Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galacsi
Why big science should not be criticized ? Why big science should not be accountable ?
|
Of course big and little science should be criticized and held accountable. And the LHC has certainly been criticized and examined. At what point do the questions turn from a critical analysis to just questioning for the sake for questioning and holding up progress (I'm not saying that has happened, I'm just asking)? Is there a point where big science can go "We have addressed your concerns, let's move forward"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galacsi
I don't know. There is the notion of risk. Probability not certitude. I think Warren posted about this.
|
First, please name a human activity that has zero risk? I don't think there is one. So the goal of zero risk is unobtainable. So, all one can do is decide what is high risk and what is low, and what is acceptable and what isn't.
Second, risk analysis is a very difficult business. I'm very unconvinced that the risk analysis shown in this thread is even close to correct.
Quote:
|
I think there are things more urgent than to find a new boso(n) ?
|
But that question really has nothing to do with whether the LHC is a danger, just how "we" should spend our money.