real?

Alas, it's an all too real consequence of ignorance of science added to guvmint bureaucracy. This judge seems to have no idea what science can and cannot say about earthquakes. But it also sounds as though the scientists involved didn't communicate very well, though that's almost certainly not their fault. Anyone employed by any government is behind a wall of bureaucracy when it comes to communicating to the public. Nothing specific can be said lest it come back to haunt one. So holding these scientists to account for what they said -- or rather, what they couldn't say clearly -- puts them in a double bind. They can't speak out plainly, and when they manage to say something that is toned down to the level required by their employer, they get hung from the lamp posts for it.

I don't imagine the sentences will hold up under appeal, but it must be a terrible time for the poor scientists involved. I wonder if they're getting any substantive support from the broader scientific community?

Rob

http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2012/10 ... m-laquila/

Unfortunately, recent decades have seen a wholesale breakdown of trust between scientists and the public at large; the conviction of the scientists in the L’Aquila case is just one example. This breakdown is due partly to the deliberate abuse of science for immoral purposes, and partly to the sheer carelessness with which various agencies have exploited scientific discoveries without proper evaluation of the risks involved. The abuse of statistical arguments have undoubtedly contributed to the suspicion with which many individuals view science.

I want to point out that it happened in Italy.

The current Prime Minister of Italy is Mario Monti, who is very well-respected internationally. Befone Monti, however, the Prime Minister of Italy was Silvio Berlusconi, who was regarded internationally as a clown. He was the Prime Minister in Italy for many years, shaping the way that many people in Italy are thinking, or so I believe anyway.

The idea of finding scientists guilty of manslaughter for failing to accurately predict an earthquake sounds like "the Berlusconi side of Italy" to me. Silvio Berlusconi still has has many followers in Italy. I can't help believing that the judges of the court which sentenced the scientists must belong to them, or at least they must be influenced by Berlusconi's way of reasoning.

Ann

It sounds to me like the government is looking for some scape goats to blame so that they don't have to admit that their risk advisory council is not going to be 100% successful.

rstevenson wrote:I don't imagine the sentences will hold up under appeal, but it must be a terrible time for the poor scientists involved. I wonder if they're getting any substantive support from the broader scientific community?

They have received a great deal of support from the international scientific community. Their story has been covered by AAAS and other organizations since the beginning, and several financial support mechanisms have been created. Condemnation of Italy in bringing these charges has been near universal, and I expect that the convictions and punishments will just increase this.

I think we can be sure that this court has effectively destroyed earthquake research in Italy. No sane, competent researcher is likely to stay in that country, and no young scientist considering such a career will now engage in it, or they will leave for another country.

Chris Peterson wrote:

rstevenson wrote:... I wonder if they're getting any substantive support from the broader scientific community?

They have received a great deal of support from the international scientific community. ...

Thanks Chris. That's good to hear.

Rob

Who's next to trial? The weather man? Cause he was wrong?!!

Doum wrote:Who's next to trial? The weather man? Cause he was wrong?!! :shock:

Could be. Already, scientists in key positions within Italy's disaster preparedness infrastructure are quitting, pointing out that they are now unable to do their jobs effectively. Who can blame them?

Has anyone been able to find the full statements that the seismologists made which has earned them this manslaughter conviction? I've seen a couple of sentences but surely that can't be it. I'm interested in seeing all the evidence.

geckzilla wrote:Has anyone been able to find the full statements that the seismologists made which has earned them this manslaughter conviction? I've seen a couple of sentences but surely that can't be it. I'm interested in seeing all the evidence.

You could try reading this very long description of the case.

Ann

It seems to me that his feeling "Betrayed by Science" is really from his trust in the ability of the scientist due to their training, education and the specific knowledge they possess, coupled with his lack of similar training and knowledge. He has to trust the educated scientist to speak truthfully to any perceived problem weather the threat is local, wide spread, or global in nature. Of course any person should also consider their own personal safety concerns and do all that they deem necessary and prudent for any specific situation

They're all very emotional and seeking justice from... nature? I think I understand that the earthquake swarm was terrorizing their lives and when they sought the answers from the scientists the guy they advised made it out like the swarm was a good thing (which apparently 98% of the time it is?) and they all went home feeling good about it only to die for it. Yeah, I'd feel betrayed too. But to place such a heavy burden back on the people who had the wrong speech at the wrong time is another type of betrayal.

I'd like to talk a bit more about Silivo Berlusconi and his probable impact on the mindset of many people in Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi wrote:
Silvio Berlusconi (...) born 29 September 1936) is an Italian politician and media tycoon who served three times as Prime Minister of Italy from 1994 to 1995, 2001 to 2006 and 2008 to 2011.

Berlusconi is the longest-serving post-war Prime Minister of Italy, and third longest-serving since Italy's unification, after Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Giolitti, holding three separate terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Ber ... f_interest wrote:
The Freedom of the Press 2004 Global Survey, an annual study issued by the American organisation Freedom House, downgraded Italy's ranking from 'Free' to 'Partly Free'[128] due to Berlusconi's influence over RAI, a ranking which, in "Western Europe" was shared only with Turkey (as of 2005). Reporters Without Borders states that in 2004, "The conflict of interests involving prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and his vast media empire was still not resolved and continued to threaten news diversity".[129] In April 2004, the International Federation of Journalists joined the criticism, objecting to the passage of a law vetoed by Carlo Azeglio Ciampi in 2003, which critics believe is designed to protect Berlusconi's reported 90% control of the Italian national media.[130]

So Berlusconi is the longest-serving post-World War II Prime Minister of Italy, and he may control 90% of Italian national media. As a matter of fact, Berlusconi may have controlled 90% of Italian national media ever since 1994, when he first became Prime Minister. Even during those periods when he did not wield the political power of being Prime Minister, he retained control of most of Italian national media. It is clear that his influence on the mindset of many Italians must be great.

So what kind of a man is Silvio Berlusconi? Take a look at this youtube video to get an idea of what he's like:
As you can see, Silvio Berlusconi seems to be pretty full of himself. For a very long time, he was mostly unchallenged in Italy, even when he wasn't technically in power. When you can dictate to your own country like that, you may not feel obliged to make an effort to understand things that don't really interest you. Nothing that I know about Berlusconi suggests that he has ever been seriously interested in things like science.

Science is a method. That is what it is. But if you don't understand science, you may believe that science is answers, and that it is able to and obliged to answer any question you ask of it. My impression of Silvio Berlusconi is that he has been looking at science that way, but he has been sufficiently happy with his own situation that he hasn't asked many questions of science. If this has been Silvio Berlusconi's way of looking at science, then it has probably also been the way 90% of Italian national media have been looking at science and have been describing science to the Italian public for more than fifteen years.

If you believe that science is able to answer all questions like that, then you must also believe that the Italian seismologists definitely knew that an earthquake was coming and yet willfully lied to the hapless people of the city of L'Aquila.

I think that this case is a good illustration of what can happen to a country if the wrong person is in power, and if the wrong person is in power for a long time, and if the wrong person controls the news and the information that the general public gets about this wrong person.

Ann

The same thing happens almost everywhere that the news is presented as a one sided affair and the dissenting views are hushed instead of being brought to light, examined, and torn apart in the light of truth

BMAONE23 wrote:The same thing happens almost everywhere that the news is presented as a one sided affair and the dissenting views are hushed instead of being brought to light, examined, and torn apart in the light of truth

Except in the case of science, where dissenting fringe views tend to be elevated to equal status with consensus views, giving the false impression of controversy where none exists.