Scientists are only human after all. An Italian court has convicted six Italian seismologists for failing to predict a recent deadly quake there [1]. There was apparently no jury, and a judge found the six guilty because their earthquake models were contradictory and failed to indicate the imminent threat of an earthquake that occurred. There are widespread fears that if such behavior becomes more widespread that it will create a chilling effect on scientists. If scientists have to fear witch hunts and are treated as false prophets when their broad and vague predictions (based on the current state of scientific knowledge) fail to provide security for ordinary people in earthquake-prone regions, those scientists can be expected to behave cautiously to protect themselves.

Why are scientists even in this position in the first place? Clearly scientists often appreciate the respect they are given for their highly technical knowledge, even if they are unwilling and unable to accept the responsibility of being prophets or having the responsibility of giving warning for the dangers faced by the people in this fallen world. But when scientism seeks to replace religious belief and present itself as the authority in all walks of life, that desire to be seen as the ultimate authority has serious and often unrecognized consequences. If scientists are not prepared to meet the needs of foreknowledge and preparation that people have to feel safer, scientists ought not to be in such a hurry to consider themselves the ultimate authorities of all walks of human existence.

It is not as if the scientists convicted of manslaughter in Italy were obscure ones. They were among the best respected seismologists in Italy, scientists that seem a bit dispirited by their conviction, considering it the worst miscarriage of science in justice in the 1600’s and Galileo’s own problems with the Roman Catholic Church. But there is a sense of ironic justice about this particular problem. Scientists, and those who support the cause of science in public discourse, often go out of their way to ridicule the religious beliefs of the great majority of people in the world. But those same scientists who are so derisive of religion are often instrumental in seeking to make science the dominant faith of cultural elites. This conviction simply shows the consequences of seeking to be an authority in all walks of life. If you aren’t prepared to face those consequences, it would simply be better to limit one’s aspirations to areas where one has competence, and to admit the limitations of one’s expertise.

Science is not the ultimate authority of life. It is a legitimate enterprise that allows for investigation and tentative hypotheses (subject to constant revision in the face of new facts) in certain aspects of mankind’s material existence. Scientists should not be expected to be prophets of natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes. Neither should they consider themselves privileged elites capable of commenting authoritatively on questions of philosophy and theology. They should do their jobs, investigate the material world better, and accept that they are only one of many professions that offer worthwhile research and investigation into human life. We ought to respect and honor their contributions, but that respect and honor has its limits. Scientists are only human, like the rest of us, and that means our knowledge and perspective are quite limited. It is better to accept those limits than end up being treated like false prophets for engaging in behavior that is beyond the competence of any human being alone.

[1] http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/italian-court-convicts-scientists-for-not-predicting-earthquake/