Dear David,

You are right. This is not a court of law. Even so, the concept of an
expert witness was a reasonable metaphor. 

The purpose of my post was not to enter the argument itself, but to
ask, “What are the grounds that permit us to speak with up-to-date,
high-level experience in describing a field?” I’m not going to refer
to the specifics of the debate here. Instead, I’ll launch a pendant
thread on the issue of how we judge issues in a debate such as this.
I’ll use your metaphor of Galileo and scientific observation in
research.

To understand a system, we need observations. In Galileo’s case, the
issue was the description of the solar system. The scientist with access
to better observations than those of a predecessor can better describe a
planetary system. Prior to Galileo, there were two chief world systems,
those of Ptolemy and those of Copernicus. A lesser system was also
available and well thought of in some circles, the Tychonean system of
Tycho Brahe. In Tycho’s system, the sun revolved around the earth,
conforming to scripture, while the other planets revolved around the
sun. Available observations provided some evidence for all three
systems. Tycho’s observatories were equipped with the largest and best
mechanical astronomy instruments to that time, permitting observations
of hitherto unequalled precision. Tycho’s observations ultimately
provided Kepler with data leading to three laws that explain the physics
of Copernicus’s heliocentric astronomy. Galileo’s observations based
on the optical telescope added to this foundation. While Galileo’s
defense of the Copernican system led to a run-in with the Church,
Galileo’s fundamental contributions to science involved earthly
physics (mechanics) and engineering.

Two issues come to mind with respect to this thread. First, Galileo was
an acerbic and sarcastic debater. His behavior was often as small-minded
and jealous as his science was great. Galileo had friends and patrons
high in the Church, and they sought to protect him. Galileo’s
collision with the Inquisition – and the way he framed his debate –
accounted for many of his difficulties. Second, Galileo’s based his
scientific views on better instruments than those available to Tycho or
Kepler. Galileo confirmed the Copernican system through better
observations. In fact, Galileo observed and described the solar system
according to Kepler, a system that ran on Kepler’s laws and later on
the laws that Newton built on the foundations Kepler laid.

This brings me back to the thread. When you raised the issue of
authority, I used the metaphor of an expert witness. An expert witness
provides expert testimony to aid the judgment of a court by virtue of
accumulated expertise, direct experience, and research on the subject at
hand. This is like the process we use in scientific debates. There are
two primary differences.

One difference is that some scientific debates take place in
peer-reviewed journals. Several experts review the contribution under
consideration. In thorny questions, editors may ask several experts for
opinions, even teams of experts where different experts handle specific
aspects of the problem.

The other difference is that public debates emerge without peer review.
That’s the case here. Experts offer opinions. Others debate those
opinions. How are we to judge the scientific and theoretical merits of a
contribution to this kind of debate?

In the movies and on television, opposing attorneys use legal inquiry
and logical argument to shape expert witness testimony in a direction
that favors their client. As someone who has been an expert witness in
the courts of two nations, I can say that this is roughly the way it
works. I have not been an expert witness often enough to know how well
Kathy Bates’s experts perform, say, as against the experts that John
Travolta or Robert Duvall tangled with, but I was never involved in
big-time cases. The general principle holds true, though. Expertise
comes down to whether an individual has seen and done enough on the
topic at hand to achieve expertise, and it involves other clear experts
in a field recognizing the expertise of the witness. 

Other factors may come into play. As an expert, I came up against the
same opposing expert in two different cases, a Federal tax case in the
United States, and a libel case in Norway where a journalist and the
national broadcasting company were accused of damaging a business by
revealing economically questionable practices. Both cases were similar
in that they involved the economics of art and the valuation of art
works. Both cases involved the value of fine art prints. In the tax
case, the opposing expert’s role was to reduce the value of the prints
for tax purposes. To do so, the expert attempted to prove that original
signed prints by internationally established artists represented in
major museums had no more value than mass-produced posters. In the libel
case, the opposing expert’s role was to support a questionable art
gallery that had been selling cheap prints as investments. To do so, the
expert tried to prove that signed prints by relatively unknown artists
with no museum representation were investment-grade acquisitions at a
value close to the value of original painting and drawings. To my mind,
the opposing expert was something of a charlatan, renting credentials
and argumentative skill to the highest bidder, much like the sophist
rhetors of classical Greece. The work of the lawyers was to see whose
expertise was soundest, and whether the logic of the specific economic
arguments held up.

