Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Legal Reasoning  (Read 167315 times)

gia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #360 on: September 02, 2008, 09:35:31 PM »

The idea that the universe has a rational structure that the mind can apprehend characterizes an older trend in European philosophy called "rationalism." Rationalism traces its roots to Rene Descartes and to the birth of modern philosophy. Most of 20th century European philosophy was a direct reaction to this older tradition, a reactionary attempt to explore the possibility that the universe has no rational structure for the mind to apprehend. Phenomenology, for example, as advocated by Edmund Husserl confines itself to observing and describing our own consciousness without drawing any conclusions regarding causes or connections.


Like cud is regurgitated grass for cows, logic is regurgitated opinion for humans. Whenever and wherever cows belch or dispose, they enrich air and fertilize earth. Whenever and wherever logic burps or disposes, it can and does distroy life. If the situation were reversed, cows would have long-been eradicated for posterity's sake... but logic is not eradicated though posterity be at stake. Instead of looking to visionaries and dreamers, whose eyes see above and beyond known, authority persists in thumbing well-worn logic-pages and recycling ineffective solutions.


Philosophers believe that their theories are produced through a dispassionate, objective and rational process -- a cold, pure divinely unperturbed dialectic -- which they like to contrast with the subjective, unreliable efforts of mystics and others. In reality, however, philosophers' thinking is always preceded by a desire, a prejudice, an inspiration or "desire of the heart" -- that is, an irrational need or belief which they proceed to make abstract and defend with reason.

marshallah

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #361 on: September 03, 2008, 07:52:49 PM »
Is Despina Vandi the woman of your avatar, gia? In her 2001 well-known video Gia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owj8e1A7hsk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoN1QDJkDrU&feature=related

latte

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #362 on: September 03, 2008, 08:54:09 PM »

Conservatives could revel in the most masturbatory boys' book fantasies about a man putting his hand in the fire to see what he's made of. "Air Force One" was as indicative of the poverty of current American political discourse as anything out there. [...]


In fact Harrison Ford (Prez Marshall) gets @ # ! * e d real bad in the movie to let the viewer understand that what he did in Moscow was fundamentally wrong and that America would not hesitate to send such a son of a female dog to his premature, calculated death. The "beauty" of movies, however, is that they lie -- for a reason -- so we see Prez Marshall being actually loved by his administration back in Washington, despite what he did.

Only a fool would not understand what a slick, m o t h er @ # ! * i n g movie Air Force One is.


This movie reminded me very much indeed Chuck Norris's "Delta Force." Complete b u l l * & ^ %.

lust

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #363 on: September 03, 2008, 09:20:41 PM »

Conservatives could revel in the most masturbatory boys' book fantasies about a man putting his hand in the fire to see what he's made of. "Air Force One" was as indicative of the poverty of current American political discourse as anything out there. [...]


In fact Harrison Ford (Prez Marshall) gets @ # ! * e d real bad in the movie to let the viewer understand that what he did in Moscow was fundamentally wrong and that America would not hesitate to send such a son of a female dog to his premature, calculated death. The "beauty" of movies, however, is that they lie -- for a reason -- so we see Prez Marshall being actually loved by his administration back in Washington, despite what he did.

Only a fool would not understand what a slick, m o t h er @ # ! * i n g movie Air Force One is.


This movie reminded me very much indeed Chuck Norris's "Delta Force." Complete b u l l * & ^ %.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYGOXbEZvg&feature=related

happy accident

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #364 on: September 04, 2008, 09:42:41 PM »

Is Despina Vandi the woman of your avatar, gia? In her 2001 well-known video Gia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoN1QDJkDrU&feature=related


marshallah, is this the original video - I mean, I did a simple Google search and all I found was this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt1csFO4pDM&feature=related

As you can see the woman in black is "stolen" at the end by the man on the horse, while your link leaves the woman unmoved, so to speak, by that man. This simple fact attracted my attention because gia's avatar shows them both on the horse.

zet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #365 on: September 05, 2008, 09:09:29 PM »

Is Despina Vandi the woman of your avatar, gia? In her 2001 well-known video Gia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoN1QDJkDrU&feature=related


marshallah, is this the original video - I mean, I did a simple Google search and all I found was this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt1csFO4pDM&feature=related

As you can see the woman in black is "stolen" at the end by the man on the horse, while your link leaves the woman unmoved, so to speak, by that man. This simple fact attracted my attention because gia's avatar shows them both on the horse.


So what the deal is - I mean, is the woman in the Sultan's harem and the man on the horse takes her away? Something along these lines?

le mains sales

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: 'Mother' star goes full frontal for 'Sarah Marshall'
« Reply #366 on: September 05, 2008, 09:49:40 PM »

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


I think this movie has a problem as far as nudity is concerned: well, that's, of course, in accordance with Apatow's 2007 announcement "I'm gonna get a penis in every movie I do from now on." The film shows full-frontal nudity of Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) 3 times in the beginning and once at the end of the film (albeit for only a fraction of a second each time).

wheresmyadude

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
« Reply #367 on: September 06, 2008, 02:15:41 PM »

[...]

Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoning

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf


Before the effect one believes in different causes than one does after the effect.
An artist has no home in Europe except in Paris.

re hear se

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #368 on: September 08, 2008, 07:45:00 PM »

Is Despina Vandi the woman of your avatar, gia? In her 2001 well-known video Gia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoN1QDJkDrU&feature=related


marshallah, is this the original video - I mean, I did a simple Google search and all I found was this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt1csFO4pDM&feature=related

As you can see the woman in black is "stolen" at the end by the man on the horse, while your link leaves the woman unmoved, so to speak, by that man. This simple fact attracted my attention because gia's avatar shows them both on the horse.


So what the deal is - I mean, is the woman in the Sultan's harem and the man on the horse takes her away? Something along these lines?


Here it is an interesting book on the subject:

"Valide" from Barbara Chase-Riboud

In "Valide," Ms. Chase-Riboud returns to those themes, this time against a drastically different backdrop. Exploration of the complex institution of slavery in another culture - the sultan's harem of the Ottoman Empire during the late 18th and early 19th centuries - has prompted some interesting changes in Ms. Chase-Riboud's thinking. Ms. Chase-Riboud's second novel makes a broader and more radical point: love is impossible in a slave society, where absolute power over other human beings poisons all personal relationships and eliminates the possibility of free choice that is at the root of all real love.

"Valide's" story concerns a young woman from Martinique who is captured by pirates in 1781 and sold into the harem of the Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid I. Renamed Naksh-i-dil (Embroidered Tongue), she survives the mortal intrigues of harem life to become Ikbal, the favorite of the Sultan. She bears him a son and is elevated to the rank of Kadine, one of his seven official wives. When that son becomes Sultan in 1807, she gains the position of Valide, the pinnacle of power for a woman in this society: "The Ottomans accepted that a Sultan could have many wives, but he could have only one Empress. Thus the mother of the Sultan occupied the unique place of honor that nothing could alter save death. She was entrusted with the most intimate and private possessions of her son - his women. From slave, she had become master, from prisoner to jailer, from property to absolute despot." 

Those four sentences encapsulate several of Ms. Chase-Riboud's themes - maternity as a woman's principal means to power, the meaninglessness of sexuality in a society where women's bodies are men's absolute possessions, and the paradoxical nature of an empire where monarchs are the sons of slaves and one of those slaves will rise after a lifetime of subjection to rule. Unfortunately, this passage is typical of the book's stilted, unreal prose - though mercifully free of the baroque trimmings that elsewhere threaten to give an essentially serious novel the overheated sensibility of a bad romance. The language in "Valide" seldom lives up to the ideas.

Still, the ideas themselves are provocative. Particularly intriguing is Ms. Chase-Riboud's analysis of the harem, a much more vivid character than any of the book's individuals. We are in a world of sensuality, boredom and futility where women are reduced to the basic functions of sex and childbearing, but the vast majority of the Sultan's female slaves will never even sleep with him, let alone have his child. Power is gained through artifice, manipulation and murder. Slaves can no more love one another than they can their master, because each woman is an enemy in the ceaseless struggle to catch the Sultan's eye.

The rulers are no less crippled by this system than the ruled; the Sultan's sons, locked away in the Prince's Cage to protect them from poisoning, know as little of the outside world as the most ignorant harem inhabitant. Abdulhamid, Naksh-i-dil realizes, "had the mentality of a slave.... He was, as much as she, a prisoner in his own palace." The novel contrasts the self-defeating insularity of the Ottomans with the will to change found in their traditional enemy, Russia, which is shown struggling to face the challenge of the West and modernize under the leadership of Catherine the Great. Naksh-i-dil both admires and hates Catherine, as an example of what women can do with power and a reminder of her own ineffectiveness. "Valide" is so crammed with incident, especially in the second half, that we lose the heroine amid the crowds of subsidiary characters (most not nearly as interesting as their author finds them) and the rapid flow of public events. Ms. Chase-Riboud has clearly thought long and hard about slavery - what it does to the people caught up in it and, more fundamentally, what aspects of human nature its existence expresses - but these thoughts lack a successful fictional context in "Valide." Nonetheless, she has large ambitions and an important subject, both fine things for a novelist. Perhaps in her next book they will be realized more completely.


Teach Me Tiger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Abductive Reasoning as a Way of Worldmaking - Résumé/Abstract
« Reply #369 on: October 07, 2008, 07:44:00 PM »

[...]

Abduction means determining α. It is using the postcondition and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the postcondition (β ∧ R1 ⇒ α).

[...]

- Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of "a entails b" to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Pattern

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.

Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoning

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf


Abductive Reasoning as a Way of Worldmaking

The author deals with the operational core of logic, i.e. its diverse procedures of inference, in order to show that logically false inferences may in fact be right because -- in contrast to logical rationality -- they actually enlarge our knowledge of the world. This does not only mean that logically true inferences say nothing about the world, but also that all our inferences are invented hypotheses the adequacy of which cannot be proved within logic but only pragmatically.

In conclusion the author demonstrates, through the relationship between rule-following and rationality, that it is most irrational to want to exclude the irrational: it may, at times, be most rational to think and infer irrationally. Focussing on the operational aspects of knowing as inferring does away with the hiatus between logic and life, cognition and the world (reality) -- or whatever other dualism one wants to invoke: knowing means inferring, inferring means rule-governed interpreting, interpreting is a constructive, synthetic act, and a construction that proves adequate (viable) in the world of experience, in life, in the praxis of living, is, to the constructivist mind, knowledge.

It is the practice of living which provides the orienting standards for constructivist thinking and its judgments of viability. The question of trüth is replaced by the question of viability, and viability depends on the (right) kind of experiential fit.