Discussant's response to some historical auditing milestones; An epistemology of an inexact art;

              Discussant's Response to
Some Historical Auditing Milestones;
An Epistemology of an Inexact Art
Horace G. Barden
Ernst & Ernst, Retired
My initial invitation to participate in this symposium asked if I would under­take
to discuss a paper entitled, "Some Historical Auditing Milestones—How They Got There, What They Portend for the Future." (The authors of the paper subsequently proposed the revised title as it appears herein.) I wondered somewhat about how they happened to extend the invitation to me. I finally concluded they must believe that I am one of the few old practitioners still tottering around who was actually on hand as the profession encountered many of the events in the last forty-five years that are now considered milestones. The organizers of the symposium probably figured that if I had been there at the time these events occurred, I should at least be able to pass on the first part of the question, namely, "How They Got There," and if so, they would take a chance on my viewpoint when it came to distilling what the events portend for the future.
My active interest in accounting began in 1924, and it has been my principal interest since 1927. Accordingly, I was on hand and watching most of the events that Gene Brown and Roger Salquist have listed as historical auditing milestones. I think I can answer some of their questions as to whether they have omitted any important events. I should also be able to clear up some of their uncertainties as to causes underlying certain of the milestone events, their importance at the time, and the resultant influences on the profession.
I don't believe the combined efforts of the authors and myself are going to uncover any hitherto unknown facet of our heritage, or structure any new theory leading to a greater understanding of our present state of affairs. I do believe that our combined efforts might enhance understanding of the past, and give a wider perspective of today's moment in auditing history.
The Problem
I really doubt that I would have undertaken the authors' task by attempting the route of "an epistemological study." I shall admit that I quietly stalked that word "epistemology" for two or three days after my initial shock of finding it in the subtitle of their paper. I finally got up the courage to sneak into the library and pounce on it in an unabridged dictionary. According to the knowl­edge
so recently obtained, I shall attempt to keep my discussion of their paper within a framework of interpreting the milestones in terms of the knowledge to be gained therefrom, its limits, and its validity.
I turn first to the question of whether we are, in fact, dealing with an inexact
12