Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

ij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 408 posts

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#31

Post by blfr »

morelisp wrote: post #28
blfr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We place similar expectations on legal and medical advice We do and received terrible medical advice during the latest pandemic while people trying to correct it were getting banned from social media. We are also reaping results of decades of terrible dietary advice. The track record for censorship isn't great.

You're right, the unregulated dietary supplements market looks so much better !

You're trying to mock my comment but schizoid posters on twitter pushing their supplements often do have better dietary advice than USDA. The bar set by credentialed experts is so low, people who likely belong in an institution can clear it.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#32

Post by ivan_gammel »

morelisp wrote: post #26
ivan_gammel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 me…

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.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#33

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission (https://www.sunset.texas.gov/). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards about to expire and gives recommendations on if they should be merged, eliminated, etc.

The whole idea is to prevent these little long-running fiefdoms from continuing indefinitely, where board members just become more concerned about their own power than their stated purpose.

People being people it's not perfect, but it does go a long way to cut down on this type of abuse.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#34

Post by brudgers »

the_lonely_road wrote: post #20

What a fascinating case. There are so many details in such a short articles that is each worth its own discussion! Let’s start with my personally theory that hopefully won’t color all of the conversation about the individual points. This guy pissed off some people and those people are using their petty power to make his life hell. It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without issue and then the homeles…

What is engineering other than expressing an opinion?

Engineers are trained to have expert opinions.

They are expected to consider all relevant factors.

In AEC the relevant factors include compliance with relevant laws and rules such as the building codes and all the documents incorporated by reference.

It is a matter of life safety and the regulation of construction is at least as old as the Code of Hammurabi…it predates the first amendment by three millennia.

In that context an unlicensed person holding themselves out as an expert in engineering has disregarded a basic responsibility, they have ignored a relevant legal requirement: their license.

This raises a legitimate concern. What other corners might they have cut for their own benefit?

Because ignoring licensure is to no one’s benefit but the person doing so. It is a violation of the trust people expect when engaging with engineers. The trust that the engineer will be objective in relevant matters.

Licensing engineers is why you don’t worry when you drive across a bridge…or under one. Or go up a tall building or stand next to it. It’s why collapsed bridges are news.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#35

Post by civilized »

prepend wrote: post #29
roenxi wrote: post #3

No opinion on whether this is a new development or not, but needing a license to talk about engineering is really stupid. By far the majority of engineering work is stating the obvious. Even a novice with some calculus background could probably come to the right answer if they had access to the necessary data. Maybe they'd need a little help warming up. Engineers are just more reliable at getting to the obvious answe…

I think the issue is he gave expert testimony. So it’s not just speaking about it, but presenting from a position of authority without qualification. I think the whole expert testimony business is suspect as the definition of “expert” varies so much. But I think the correction is in the law specifying what is expect and not and making that better is the place to focus. It seems like the correction would be to invalid…

> presenting from a position of authority without qualification.

You mean, "presenting from a position of expertise without very specific and questionably relevant credentials demanded by a local regulatory body." His education and career experience are certainly qualifications substantiating his expertise.

From the OP:

> “In this country, we rely on people to decide who they want to listen to rather than relying on the government to decide who gets to speak,” said IJ Attorney Joe Gay. “North Carolina’s engineering board is getting that important principle exactly backwards.”

Amen, brother.

For a state or local entity to curtail First Amendment rights, they must have a compelling interest in doing so. There is very little reason to believe that passing tests administered by the local engineering board actually provides any protective value to the public in a context where the person in question is merely criticizing a design (not building anything) and already has extensive hands-on experience in the subject they are speaking on. It's quite possible that, in cases like this, licensing demands mostly exist for the Board to arrogate power and money to itself. The Board must clear a much higher bar to legally punish people for speech.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#36

Post by chiph »

insaneirish wrote: post #18

I can imagine the Board’s overreach being applied to teaching engineering as well. All my engineering professors certainly had PhDs in engineering (or similar). Yet few if any of them had a PE license. Would they be prohibited from testifying as well? Or what if the Board claims classroom activities are too close to ‘practicing’ engineering for their comfort?

And since this fellow spent probably 30+ years as a practicing engineer, I would think his experience counts for more than someone who got their PE the previous week.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#37

Post by morelisp »

civil_engineer wrote: post #21
clejack wrote: post #5

I first read this and immediately thought it was ridiculous. After a second read, I'm wondering if there is some deception going on. The idea that a license should be required to make advisement on designs impacting the public is reasonable. While nothing is guaranteed, it allows for a simple verification of skills. I find it hard to believe that any engineer would not know this because I was told companies and the g…

If he represented himself as an engineer or engineering expert in a legal proceeding, well, that’s where he may have made a mis-step. Even if it’s on behalf of his son. Maybe, he should have prefaced every sentence with IANAE, but…

The fact it's his son makes it looks even more like testimony from convenience rather than professional consideration.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#38

Post by bob1029 »

umvi wrote: post #23
eru wrote: post #4

I remember discussions here on HN where people were looking forward to regulating software engineering.

Some people want software engineering to be like other engineering disciplines where a PE license and/or union membership is mandatory to practice the trade.

I think you find most of those people do not have any intentions of bringing meaningful value to the engineering disciplines. It's just a business opportunity to them.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#39

Post by ramshanker »

It’s a US thing I believe . In india, I don’t need to obtain any license to sign my Structural Engineering drawings. In my organisation, EIL, a public sector EPC enterprise under Government of India, you become signing authority on drawings with approx 15 years of experience. Thats it. For expert witness in courts, I have heard only Collage Professors considered.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#40

Post by strictfp »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #33

Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission ( https://www.sunset.texas.gov/ ). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards a…

Love this. I also have a silly question; is the sunset commission subject to the same principle?
Post reply on HN