4 ms·

You can read the letter linked in the article: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051921_letter.jpg https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021

by yokaze 5y ago

You can read the letter linked in the article: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051921_letter.jpg https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051... It looks to me more the latter: he "helping his son" by "speaking about engineering" is a written report in a court case. Quite a bit of framing

ivan_gammel 5y ago
Court itself can decide what proof of expertise is acceptable. It should not be just a license.
- morelisp 5y ago
  If a court decides HN gets mad and wonders why judges get to determine engineering matters. If an engineering board decides HN gets mad and wonders why engineers have a say in legal matters. You can waffle with "it's not the same part of HN" or something, but honestly it sounds more like a lot of HN just doesn't like anything which might prevent them from offering their opinion in inappropriate contexts, and their mechanism to avoid this is to refuse to let anyone judge the appropriateness of a context. Big "what's next, a license to toast" energy from all this tbh.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    The „HN gets mad“ generalization is a logical fallacy. Maybe somewhere on some subreddit there is a uniform crowd for which generalization and such meta-comments are ok, but here we have plenty of people who have different opinions, express them and may have disagreements: you cannot put a common label and blame for inconsistency, because you do not have a target for it.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      It isn't a logical fallacy. HN has a long history of being against any sort of credentialism. Tell a programmer that he isn't a real engineer in any sense of the word and watch the downvotes flow. Plenty here want titles without effort.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The judge can decide who gets to testify in his own court, but that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    >that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license Yes, according to the current law, which is not serving the needs of society well. If an engineer has been working for many years for a company which was not required to have a license, this is already a sufficient proof of qualification and licensing board should not be able to sanction anyone in such case. On the contrary, they should offer a way to obtain a post-factum license either as a result of exam or based on audit of previously implemented projects, and the cost of such license should not be prohibitive, only covering the reasonable share of the expenses of the board. The purpose of licensing for society is to restrict certain activities only to qualified individuals and businesses to reduce risks of unacceptable damage. This restriction does not imply that a license should be obtained in order to do something, only that there must be a proof of qualification and a license is a sufficient proof. When and how this proof is presented, should not matter, as long as it happens. The law must only create a liability for those people, who cannot present a verifiable proof.
    - kayfox 5y ago
      Its very likely that he could have obtained the Professional Engineer license either while working at these industrial companies or afterwards. He likely did not as it would be an involved process and may require insurance.
JackFr 5y ago
After reading the law, it actually seems to be a clear violation. He is not a party in the court case so presumably his testimony is that of an expert witness. Providing expert testimony as an engineer sounds an awful lot like practicing engineering. He is not licensed and he is not practicing under the aegis of a licensed firm. He's in violation of the law.
ghaff 5y ago
Yeah. The report referenced in that letter seems like the sort of thing that would normally be created or at least signed off by a civil engineering PE. Now, one can stipulate that he was very upfront in the report that he's not a PE and the judge is welcome to judge credibility. But I sort of see where this letter is coming from.

by yokaze 5y ago

ivan_gammel 5y ago

Court itself can decide what proof of expertise is acceptable. It should not be just a license.

morelisp 5y ago
If a court decides HN gets mad and wonders why judges get to determine engineering matters. If an engineering board decides HN gets mad and wonders why engineers have a say in legal matters. You can waffle with "it's not the same part of HN" or something, but honestly it sounds more like a lot of HN just doesn't like anything which might prevent them from offering their opinion in inappropriate contexts, and their mechanism to avoid this is to refuse to let anyone judge the appropriateness of a context. Big "what's next, a license to toast" energy from all this tbh.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  The „HN gets mad“ generalization is a logical fallacy. Maybe somewhere on some subreddit there is a uniform crowd for which generalization and such meta-comments are ok, but here we have plenty of people who have different opinions, express them and may have disagreements: you cannot put a common label and blame for inconsistency, because you do not have a target for it.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    It isn't a logical fallacy. HN has a long history of being against any sort of credentialism. Tell a programmer that he isn't a real engineer in any sense of the word and watch the downvotes flow. Plenty here want titles without effort.
beerandt 5y ago
The judge can decide who gets to testify in his own court, but that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  >that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license Yes, according to the current law, which is not serving the needs of society well. If an engineer has been working for many years for a company which was not required to have a license, this is already a sufficient proof of qualification and licensing board should not be able to sanction anyone in such case. On the contrary, they should offer a way to obtain a post-factum license either as a result of exam or based on audit of previously implemented projects, and the cost of such license should not be prohibitive, only covering the reasonable share of the expenses of the board. The purpose of licensing for society is to restrict certain activities only to qualified individuals and businesses to reduce risks of unacceptable damage. This restriction does not imply that a license should be obtained in order to do something, only that there must be a proof of qualification and a license is a sufficient proof. When and how this proof is presented, should not matter, as long as it happens. The law must only create a liability for those people, who cannot present a verifiable proof.
  - kayfox 5y ago
    Its very likely that he could have obtained the Professional Engineer license either while working at these industrial companies or afterwards. He likely did not as it would be an involved process and may require insurance.

JackFr 5y ago

After reading the law, it actually seems to be a clear violation. He is not a party in the court case so presumably his testimony is that of an expert witness. Providing expert testimony as an engineer sounds an awful lot like practicing engineering. He is not licensed and he is not practicing under the aegis of a licensed firm. He's in violation of the law.

ghaff 5y ago

Yeah. The report referenced in that letter seems like the sort of thing that would normally be created or at least signed off by a civil engineering PE. Now, one can stipulate that he was very upfront in the report that he's not a PE and the judge is welcome to judge credibility. But I sort of see where this letter is coming from.