To what sort of teacher do we owe the virtue of observance? One who truly possesses knowledge, especially scientia? Or to anyone who has some measure of "learning," even if that is only the result of memorization? If a "scholar" should be honored for being well-acquainted with the opinions of others (in his study of their works), then why shouldn't a Jeopardy winner be honored for his amassing of trivia? Even if we concede that a scholar as defined above has some measure of perfection that is lacking in the one who is ignorant, should he be given the same honor as the man who possesses widsom or scientia?