Carlos Ramirez

...or would you have needed a PhD for that? It would appear the inaugural post caused some (off-LW) consternation! It would, after all, be a tragedy if the guard in our Chernobyl thought experiment overreacted and just unloaded his Kalashnikov on everyone in the room and the control panels as well. And yet, we must contend with the issue that if the guard had simply deposed the leading expert in the room, perhaps the Chernobyl disaster would have been averted. So the question must be asked: can laymen do anything about expert failures? We shall look at some man-made disasters, starting of course, with Chernobyl itself. Chernobyl One way for problems to surface To restate the thought experiment: the night of the Chernobyl disaster, you are a guard standing outside the control room. You hear increasingly heated bickering and decide to enter and see what's going on, perhaps right as Dyatlov proclaims there is no rule. You, as the guard, would immediately be placed in the position of having to choose to either listen to the technicians, at least the ones who speak up and tell you something is wrong with the reactor and the test must be stopped, or Dyatlov, who tells you nothing is wrong and the test must continue, and to toss the recalcitrant technicians into the infirmary. If you listen to Dyatlov, the Chernobyl disaster unfolds just the same as it did in history. If you listen to the technicians and wind up tossing Dyatlov in the infirmary, what happens? Well, perhaps the technicians manage to fix the reactor. Perhaps they don't. But if they do, they won't get a medal. Powerful interests were invested in that test being completed on that night, and some unintelligible techno-gibberish from the technicians will not necessarily convince them that a disaster was narrowly averted. Heads will roll, and not the guilty ones. This has broader implications that will be addressed later on, but while tossing Dyatlov in the infirm