-
Asked by katieeh to David on 22 Mar 2011 in Categories: Your Research. This question was also asked by taralara.
-
David Pyle answered on 22 Mar 2011:
Great question – this really is the area where communication is all important! I have only been in this position once, so far – but each time in the future I would do the same. I was working on some data from Montserrat (West Indies), in 1997. The volcano went into a dramatic eruption phase where it started to have large explosions every 10 – 15 hours or so. I used the timing of these events to make a best guess, using statistics, of how long we would have to wait after the last explosion, in order to be sure that the explosions had finished: a bit like how long do you wait at a bus stop until you give up! My best guess was about 30 hours. I sent this forecast over to the scientists in the observatory and, sure enough, two days later the explosions finished – and my forecast had worked. I have not yet had any success with warnings before eruptions – but again, my first point of contact would be through the observatory scientists – they would in turn be the people to notify the local politicians, disaster managers and so on. The last thing you want in a crisis is public disagreements between scientists!
-
Comments
katieeh commented on :
cool! 🙂 what do you think the biggest argument has been in science (2 scientists disagreeing on something)?? 😀
David commented on :
Ooh.. I am sure there are bigger arguments, but two spring to mind for me.
A few years ago, I was at a conference in Rome, Italy, and people were talking about what would happen when Vesuvius erupted next. One scientist pointed out that the City of Naples didn’t have an evacuation plan that would work: they didn’t know where people would evacuate to; there would be gridlock on the roads; and that since many of the buildings of the city may have been built illegally (without permission), or not to standard, the ‘risk’ map (of where might be safe) was probably wrong. All of these points were good points, but the scientist had poor presentation skills, and wasn’t very confident. The next speaker was also a scientist, and also the Government Minister for Civil Defeince. He arrived at the building with a police escort, strode on stage in an immaculate suit and dark glasses, and using his personality demolished each of the arguments in turn. He was very convincing, but probably also wrong! This shows one problem with arguments in science – there can be a right and a wrong answer, and the best answer is not necessarily the correct one! The field of volcanology has had some big personalities in it – who have had huge influence. One example of how this led to things going wrong was in the late 1970’s when a volcano on the Caribbean island of Guadelupe started steaming, The senior French Volcanologist of the time, Haroun Tazieff, came in, declared that an eruption was imminent, and a whole city was evacuated. There was no eruption – and the reputation of the scientists was in tatters.
A final, quick, example of a recent argument, relates to the climate change discussions. Again, in France, there are a couple of very senior scientists from outside the field of climate science who have been looking at alternative ideas for the recent trends in global warming. A few years ago, one of them published a paper in a well-read journal proposing the idea that the temperature changes were due to changes in the sun, and not due carbon dioxide changes. In the eyes of the rest of the community these were wild ideas which depended on how you chose which data to plot, and one editor of the journal resigned in protest. I later saw the scientist give the same talk at a conference – again, he was very well dressed, very personable and very confident – but there seemed to be many holes in his argument. Unfortunately, no one in the audience wanted to start trying to take his argument apart – so there were no questions!
So, yes, science is done by people; people have egos, and in the end, most people find it hard to be any other than passionate about their own work, even when it’s wrong. As a result, you have all of the ingredients you need for huge arguments when there’s a scientific disagreement at stake!
katieeh commented on :
also better speakers do normally get you captivated in what they are saying, even if they are speaking complete rubbish!
what do you think about the disagreement over evolution and believing in God (i know this is nothing to do with volcanoes, but it interesting!)?? 🙂
David commented on :
My personal view on the evolution vs. belief in God argument is that it tends to be too polarised, and dominated by the most fervent advocates for one position, or another (rather than having a debate on where there might be common ground). As a result the arguments are often, to my mind, fruitless. Scientists are at least as bad at this as theologians (Richard Dawkins springs to mind here!). Terry Eagleton has written a very thoughtful book on this debate called ‘Reason, Faith, and Revolution’, published by Yale University Press in 2009. It’s not the easiest read, but it’s entertaining and gives plenty of things to think about!
katieeh commented on :
cool. so do you believe in evolution, or God? 😀