So the Italian scientists have been found guilty of manslaughter for their conduct during the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila.\u00a0 The usual narrative is that they were unfairly found guilty for failing at an impossible task:\u00a0 predicting when an earthquake would strike.\u00a0 We, of course, respond, “Duh!\u00a0 How could these idiots do such a thing?\u00a0 Everyone knows scientists can’t predict earthquakes!”<\/p>\n
The problem with this narrative is that humans aren’t exactly random in their behavior.\u00a0 Generally, whenever you find yourself thinking, “how could anyone possibly be that stupid?” it’s because you don’t really understand the whole situation.\u00a0 Likewise, when the media takes the “how could anyone possibly be that stupid?” angle, you can be sure they’re not reporting the whole story.\u00a0 We all have our reasons, and even when they’re bad, they make sense on some level.\u00a0 This Nature article<\/a> from last year does a good job of giving a broader view of the circumstances surrounding the trial.<\/p>\n Of course, the cry from scientists is now, “It’s obvious that scientists can’t predict earthquakes!”\u00a0 But the facts of the case do not indicate that this was what the people of L’Aquila were really told beforehand.<\/em>\u00a0 Consider:\u00a0 They had an official governmental body called the “National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks.”\u00a0\u00a0 This commission took earthquakes under their purview and then took it upon themselves to hold a press conference and dispense generic assurances that apparently amounted to “there’s no need to worry.”\u00a0 Now, if it’s your job to predict great risks and you say there’s no need to worry about a major earthquake (beside the usual fact of living in an earthquake-prone area), you have effectively made a prediction regarding earthquakes.\u00a0 This raises a very important question:\u00a0 If earthquakes are a great risk that it’s obviously impossible to forecast or predict, whey did this commission take it upon themselves to say anything <\/strong>other than “we simply don’t know; earthquakes are impossible to predict?”<\/p>\n There are instances where the scientific consensus on an issue amounts to a handful of trivia.\u00a0 Unfortunately, dispensing trivia imitates providing a sound understanding inasmuch as it allows people to appear informed, intelligent, and in control to those who are uninitiated on a given subject.\u00a0 Whether or not it’s real, people can choose to use this appearance to claim a kind of intellectual authority.\u00a0 It’s no secret that scientists often capitalize on this.\u00a0 There is an growing attitude among scientists that science should play the primary role in public decision-making.\u00a0 Accordingly, opportunities for government-funded positions of authority for scientists are increasingly called for and, when granted, eagerly snapped up.\u00a0 These are seen as great victories for science and society, but what happens next when those in authority are called on to earn their keep?<\/p>\n The citizens of the town wanted to know what to do in the face of the recent swarm of tremors in the area (and sudden shock right before the big quake).\u00a0 Apparently, the only scientific answer with any intellectual integrity is “we don’t know what you should do.”\u00a0 But that’s not what they said.\u00a0 When asked for advice, they parceled out trivia without acknowledging what they were doing.\u00a0 They said the kind of phenomena the town had experienced only indicated a 2% chance of a major earthquake.\u00a0 They said things were normal.\u00a0 They said there was no out-of-the-ordinary danger.\u00a0 Given their measurements, this is all true with respect to trivia–there was no scientific reason to conclude that risk in the area had suddenly increased.\u00a0 Nevertheless, all of this became wrapped up in the mantle of advice due to the press conference at which they publicly exercised the positions of authority granted to them.\u00a0 The appearance covered up the ignorance; the handful of trivia replaced the local tradition of getting out of the house when there are big tremors; and many lives were lost as a result.<\/p>\n Now, forecasting and predicting great risks is a tall order when it comes to natural disasters.\u00a0 It may very well be the case that an honest Commission would have to say “I don’t know” on most of the issues on which they are consulted.\u00a0 It may be that the people of Italy would not feel that the Commission were earning it’s keep if all it produced were a constant string of short but honest press conferences that admitted “I don’t know.”\u00a0 So be it.\u00a0 Better to have unemployed scientists than to employ scientists to use trivia to obscure and diminish the life-saving practical wisdom of tradition.\u00a0 You might note that despite this utter failure of probabilistic risk assessment and the obvious inability of science to predict earthquakes, the Nature article still promotes the responsibility of scientists to replace tradition with such things at the end of the article.<\/p>\n Knowledge and leadership are two entirely different things.\u00a0 Scientists want more and more authority to lead society because of their knowledge, but authority is inseparable from responsibility.\u00a0 If the limitations of your field of knowledge make it impossible for you to be legitimately held responsible, then you should not accept the authority in the first place.\u00a0 Deciding what we do when we hear “I don’t know” in the face of great risks is the place of wisdom, not science.\u00a0 Rather than usurping wisdom’s place, science should have remained in the universities and recorded trivia.\u00a0 One day, such trivia may lead to understanding, and when that day comes, scientists might honestly say more than “I don’t know.”\u00a0 But until that day comes, they would do well to avoid seeking social authority.<\/p>\n [H\/T:\u00a0 Vox Popoli<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" So the Italian scientists have been found guilty of manslaughter for their conduct during the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila.\u00a0 The usual narrative is that they were unfairly found guilty for failing at an impossible task:\u00a0 predicting when an earthquake would … Continue reading