I don't believe you're engaging in good faith here, so I'm not going to reply any more, but if you're interested in having a productive conversation, try to think about what I might be meaning a little more and then reply instead of taking the least sensical interpretation and responding to that. Or, if you like, you might reply to multiple interpretations of what I said if you're not sure which one I mean, and that way we can advance the dialogue.
Let me sum up the discussion for you. I am arguing that scientists should not be held liable for the consequences of published research that turns out to be wrong (for whatever reasons). That is the status quo.
Now you are saying, introducing liability is fine, as we can deal with that in this or that way. I am pointing out that all of these ways are inherently flawed, to which you respond that yes, this is true, but in other walks of life we are dealing with these things too. To which I am replying, that's fine, but if we don't introduce liability, we will have none of these problems in the first place.
So you see, it is not me who is not engaging properly with the other's argument. So I am happy to finish this discussion as well.
