HOME NEWS & VIEWS MEETINGS COMMITTEE LAW REPORTS CONTACT LONDON INSTITUTE
Articles
Aristotle and the Experts
Alright, this is not really about Greek philosophy or any film. You all remember Aristotle - he was the guy who tutored Alexander before he became 'the Great'. Anyway, his principle was that any truth could be found by unlimited discussion between two philosophers. This did lead to a flat Earth, with Jerusalem at its centre, around which the universe revolved. However, with a few exceptions, many of whom were branded as heretics, this principle held good for some 2000 years.
Then along came Francis Bacon - well known philosopher and some time Chancellor. He thought that every theory should be proven by experiment before it could be held to be true. He then proved that, if you try to preserve chicken by running outside and stuffing it with snow, you can catch a chill and die.
The purpose of this discourse is that I think Aristotle's principles apply (or should apply) to the meetings of Experts. Provided that their discussion is untrammelled by brief, then they should always arrive at a settlement. True, they may have decided that the Earth is flat but so what. If it has been agreed then it is on the same basis as any fact - it is not (or no-longer) in issue. I also believe that judges are not immune from finding that the Earth is flat or that, on appeal, it becomes bumpy and the House of Lords finally finds that it is actually a hemisphere.
So here is a thought for all parties involved in litigation arbitration (or even adjudication). Why not give more leeway to the Experts and save the concentrated period of expenditure during a hearing/trial?
Peter Horne