{"title":"标定地震不确定性","authors":"José G. Perillán","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198864967.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the early morning hours of April 6, 2009, a devastating earthquake struck the city of L’Aquila, Italy, killing hundreds of people. Many of L’Aquila’s residents were not prepared for the earthquake and felt betrayed by scientific experts who were tasked with public safety. Three years later, in a shocking outcome, a group of seven scientists and public officials were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison. Although the L’Aquila Seven’s convictions were eventually reversed, this controversy illustrates the unintended consequences of scientists and public officials engaging in myth-historical boundary work but ignoring their duty to accurately communicate scientific ideas. The chapter grapples with the tension inherent in the juxtaposition of a scientific ideal and concrete scientific practice as it relates to notions of consensus and the communication of scientific uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":153412,"journal":{"name":"Science Between Myth and History","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Demarcating Seismic Uncertainties\",\"authors\":\"José G. Perillán\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198864967.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the early morning hours of April 6, 2009, a devastating earthquake struck the city of L’Aquila, Italy, killing hundreds of people. Many of L’Aquila’s residents were not prepared for the earthquake and felt betrayed by scientific experts who were tasked with public safety. Three years later, in a shocking outcome, a group of seven scientists and public officials were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison. Although the L’Aquila Seven’s convictions were eventually reversed, this controversy illustrates the unintended consequences of scientists and public officials engaging in myth-historical boundary work but ignoring their duty to accurately communicate scientific ideas. The chapter grapples with the tension inherent in the juxtaposition of a scientific ideal and concrete scientific practice as it relates to notions of consensus and the communication of scientific uncertainty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":153412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Between Myth and History\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Between Myth and History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864967.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Between Myth and History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864967.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
In the early morning hours of April 6, 2009, a devastating earthquake struck the city of L’Aquila, Italy, killing hundreds of people. Many of L’Aquila’s residents were not prepared for the earthquake and felt betrayed by scientific experts who were tasked with public safety. Three years later, in a shocking outcome, a group of seven scientists and public officials were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison. Although the L’Aquila Seven’s convictions were eventually reversed, this controversy illustrates the unintended consequences of scientists and public officials engaging in myth-historical boundary work but ignoring their duty to accurately communicate scientific ideas. The chapter grapples with the tension inherent in the juxtaposition of a scientific ideal and concrete scientific practice as it relates to notions of consensus and the communication of scientific uncertainty.