This is not that unreasonable. I get the idea that we shouldn't make expertise artificially scarce. I think that's why the industrial exemption they mention exists. If people are practicing engineering in internal facing roles, the org structure should be the first defence against lack of qualifications. But controlling who can represent themselves as an expert to the public is a bit different. It's the same with doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. You could argue in this case that the court could have judged the credibility of the person based on his qualifications etc, but there is still merit in outsourcing that judgement to a licensing board that is on a position to make an informed judgement. It's not perfect, but it's still preferable to "oh yeah, I worked at Dupont for years, i know all about hydraulics, here's my opinion"
> You could argue in this case that the court could have judged the credibility of the person
Yes, I can argue that. Because that's exactly what the court did.
The essay links to a letter from the engineering board's legal counsel, which acknowledges that the courts have different standards. "It is important to understand that it is the determination of the Courts as to what testimony is accepted into court. The Board addresses the practice of engineering issues separate from a court determination of what is admissible in court."
The adversarial court system ("Both sides in the case had retained experts") means that if information presented was incorrect, the other side's expert witness could point it, so the judge doesn't need to depend solely on creditialism.
> there is still merit in outsourcing that judgement to a licensing board
The court does not outsource its judgement to a licensing board!
Consider the madness that might happen if the board can deny certification to those would would challenge the board's engineering guidelines.
Or more specifically, the linked-to Mats Järlström case, where a non-certified engineer challenged the standard traffic light timing calculation, developed a new (better) calculation, described himself accurately as an engineer, and board said he could not talk about the new calculation in public, following their practice of what the courts later described as "history of overzealous enforcement actions".
> oh yeah, I worked at Dupont for years
The argument is more like "oh yeah, I designed piping systems for a living", that is, an expression of expertise in the relevant area, not an assumed expertise by affiliation as your summary implies.
Most licensure boards seem to be just industry protection rackets. The Institute for Justice has a great track record of suing North Carolina and winning. I surmise that will be the outcome here
3 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 19.5 ms ] thread> You could argue in this case that the court could have judged the credibility of the person
Yes, I can argue that. Because that's exactly what the court did.
The essay links to a letter from the engineering board's legal counsel, which acknowledges that the courts have different standards. "It is important to understand that it is the determination of the Courts as to what testimony is accepted into court. The Board addresses the practice of engineering issues separate from a court determination of what is admissible in court."
The adversarial court system ("Both sides in the case had retained experts") means that if information presented was incorrect, the other side's expert witness could point it, so the judge doesn't need to depend solely on creditialism.
> there is still merit in outsourcing that judgement to a licensing board
The court does not outsource its judgement to a licensing board!
Consider the madness that might happen if the board can deny certification to those would would challenge the board's engineering guidelines.
Or more specifically, the linked-to Mats Järlström case, where a non-certified engineer challenged the standard traffic light timing calculation, developed a new (better) calculation, described himself accurately as an engineer, and board said he could not talk about the new calculation in public, following their practice of what the courts later described as "history of overzealous enforcement actions".
> oh yeah, I worked at Dupont for years
The argument is more like "oh yeah, I designed piping systems for a living", that is, an expression of expertise in the relevant area, not an assumed expertise by affiliation as your summary implies.
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
https://ij.org/client/steve-cooksey/
Most licensure boards seem to be just industry protection rackets. The Institute for Justice has a great track record of suing North Carolina and winning. I surmise that will be the outcome here