We've been spending time in discovery, typically the longest pretrial phase. During this phase of the law suit, , the parties involved in the suit have to make certain disclosures about the individuals they intend to call as expert witnesses. That raises the question, "what makes someone an expert?" Two cases that clarify the requirements for expert witness testimony are Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and Kumho Tires v. Carmichael.
The upshot of Daubert is that expert scientific testimony needs to be based on empirical research, following the scientific method. Experts are allowed to share their opinions in court, but they need to have a basis beyond their degree credentials. Kumho extends the Daubert ruling to other technical fields of expertise, like tire inspection and engineering. People with special knowledge can qualify as experts, but they need to show that they base their opinions on recognizable research methods, not just gut knowledge and intuition.
That said, it should go without saying that another person calling you an expert, even if it's your best friend (around 1:30), doesn't make you an expert.
So in the clip above, Mark is correct when he says that he's definitely not an expert. He doesn't understand women, but his statements about them are broad generalizations based on his experiences and observations, not arrived at through a systematic or scientific method of study. The real question, though, is would Tommy Wiseau, director of The Room, qualify as an expert on moviemaking?
No comments:
Post a Comment