On a research list, people don’t rent their skills. They say what
they believe to be so. Despite occasional bouts of grumpiness or a curt
turn of phrase, we generally do so in a reasonable, fair, and friendly
manner. As Michael noted, you can go to any faculty tea-room for an acid
debate. Of course, if you want acid debate, you can also read
Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

Whatever the mood, we engage in debate on a research list. Researchers
debate ideas. It’s part of the job. If we wanted to earn lots of money
for relatively little work and if we did not care about the relative
issues of truth and responsibility in our claims, we’d have been
investment bankers. Or, to be more accurate, those of us with strong
quantitative skills like Terry or Don would have been investment
bankers, while poor fellows like me might have gone into private equity.
As it is, we do care about what is true and reasonable in the issues
that concern us. I’m assuming that the general lack of billionaires on
this list means we prefer to think. We leave it to others to slice and
package strange financial derivatives with nicknames that evoke
technology and Futurist machine-age poetry.

We can all agree that we’re here to think and to think about
research. As researchers, then, most of us know some topics well,
generally a limited range of specializations. Some of us with broader
experience and an interdisciplinary bent know a little more on other
topics. 

The question remains, therefore: “How can we determine the relative
merits of an argument on the subject of debate when most of us know
relatively little on the subject at hand in any given case?”

This is where we get back to Galileo. The answer is observations. The
individual who has made the greatest number of careful observations is
the one who will have the best sense of the topic under consideration.

If we are considering the behavior of engineers in the context of
manufacturing and other engineering disciplines, someone who has worked
at a senior level in two great engineering and technology firms must
clearly know more than someone who has not. Someone who has worked with,
visited, or consulted to several hundred engineering and technology
firms must have a greater level of expertise than someone with lesser
experience. The fact that engineers and technologists in many such firms
engage such a person repeatedly over years and decades suggests that
this engagement involves more than chance. The same holds true with
respect to engineering education. A full professor’s position and an
institute director’s role at the top research university, along with
other professorial roles at similar universities. In both the profession
and the university, high academic and scientific honors testify to the
kinds of expertise that are relevant in discussions on scientific issues
and research.

You and I both agree that sound arguments count. Copernicus’s
argument was good. Kepler’s argument, based on Tycho’s observations,
was better. Galileo’s arguments, supported by the telescope, were
better still – though these arguments confirmed earlier contributions
rather than breaking new ground.

In the debate here, I weighed two arguments. Both were interesting. One
argument seemed better and more plausible. I have some expertise in
judging the quality of the opposing arguments. I, too, have worked in a
manufacturing company driven by engineers, though only for a year as a
visiting artist and designer. I have worked with and consulted to other
manufacturing firms, but with nowhere near the same level of experience
or responsibility that either of the two individuals have whose posts I
was evaluating. I also have a reasonably high level of educational
expertise, and I can evaluate those issues with greater confidence.

Based on my experience, one contributor seemed to describe things in a
way that corresponds better to the world of human affairs. This seemed
to me more persuasive. This was a matter of a good argument.

More than this, however, I had to evaluate the likelihood that one of
the two argument had an anchor in more observations across a greater
range of experiences and a greater range of expert engagement. This goes
to the question of whether those contributions were up-to-date and
accurate. That was the basis of my earlier response to you.

I did not enter the debate to support one person or another. They are
both my friends. I’ve argued with each and I’ve had a beer with
each, sometimes drinking and arguing at the same time. I’ve learned a
great deal from both.

In this case, I was raising an issue: which argument was better? How
could we decide? Here, I point to Galileo: one of the two arguments
rests on more and better observations.

This was not a matter of a CV or a case of argument to authority,
David, even though it may have seemed so. This was an attempt to ask
whether we require real observations to make these kinds of claims. If
the argument had been specious or poorly grounded, or if someone could
show that the observations were irrelevant, it would have been another
story. In this case, all fit together. My point was that the opportunity
for more and better observations relevant to the conversation at hand
offered a reason to consider one argument sounder than the other.

Best regards,

Ken

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

--

David Sless wrote:

--snip--

This is not a court of law, it’s a discussion list about research.
Different rules apply. Ask Gallileo. 


--