I knew the General Assembly had meddled in this a few years ago. So I actually opened the supplement to Title 40 and looked at the statute. Sure enough, there it was in black letters. The practice of engineering in this state includes offering “expert technical testimony.” I drafted a reply and cited the statute to display my knowledge and brilliance. Still, there was something else, something nagging at my enfeebled memory. I revised my post so as not to directly answer the question, and hit send.
A few hours later someone more learned and conscientious than I will ever be posted the right answer. (Briefly, the Supreme Court four years ago considered the specific statutory provision I cited, and ruled the legislature could not usurp the court’s power to determine admissibility of evidence under Rule 702.) He was kind enough not to call me out by name for my half-ass answer. And because of his post, the gent who asked the question originally will—I hope—be spared the embarrassment of using my answer in his case.
***
A few years back a reporter named Ron Suskind recounted a conversation with a presidential aide. The aide scornfully characterized Suskind and those of us who think like him as living in a “reality-based community.” More recently, some have accused certain political personalities as “willfully ignorant.” The term struck me as a wonderful insult to use against those with whom I disagreed, and I have done several times. I didn’t really think what it meant. Now I know. Publicly announcing one’s knowledge, without bothering to confirm its truth, is foolishness. Doing so when you know there might be something wrong, is arrogance. Forgive my arrogance and save me from willful ignorance. Amen.

No comments:
Post a Comment