Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Legal Reasoning  (Read 171796 times)

probe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #490 on: April 27, 2011, 02:57:40 PM »

Actually 0.999... (infinitely repeating) is equal to 1.  If you don't think so, then find another number that's in between 0.999... and 1.  There aren't any.


beni - not as bad as an idea - but you, too, know you're not quite right! :)

flash player

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: All horses are the same color
« Reply #491 on: April 29, 2011, 04:19:57 PM »




Well, I don't think it's a big deal, 0.9999999999999... is pretty much 1, it's not exactly 1, but it is still very very close to... :)


Hahaha - this is so fuking funny dru!

füle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #492 on: April 29, 2011, 04:40:10 PM »

Genius and creativity are not reserved for the few or the remarkable. Some are not born exceptional, all are. Birds of flight all have wings, cats of prey all have claws...why would the Creator play Advantage-Disadvantage roulette with Co-Creators? Genius is not measured by ability to recall or recant knowledge, but by how far creativity ranges and stretches knowledge, or by shade and degree of variance from principle.

A degree of creative variance can result in significant differences. For instance, but for one or two evolutionary degrees, chimpanzees would be human. How creative are chimpanzees? They can recall knowledge in human-like fashion but cannot communicate...dream...laugh.. .or use thumbs like humans. Often is it stated or lamented that each utilizes but 20% of mind's potential. Perhaps the missing 80 is stored elsewhere. Why not in soul? Afterall, that's the 100% of each that exceeds death.


I understand the point you are trying to make when mentioning the chimps, but don't you think you should have phrased the idea in a rather different way? (it has the potential to mislead the reader in an "unpleasant" way).


I concur :)


:)

Qircom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Crowds of Plain People v. "Experts"
« Reply #493 on: May 02, 2011, 03:38:40 PM »

I do not know in what sense you're saying this, but I take it as too much fuss on the part of legal scholars to formulate "theories" and the like, when in actuality things are settled in practice much easier. There is actually a book called "Wisdom of Crowds," exploring the apparent anomaly that crowds of non-experts seem to be collectively smarter than individual experts or even small groups of experts.

This basic insight is at the heart of contemporary financial investment theory, with its emphasis on the difficulty of outguessing the market. Beginning with British scientist Francis Galton's remarkable discovery in 1906 that a crowd of non-experts proved surprisingly competent at guessing the weight of an ox, financial columnist and author James Surowiecki skillfully recounts experiments, discoveries and anecdotes that demonstrate productive group thinking. The concept does not come as news to anyone reasonably well read in modern financial literature.


There may be something in here, yanno, I don't have time to research the issue a lil' bit, but I am tagging the post to come back at it later on..

mini 6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #494 on: May 10, 2011, 03:50:37 PM »

Why is "the real thing" so important to people? Objects are valued not only for their appearance, but also for their tremendous symbolic power. Any object can have symbolic and visual power. However, only "the real thing" contains the evidence to support its symbolic and visual importance. Evidential, artifactual, value is dependent on the material composition of the object. Reconciling the symbolic, visual, artifactual and evidential value of "the real thing" requires the convergence of stylistic, historical and scientific analysis. Such expertise is often provided by the collaboration of many experts found in museums like the Smithsonian. What do people really see when they look at an object on exhibit, in a book or on-line? What they actually see is a virtual reality, based on the appearance of the real thing. The appearances of objects have tremendous power to alter the course of history and human lives. But mere superficial appearances can be misleading.

Consider, for instance, something as simple as a manuscript. In fact, consider 3 famous manuscripts: "Howard Hughes' Autobiography," "Hitler's Diary," and the Mormon Church's "Salamander Letter." What do these documents have in common? Each had the power to greatly influence issues of legal, historical or religious significance. Each had this power, if, that is, they were "the real thing". But as it turned out, each was actually proven to be fake. The truth however exacted a costly toll, including the loss of human lives. One of history's most extreme cases of forged documents threatened to undermine one of the world's most powerful religions. The case of the "Freeman's Oath" and the "Salamander letter", resulted in the actual loss of life. In the mid-80's, a Utah dealer, Mark Hofmann, presented the Mormon Church with a series of documents, which if real would have greatly embarrassed the Church. As suspicion grew about the authenticity of the documents offered by Hofmann, he began to feel cornered. To protect himself, and provide a diversion, he resorted to murder, engineering the death of 3 people by blowing them up with home-made bombs. He eventually injured himself while transporting new bombs. When arrested, he ultimately confessed that he faked the documents; to make them appear authentic, he used historic paper and ink recipes. He claimed that he even artificially aged the documents by oxidizing them with hydrogen peroxide. This is what lead to his downfall and arrest in the first place. His creations had become suspect when examination, under high powered magnification (such as a stereomicroscope), revealed that the ink's medium of gum arabic was cracking in a strange manner, totally inconsistent with what would happen during "natural" aging.


