But it stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to be addressed as "professor" and all the plaintiff expert witnesses wanted to be addressed as "doctor."
It strikes me that especially when dealing with technical, scientific experts, "Doctor" would usually be considered the title that gives one's positions more wieght that "Professor." But this is, of course, a highly subjective judgment. Stephen Monsma >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/21/05 2:29 PM >>> Not having read the transcript, I don't know how the experts introduced themselves or wanted to be addressed or were addressed by counsel. I suspect that Judge Jones was just following the testimony on this one. In my experience judges always referred to the witnesses as they requested to be referred to. Also, I don't think there is much difference between the two in the mind of most folk. Some professors prefer "Professor" because it is more exclusive set, but some prefer "Dr." because they think it sounds more prestigious and separates them from the non-doctor professors. At Howard University, in most departments Dr. is the typical appellation. Not in the law school though, though we all have J.Ds. So yes, IMO you are reading too much into it. On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Steve Monsma wrote: > I've just finished reading all 139 pages. I will resist > commenting on the > substance of Judge Jones' opinion, but I was struck by one thing. > Without > exception, when referring to the plaintiffs' expert witnesses (such > as Miller > and Padian), he refers to them as Dr. Miller, Dr. Padian or Drs. > Miller and > Padian. When referring to the defendants' expert witnesses (such > as Behe and > Munnich) he refers to them as Professor Behe, Professor Minnich,, > or Professors > Behe and Munnich. (I've checked and both Behe and Minnich have earned > doctorates.) > > Assuming (as I would) that holding a doctorate gives one more > credibility than > simply being a professor at some college or university, is this > consistent use > of titles an indication of a bias on Judge Jones' part? Or am I > reading too > much into this? Is there some more innocent explanation? > > Stephen Monsma > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed > as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages > that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members > can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality." Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
