Seismologists Tried for Manslaughter for Not Predicting Eart

[JimC]

I've heard that they failed to word a statement perfectly. They apparently said "there is no danger of an earthquake" without adding any waffle-words to it, like "to the best information we have" or "as far as current technology will allow us to discover." So naturally, so lawyer spotted that faux pas and it was off the chariot races...

Lawyers...

Rope...

Lamp-posts...

[Atheist-Lite]

I've heard that they failed to word a statement perfectly. They apparently said "there is no danger of an earthquake" without adding any waffle-words to it, like "to the best information we have" or "as far as current technology will allow us to discover." So naturally, so lawyer spotted that faux pas and it was off the chariot races...

Lawyers...

Rope...

Lamp-posts...

Waffle words are important but this 'no danger' is an assurance that they'll need to back up in court now. They are experts - they should go to prison if they misinformed policy making public figures with regards the real risks, the genuine risk analysis.

[charlou]

But, in that case, waffle words that amount to 'unlikely' instead of 'likely' are little different to assertions without waffling, wrt how they're received and reacted upon by teh masses?

I should be their sleazy, ineffectual defense lawyer, methinks.


What a fucking joke.

[mistermack]

I still think my suggestion is the best one.
They should just publish a percentage chance of an earthquake for a period.
Say 1 % for the month.
That way they can never be wrong. If there is no earthquake, they got it right. If there is, it's the 1% chance happening.

How dumb do you have to be to say there is no chance of a quake? Even I wouldn't say that. That's how dumb!

.