Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site abnji.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!abnji!jca From: jca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.legal Subject: Re: Jurisprudence and Science Message-ID: <142@abnji.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 07:28:10 EST Article-I.D.: abnji.142 Posted: Fri Jan 4 07:28:10 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 02:36:23 EST References: <750@sjuvax.UUCP> Organization: ATTIS, NJ Lines: 33 Xref: watmath net.flame:7463 net.legal:1196 > Just heard the news this evening. Apparently some court has ruled > against the U.S. Weather Service; holding them liable for - get this, > failure to forecast a storm in which 3 boaters lost their lives. > > This is the height of stupidity. Atmospheric physics is by no means > completely understood. The forecasts are made in terms of probability, > *not* certainty. I understand (though I'm not sure of this) that some > of the problems in weather forecasting are NP hard. > > This essentially displays the utter failure of the legal profession > to deal with and understand technological issues. In fact, judging > from their track record, the legal profession has problems dealing > with *any* issues not pertaining to the legal profession. As a matter > of fact, they haven't dealt with legal ethics very well either. > > Well, what do you think? Do lawyers serve any useful purpose in modern > society? Is their track record pertaining to technological issues > really as abysmal as it looks? > > Regards, > > -- > Binayak Banerjee > {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje > P.S. > Send Flames, I love mail. The Weather Service lost the case not just because of the incorrect prediction, but because they were negligent in replacing an inoperative bouy. I must agree that a suit for bad predicitions is silly, and the decision was silly. How much would the National Enquirer lose if they were sued for the inaccuracies of their predictions???