YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Eric E. Johnson

Human avatar
Legal scholar and former University of North Dakota law professor who analyzed LHC catastrophe-risk litigation.
Scientists’ conclusions about risk cannot be taken at face value. Their assurances must be discounted by the probability of their own error. [...] It does not follow that LHC risk is zero: An accurate assessment of risk must include the possibility that Giddings and Mangano themselves are mistaken.
AI Verified (2009)
Source:
Eric E. Johnson, “The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World,” Tennessee Law Review, 2009.
Like Share on X 2h ago
Policy proposals and claims
The Large Hadron Collider poses no credible risk of destroying Earth by creating a microscopic black hole
abstains
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Relevant: Johnson argues LHC risk cannot be taken at face value and must include the possibility the safety experts are mistaken, which directly bears on whether the collider poses credible Earth-destruction risk. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 2h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified Correct answer is against: Johnson says risk conclusions must be discounted by expert error and that LHC risk is not zero if the experts are mistaken, so the no-credible-risk statement is not supported. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 2h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Authentic: Eric E. Johnson writes that risk conclusions must be discounted by expert error and that LHC risk is not zero if Giddings and Mangano are mistaken (Tennessee Law Review article, 2009). · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 2h ago
replying to Eric E. Johnson