…as exclaimed by counsel – a “wordsmith”, in referring to the practice of law.\u00a0 We were on site where I was taking a\u00a0briefing on\u00a0a problem as\u00a0experienced by the property owner.<\/p>\n
To which I might have\u00a0added in referring to the practice of engineering, “Numbers! Numbers! Numbers!<\/p>\n
The exchange reminded me of a paper I read a few years ago entitled, “The Fundamental Differences Between Science and Law”.\u00a0 It was written by Robert A. Bohrer, both a professor and<\/em> a practitioner of law.<\/p>\n The paper\u00a0appeared in\u00a0the\u00a0book, “Expert Witnessing: Explaining and Understanding Science” (Ref. 1).\u00a0\u00a0It’s\u00a0a very good read, one of the better texts on forensic work that I’ve seen.\u00a0 You’re certain to\u00a0find it interesting<\/p>\n The book was written for “…scientists, engineers, physicians, judges, litigators and those who work in contact with the courts”.\u00a0 It was\u00a0in response to the “…notorious communication problems between science and the courts” as recognized by both. The\u00a0book\u00a0contains papers from 14 noted authors from all walks of life in science, applied science, and law.<\/p>\n In his paper, Professor\u00a0Bohrer attempts to describe the difficulty of incorporating science into legal decision making.\u00a0 He does this by describing the three basic differences between the world of science and the world of law:<\/p>\n I won’t attempt to pr\u00e9cis the paper but “digital” resonates with me – like in “numbers”.\u00a0\u00a0 Engineers measure and quantify things with numbers and use numerical methods to analyse the cause of failures and accidents.<\/p>\n If you can measure it you can manage it. (Ref. 2)\u00a0 And you can measure most things in some way or another.\u00a0\u00a0Including cost control in civil litigation. (Ref. 3)<\/p>\n At its most\u00a0basic an engineer might simply\u00a0“take the measure” of something with an experienced eye – and a tape measure would be nowhere in sight.\u00a0 But not often because we like to measure and test things.<\/p>\n The importance of measurement in science and engineering is echoed in a number of papers in the book.\u00a0 One on epidemiology\u00a0recognizes that, “The concepts of measurement and uncertainty, of error and of chance are fundamental to science”.<\/p>\n “Objective” in the differences\u00a0above also\u00a0jumps out at me, as required of experts by Nova Scotia civil procedure Rule 55.\u00a0 The word does conjure up the idea of measuring and testing (Ref. 4) but also more abstract concepts best described by words and wordsmiths.\u00a0 As such, it’s perhaps a tiny bridge over the communication problems between science and the courts.<\/p>\n References\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n …as exclaimed by counsel – a “wordsmith”, in referring to the practice of law.\u00a0 We were on site where I was taking a\u00a0briefing on\u00a0a problem as\u00a0experienced by the property owner. To which I might have\u00a0added in referring to the practice … Continue reading \n
\n