Should Scientists Be Held Accountable if Their Predictions Are Wrong?

Yes of course, but only after the economists, bankers and politicians
Del

NO!

(There could be some very unlikely exceptions, such as deliberate deceit.)

Like those who study the soil or the waters and say everithing is OK, and then the floods throw people out of their new homes ?.

Or the ones working for environmental agencies which authorize huge fires and explosions to almost every action film production ?.

I think scientists shouldn't be sued in the case of Acts of God; but they should face the justice when their criminal lack of dilligence or unexcusable incompetency caused any death that could have been easily prevented by any other specialist, merely as a result of a well done job, not a fluke; and counting only with reasonable resources and time.

Of course, all of this would need to be proven at court.

We have had several postings on this in the past. One of them was http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/72290/Manslaughter-Trial-for-Failing-to-Predict-an-Earthquake. It's sad that no matter how goofey we got in the thread we couldn't match the goofeyness of the Italian court.

Sort of like going back to the 16th century and the "Church".

If this were truly a crime, there'd be no weather forecasters, except in prison.

Little Billy comes home with his test paper. His dad looks at it and says, "What's this? You got a 50% score".

Billy, "Pop, don't worry, I'm going to be a weather forecaster.

Maybe it's the press that should be held accountable for reporting possibilities as facts....Exaggerating is lying, and lying to the public while representing yourself as a trusted source, is not covered under freedom of the press imo....On the other hand quoting liars seems to be ok.....If you ask me the public just needs to take what they read from any source with a grain of salt....Me, I don't believe anything I read, and only about half of what I see.....I just react to what ever is happening at the time and everything else is speculation....to be pondered at my leisure...and planned for, in a timely manner....

I notice that the Pope (who has a direct line to God) didn't issue any warnings either.

How can you? The earth is in constant motion of all it's parts. You can't hold a human responsible for any part of the earths motion. It is always moving.

Where do I file?

Had my ancestors known the world was not flat, they may have made different decisions and I would be part of a wealthy family by now.

Sign me up for reparations.!

Who is responsible the person who asks an unanswerable question or the person who supplys an answer to that very question.

If its a case of negligence or deciet then certainly yes.

Ask the scientists and engineers in Japan who thought they knew the height of the largest tsunami they would ever see.

If it is trully an act of God then only he knows.

What I don't get is why he isn't a nicer guy and let us in on it before it happens.

"What I don't get is why he isn't a nicer guy and let us in on it before it happens"

Who says he isn't letting us know. Maybe we just aren't hearing him.

I don't see how a person asking an unanswerable question could ever be responsible. How does one know a question is unanswerable in advance?

The person supplying the answer may be answering with the best knowledge available at the time. Just because his answer may be incorrect, that does not mean it wasn't the best answer available at the time.

I believe your statement "If its a case of negligence or deciet then certainly yes" is right on the mark. But proving either can sometimes be a challenge.

Risk mitigation is generally not just a matter of assessing what is the worst that could happen. If decisions were made based on that, the world would look quite different today. Mitigation is generally based on a combination of probability and severity. There are some obvious points in such an analysis (a highly likely even expected to cause severe damage - do something; or a highly unlikely event expected to cause minimal damage - don't do much). The other combinations require a bit more thought as to how much to spend on mitigating the exposure to risk one is. It's boils down to non-exact information. When one estimates the likelihood of an event or it's severity....it's just an estimate which may be overly conservative or overly optimistic. In the former case, one would spend too much protecting themselves, in the latter case one would spend too little. As the cliche goes, hindsight is 20-20.

Like it or not, it boils down to economics (personally as well as a community).

The Japanese may not have built the levies and nuclear plant based on what they expected the height of a tsunami to be, but on the 100 year (or whatever) average was. And as I understand it (going from memory which may not be reliable) the nuclear plant had several layers of protection (back up generators, etc.) but a combination of events and failures resulted in the catastrophe that we now reflect back upon. Something as simple as having the generators at a higher elevation (on the roof?) may have been all that was needed to prevent the core from overheating.

They had a better idea of how high in Japan than they let on.

Either that or they are doomed to continue to repeat the past.

Consider that huge meteorite that blew up over Russia a month ago, shattering all those windows which resulting in hundreds of injuries. If that had happened in Italy, think of all the astronomers who might be in jail right now.

YES, OF COURSE.

Starting with the politicians, central bankers, and other blowhards FIRST, and going downhill from there.

Now, there this demonstrates the insanity of the verdict with the cosmic improbability of the above ever happening.

What about the blooming moron's desire to be served a bulletproof solution on a silver platter, where he, the certifyable b.m. does not have to strain his own brain.?.

What happened to "buyers bevare" principle?

Maybe, these glittering examples of dimness want to sue the builders of the buildings from 500 or 1000 years ago? What about getting a DVD from the proceedings?

I know, I set the bar awfully low. But, if politicians are not held to their predictions, why should scientists?!? Legally speaking, that is.

None of them are Scientists. They are all pond scum.

Is this related to the topic? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/03/21/ohio-prosecutor-seeks-death-penalty-for-punxsutawney-phil-after-bad-forecast/