Should scientists be held legally responsible for their results?

[gabriel]

examples please?

 

[Days]

Like that? - that's what happens when America votes for these Illuminatti bankers. GWBush wasn't a puppet, he was a puppet master.

 

[gabriel]

well it sure is simple when described by someone like you who has absolutely no idea about how much heat was reradiated and what conditions determine the amount. and you say the craft had no cooling? prove it. and the outer skin did not see the internal pressure. and 250 degrees is BS. aluminum has far more range than that.. stick to your faith healing and bible studies, youre no mechanical engineer, pal

 

[degsme]

It's good to know that total and absolute thread jacking is welcome here .

Yeah sadly it is.

 

[Doc]

Should the uneducated be held legally responsible for their ignorance?

After all, if the public had bothered to read the actual reports and figure out what they said, they would have been able to make their own assessments right?

That makes more sense!

Still, though...not everyone wants to wade through SCIENCE, and, many simply fail to grasp it.

LEADERS, no matter what position they serve, are the ones who should understand and act on what Scientists provide us with.

Now, IF we were to ever create a Government RUN BY SCIENTISTS...that would be another thing, entirely.....

 

[kgswiger]

First, I'm not sure why so many have jumped from "scientists should be responsible for their statements" to "we shouldn't have scientists".

Second: if responsibility leads to miniizing public concern, then is the inverse also true? Because, that was sort of my point. Now, how do we address it?

We made the jump because it's the logical outcome of making people responsible for predicting the future. Why go into a field where a mistake means jail and/or financial ruin? Better to go into finance, where a massive mistake means bonuses. We already don't have enough people going into the sciences. Criminalizing something that isn't a crime for any other profession is a sure-fire way to kill the profession.

And no, the inverse isn't necessarily true. Science is a savage way to make a living. You get known in your field by making a big discovery, or by proving the other guy wrong. Most of the time, it's by proving the other guy wrong. So, for your theory that climatologists all over the world are exaggerating climate change to be true, you first have to get climatologists all over the world to agree to be part of it, then you have to somehow keep younger climatologists from proving you wrong to make a name for themselves.

This would be a conspiracy of literally global proportions.

Now, should we consider criminalizing the behavior of corporations who hire scientists to conduct their own research that, oddly enough, virtually always finds what the corporation wants them to find? Thus muddying the waters.