2. 考研
  3. The conviction of seven Italian geological and disaster experts for their negligence in failing to predict the 6. 3 magnitude qu

The conviction of seven Italian geological and disaster experts for their negligence in failing to predict the 6. 3 magnitude qu

admin2014-06-25  3
问题     The conviction of seven Italian geological and disaster experts for their negligence in failing to predict the 6. 3 magnitude quake in 2009 in the small town of Aquila has shocked the scientific community. Many are wondering whether the Dark Ages have returned to Italy. Galileo rarely trends on Twitter, yet Monday’s verdict by a three-judge panel had many alluding to his 1633 heresy conviction by the Catholic Church because he questioned whether the sun actually circled the Earth.
    If the Earth is not the center of God’s universe, neither are scientists. Their concerns about scientific freedom and how the verdict will silence research are a little overblown and exceptionally righteous. The verdict, instead, should be understood as a celebration of science. Society has come to believe that science can help citizens make judgments about where to live, how to act, and whether to evacuate. Unlike in the time of Galileo, society has come to accept the value of evidence and deduction. The court’s ruling is a reminder to the scientific community that along with their God-given skills comes a certain a-mount of civic responsibility.
    Science was not on trial; scientists were. The facts of the case are much more complicated than its critics care to explain. The judges did not argue that earthquake prediction is perfect; they did not demand flawless accuracy in a field that everyone knows is more an art form. Instead, they ruled that members of the so-called Great Risks Commission had not only failed to properly assess the evidence before them, but had actually communicated the exact opposite, despite evidence to the contrary.
    Earthquake prediction may not be exact, but it isn’t witchcraft either. For those of us who have worked in crisis and disaster management, there is a thriving field of predictive analysis using earthquake modeling, small tremor tracking, and radon gas releases. These techniques provide experts, and public-safety entities who will have to respond, a hope to penetrate the mystery around earthquakes: Does this type of natural disaster actually drop hints before the Big One?
    The defendants were sentenced because the public places a value on scientific assurances, much more so than political ones. Maybe the commission was used by politicians who, for reasons that are inexplicable, didn’t want to have to deal with a jittery public. One commission member even told everyone to chill with a glass of wine. The commission should have known, the court ruled, that its assurances would be understood by the citizens of Aquila to be like words from the heavens. The ruling wasn’t about demanding from science an exactitude that doesn’t exist. Instead, it validates the role science plays in helping to drive public behavior, as it has with climate change or tsunami warnings. Because the public believes in the value of data, hypothesis, and even generalized predictions, it expected much better of the Italian scientists.
The judges ruled that the seven experts were guilty for their______.
选项 A、failure in gathering accurate evidence
B、flaws in earthquake prediction
C、ignorance of disaster prediction techniques
D、dishonesty in risk communication
答案D
解析 第三段指出，法官们并未苛求地震预测必须完美、精确，而是认为这七位专家不仅未能合理地评估地震预兆，反而明确发表与证据相反的结论。由此可知，七位专家获罪的真正原因在于他们在风险沟通中不够诚实，发表了与证据相反的结论。[D]选项符合文意。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/5GK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)