Here it is a twisted case of this type in this movie



The Ninth Gate (1999) is a neo-noir, mystery thriller about the rare book business, wherein rare-book dealer Dean Corso (Johnny Depp) is hired by bibliophile Boris Balkan (Frank Langella) to validate a 17th-century copy of The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows, by Aristide Torchia, and what he encounters en route.

Hahaha - you are funny, Dolce! I know what ya mean! ;)

emperor.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #495 on: July 10, 2011, 01:51:43 PM »

Genius and creativity are not reserved for the few or the remarkable. Some are not born exceptional, all are. Birds of flight all have wings, cats of prey all have claws...why would the Creator play Advantage-Disadvantage roulette with Co-Creators? Genius is not measured by ability to recall or recant knowledge, but by how far creativity ranges and stretches knowledge, or by shade and degree of variance from principle.

A degree of creative variance can result in significant differences. For instance, but for one or two evolutionary degrees, chimpanzees would be human. How creative are chimpanzees? They can recall knowledge in human-like fashion but cannot communicate...dream...laugh.. .or use thumbs like humans. Often is it stated or lamented that each utilizes but 20% of mind's potential. Perhaps the missing 80 is stored elsewhere. Why not in soul? Afterall, that's the 100% of each that exceeds death.


I understand the point you are trying to make when mentioning the chimps, but don't you think you should have phrased the idea in a rather different way? (it has the potential to mislead the reader in an "unpleasant" way).


I concur :)


Nothing funny, for sure! Although it can be argued that the writer is aware of the "simplicity" of the comparison (so to speak) and s/he is kinda mocking the reader when talking about the "creativity of the chimps," I tend to think that it is sort of an exaggeration to say that genius equals the "degree of variance from principle."


Give voice to the creative individual within, and contribute as born and meant.

Quote
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves,
"Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?"
Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.


Originally from, "Our Deepest Fear," A Return to Love, by Marianne Williamson.


I mean it doesn't have to be that one is necessarily a genius (political genius if you like) just because you think differently from the rest of the population and you may want to make some kind of "revolution." Assuming the writer is trying to establish the power of individuality over the majority, there is nothing *genius* about it - it has been said so many times that power is derived from the consent of the governed, "Government derives power only from the consent of the governed"     

The Declaration of Independence has it that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To me it looks like it's more of a "balls" issue, rather than a "genius" thing.

ex

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #496 on: August 04, 2011, 02:55:08 PM »
Interesting take on the issue, emperor.!

contain

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #497 on: August 05, 2011, 02:05:51 PM »

[...]

I hope you have heard of unicorns. One could believe that unicorns are actual biological phenomena -- that unicorns are real in the same way horses are real. Or one could believe that unicorns are creations of the human mind, imaginary creatures whose characteristics are therefore wholly a product of our assumptions about those same characteristics. Now imagine a social practice that requires persons to act as if they sincerely believe there actually are independent facts of the matter regarding unicorns -- facts not dependent on human beliefs -- and indeed routinely requires these people to assert the existence of such facts. Yet suppose this practice also requires that on certain occasions those who engage in the practice claim no such independent facts concerning the status of unicorns exist because, after all, "everyone knows" unicorns are merely products of the human mind. We could anticipate that many of the participants in this practice will develop a sort of double consciousness about unicorns, one in which they will both affirm and deny -- and in which they will in a sense both believe and not believe -- that unicorns are actual or imaginary creatures, depending on the context in which such affirmation or denial, and belief or absence of belief, is deemed appropriate.

[...]

Such is the ordinary mental condition of the modern American lawyer. The modern lawyer, and especially the modern judge and law professor, must continually practice a sort of "as if" jurisprudence, within the context of which the lawyer both knows and doesn't know that most important legal facts are facts only to the extent we believe them to be legal facts. Various strategies are then employed to deal with the intense cognitive dissonance that characterizes this condition. A common one among practicing lawyers is to simply ignore the dissonance -- to treat it as someone else's problem. That someone is, of course, whatever decision maker is precluded from employing the same cognitive strategy by virtue of the decision maker's decisional responsibilites.

[...]


Case to expand a bit further?

pitchman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
THE INDIVIDUAL, SOCIETY AND THE STATE
« Reply #498 on: September 07, 2011, 01:24:22 AM »

Nothing funny, for sure! Although it can be argued that the writer is aware of the "simplicity" of the comparison (so to speak) and s/he is kinda mocking the reader when talking about the "creativity of the chimps," I tend to think that it is sort of an exaggeration to say that genius equals the "degree of variance from principle."


Give voice to the creative individual within, and contribute as born and meant.

