This was the exercise that I got more amused to follow, as it was recurring and there are still events occurring related to this case. Even that I couldn’t give a complete answer, firstly because best sources are in Italian and secondly I didn’t know about this tragic event before. I have been following the news and it is exciting to see that 370 years after Galileo Galilei we can still uncover bias and resistance in the reserchers’ world.
Figure out what happened in the event reported in Il Tempo: http://www.iltempo.it/abruzzo/2012/09/25/1365513-sono_morti_frase.shtml?refresh_ce (25 September 2012). What went wrong? What can a Computer Science researcher learn from the experience? What is the role of research method in the described case?
In this case many problems can be found from different points of view. I will focus on the research methods perspective.
In 2009, there was a earthquake in L’Aquilla, Italy and 308 people are reported to have died.
For what I understood, what went wrong is that this scientist predicted one week before that there was strong possibility of an earthquake in L’Aquila. He used new research method based on radium levels to make such predictions. The academics did not accept his predictions for two reasons: earthquakes according to them, can not be predicted and the method the scientist used to make such predictions was not familiar to them.
I can make an analysis from the two sides and learn both from the scientist as well from the academics. From the academics I learnt from what they did wrong. In this case they were working for the method as Erkki told in the lecture. They ignored the results and focused in how they were not familiarized with the method. The lesson here is that we should be open to new research methods and be humble to accept other methods even if they are not in accordance with the ones that we are used to.
The second mistake the academics made is related to the first. They told that earthquakes can not be predicted. I think this affirmation does not have scientific grounds but can be biased. They can not predict earthquakes using the same methods that they have been using for years.
For the other side the scientist gave me positive lessons. He showed that sometimes to make the right predictions we have to adequate our methods. In this case, as told in the lectures, the methods work for him and not the opposite. He didn’t just follow a formula but adequated the research method to draw the right decisions.