- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 25,566
- Reaction score
- 36,346
- Location
- American Refugee in Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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.
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.
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.None of it says I disagree with you, DOES IT?!
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
: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.
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.
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:
How about improperly claiming certainty?What human consequences are that? Lack of foresight? Inability to precisely forecast the future? Lack of a proper time machine?
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?