Quote
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves,
"Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?"
Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.


Originally from, "Our Deepest Fear," A Return to Love, by Marianne Williamson.


I mean it doesn't have to be that one is necessarily a genius (political genius if you like) just because you think differently from the rest of the population and you may want to make some kind of "revolution." Assuming the writer is trying to establish the power of individuality over the majority, there is nothing *genius* about it - it has been said so many times that power is derived from the consent of the governed, "Government derives power only from the consent of the governed"     

The Declaration of Independence has it that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To me it looks like it's more of a "balls" issue, rather than a "genius" thing.


Indeed, the individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called "society," or the "nation," which is only a collection of individuals. Man, the individual, has always been and, necessarily is the sole source and motive power of evolution and progress. Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against "society," that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man's greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development. Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges. In other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind.

Emma Goldman maintained that individuality may be described as the consciousness of the individual as to what he is and how he lives. It is inherent in every human being and is a thing of growth. The State and social institutions come and go, but individuality remains and persists. The very essence of individuality is expression; the sense of dignity and independence is the soil wherein it thrives. Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an "individual." The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole.

Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that "rugged individualism" which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as "education." That corrupt and perverse "individualism" is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is "the devil take the hindmost." This "rugged individualism" has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. "Rugged individualism" has meant all the "individualism" for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking "supermen." America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as "unAmerican" and evil in the name of that same individualism.




pitchman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #499 on: September 07, 2011, 01:32:48 AM »
There was a time when the State was unknown. In his natural condition man existed without any State or organized government. People lived as families in small communities; They tilled the soil and practiced the arts and crafts. The individual, and later the family, was the unit of social life where each was free and the equal of his neighbor. Human society then was not a State but an association; a voluntary association for mutual protection and benefit. The elders and more experienced members were the guides and advisers of the people. They helped to manage the affairs of life, not to rule and dominate the individual.

Political government and the State were a much later development, growing out of the desire of the stronger to take advantage of the weaker, of the few against the many. The State, ecclesiastical and secular, served to give an appearance of legality and right to the wrong done by the few to the many. That appearance of right was necessary the easier to rule the people, because no government can exist without the consent of the people, consent open, tacit or assumed. Constitutionalism and democracy are the modern forms of that alleged consent; the consent being inoculated and indoctrinated by what is called "education," at home, in the church, and in every other phase of life. That consent is the belief in authority, in the necessity for it. At its base is the doctrine that man is evil, vicious, and too incompetent to know what is good for him. On this all government and oppression is built. God and the State exist and are supported by this dogma. Yet the State is nothing but a name. It is an abstraction. Like other similar conceptions - nation, race, humanity - it has no organic reality. To call the State an organism shows a diseased tendency to make a fetish of words. The State is a term for the legislative and administrative machinery whereby certain business of the people is transacted, and badly so. There is nothing sacred, holy or mysterious about it. The State has no more conscience or moral mission than a commercial company for working a coal mine or running a railroad.

Life begins and ends with man, the individual. Without him there is no race, no humanity, no State. No, not even "society" is possible without man. It is the individual who lives, breathes and suffers. His development, his advance, has been a continuous struggle against the fetishes of his own creation and particularly so against the "State." It has always been the individual, the man of strong mind and will to liberty, who paved the way for every human advance, for every step toward a freer and better world; in science, philosophy and art, as well as in industry, whose genius rose to the heights, conceiving the "impossible," visualizing its realization and imbuing others with his enthusiasm to work and strive for it. Socially speaking, it was always the prophet, the seer, the idealist, who dreamed of a world more to his heart's desire and who served as the beacon light on the road to greater achievement.

Our political and social scheme cannot afford to tolerate the individual and his constant quest for innovation. In "self-defense" the State therefore suppresses, persecutes, punishes and even deprives the individual of life. It is aided in this by every institution that stands for the preservation of the existing order. It resorts to every form of violence and force, and its efforts are supported by the "moral indignation" of the majority against the heretic, the social dissenter and the political rebel - the majority for centuries drilled in State worship, trained in discipline and obedience and subdued by the awe of authority in the home, the school, the church and the press. The strongest bulwark of authority is uniformity; the least divergence from it is the greatest crime. The wholesale mechanisation of modern life has increased uniformity a thousandfold. It is everywhere present, in habits, tastes, dress, thoughts and ideas. Its most concentrated dullness is "public opinion." Few have the courage to stand out against it. He who refuses to submit is at once labelled "queer," "different," and decried as a disturbing element in the comfortable stagnancy of modern life. Perhaps even more than constituted authority, it is social uniformity and sameness that harass the individual most. His very "uniqueness," "separateness" and "differentiation" make him an alien, not only in his native place, but even in his own home. Often more so than the foreign born who generally falls in with the established.