I dont really understand the “attitude”
The attitude was the result of you stating the obvious as if I might not understand it in the first place.
and you didnt really counter my arguments so I will ignore the first part of your post.
Your arguments are against a straw man. Hate using that philosphical jargon, but in this case it’s the best way to put it.
The hurricane example is an exact corollary to what happened in Italy. You can’t judge the scientists by the aftermath since the future was unknown at the time.
Of course and I’m sure nobody is arguing you can.
If a scientist makes a risk assessment as in the case of this hurricane he can only give his best guess. Are you implying that if he/she predicts the hurricane will miss the coast and then it does not then we should hold him/her criminally liable?
This completely misses the point. Was the scientists risk assesement right or not?
No one would ever go into this field of study if they were always at risk of going to jail for doing their job correctly and then where would we be?
Of course but this just goes without saying. The question is over what to do if the scientist didn’t do her job correctly.
I dunno the answer b.t.w I just picked up on the fact that you are missing the point and that people shouldn’t simply be personally responsible for acting on bad advise from experts, clearly the experts do have some responsibility.