Dear David,

This is not an argument from authority. This is expert testimony. Have been called as an expert witness in the courts of several nations, I can explain the process. The court wants to know if a view among competing views or a proposition among competing claims is more likely to be correct than another. The court and jury have no way based on their own experience or expertise to decide among views.  An expert witness is called with respect to the issues at hand.

This is not argument from authority -- the king's seal, the bishop's favor, or an ancient deed of nobility. This is argument from expertise. The biographical details are used to establish the reasons for which one may with to deem the expert expert as against one who is not. It may be used to determine superior expertise. That is the case here. On one side, a professor at several top global research universities and an academician offers opinions on engineering education and on education practice. Numerous engineering awards and work as a senior executive in leading engineering firms substantiate the level and duration of his expertise. Someone who claims these views are out-of-date and simplistic speaks without an equal position in engineering and without the same kinds of experience and credentials. The second person is an expert of some kind, but clearly a lesser expert. 

Once the case begins, both speak. You measure them by their words, but you also measure them by how well those words fit together with the experience they'd have to represent to offer those words credibly. That's why attorneys carefully build the record of expertise before getting to the case --CVs, institutional affiliations, and credentials make a difference. In the case of the expert witness testimony is based on experience. It requires direct experience on many key points. The CVs, institutional affiliations, and credentials demonstrate evidence of that experience and evidence of expertise.

Let it be said, however, that despite Terry's interesting points and counter-arguments, Don and Gunnar offered the most plausible arguments. Nevertheless, I wanted to add that this was not a debate among two designers with similar backgrounds and equally valid opinions about engineering. One is a design educator. The other is a practicing engineer and engineering educator. The former came to design research from an engineering background. The latter is a working engineer at the top of the profession who is acknowledged as a leading educator in both engineering and design.

Again, I'm not in this thread to defend Don. His argument is richer and more robust and he speaks for himself. But I am here to suggest that in debates such as this, an expert witness is of greater value based on experience. It could well be that Terry is right and Don wrong. After, a great many esteemed surgeons disputed Listeur on antiseptic practice. The difference here is that Don is the one who can demonstrate far greater results in advanced practice and designed products in production, as well as a great many works of engineering. Surely, that counts for "evidence and plausible arguments" to support his views.

Best regards,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design

--

David Sless wrote:

--snip--

ken, don et al,

Arguments from authority went down well in some places and some moments in history. Thankfully this is not one of them. Reciting from CVs, institutional affiliations, and credentials is impressive, but hardly convincing.

Can you please provide evidence and plausible arguments instead.

--