Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
coberst

Are you a rules skeptic?

4 posts in this topic

Are you a rules skeptic?

Justice Scalia is an ardent defender of the virtue of legal rules. He says such rules reduce dramatically any uncertainty and indicate a level of justice by providing “a clear, previously enunciated rule that one can point to in explaining a decision.”

I suspect that the judges’ attitude and understanding of the nature of rules and categories are an important aspect for the large gap that separates the two factions of the Supreme Court.

We commonly judge rules to be categorical (absolute unqualified). Most of us have heard of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. But when you see the sign “No animals allowed on the bus” do you, being a skeptic by nature and a sophomore in Philosophy, start the argument that humans are animals?

Consider the common classroom exposition on syllogisms “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal.” The logic demonstrated in this exposition depends upon the rationalist model of a category. The rationalist model of category, as being confined to that which is “necessary and sufficient”, states that all things that share the property P—as in this case all mortal humans—are in the category; whereas those things that do not share the property P (not-P) are not in the category.

“Rationalist categorization according to common properties conceives of categories as metaphorical containers…The use of the CONTAINER schema to structure the concept “category” (and “concept”) leads to the inference that categories (and concepts) have well-defined boundaries.”

Most categories, however, are not categorical.

“Rules manifest the same flexibility, variability, and sensitivity to context as the categories of which they are composed. Rules, moreover, represent legal categorizations of experience that a community (for its lawmakers) adopts for a reason. As such, they exhibit the dynamic properties characteristic of categorization…”

‘No running in the halls’ is a rule often seen in schools. Running is a graded category, i.e. running might be anything between a ‘sprint’ and a ‘jog’ with no clear demarcation line. When judging a violation of this rule one must make a judgment regarding “the degree of category-extension appropriate to the rule”. The consideration of the purpose of the movement down the hall becomes a factor in deciding the demarcation line.

Can the decision maker make judgments mechanically in such cases? Not so when we add to the case the question ‘can a candidate seeking student counsel office run her campaign in the halls?’ Does the rule “no running in the halls” apply to the candidate running for class office?

Because we know immediately what the context for the rule is, we can easily determine that running in the halls does not apply to the student running for class office.

We can see that one’s comprehension of the proper application of rules is intimately determined by one’s comprehension of both language and how categories are formed.

The individual who thinks that categories can be formalized as “necessary and sufficient” conditions would judge that, in principle, rules operate in the precise and clear categorical manner as conventional understanding thinks. However, those who might believe that language and meaning are indeterminate will also reach the same conclusion.

“The conventional rule formalist will stress the central cases (such as sprinting in the hall) where the rule works perspicuously well. Conversely, the rule skeptic will emphasize the marginal cases (such as the fast walk) and the metaphorical extension (such as running for office) to highlight the indeterminacy of the rule. But each view has hold of a different portion of the elephant and, thus, provides an account that is fatally incomplete in a different way.”

Before I began studying Winter’s book I was a rules skeptic. Now I am somewhere in between that view and hopefully a more sophisticated view once I finish studying this book. This is my first attempt to see the world through the eyes of a legal mind.

Winter has discovered the revolutionary nature of the theories of SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) and is applying those theories to the teaching and practice of law.

Quotes from A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and the Mind by Steven Winter. “Steven L. Winter is the Walter S. Gibbs Professor of Constitutional Law and director of the Center for Legal Studies at Wayne State University Law School.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Back in 6th grade, then in high school and also in college a teacher got from behind there desk, leaned against the front of it and gave indications they were letting there guards down. In the case of the Grade School teacher and the college one they brought the subject up. In a nutshell, Political Science is not a Science, Teaching is. If one sits down and thinks about this, the effect upon a small child of realizing that our ability to survive depends on our ability to compete politically and not necessarily, upon what we know otherwise (it could be offered at this point that we still need people for menial labor). Here is a question who has been taught this and who has not? I took the liberty asking those around me, had they ever been taught the same thing? Some responded in the negative but had learned that ones ability to compete politically was presented as the key to dealing with life.

Law and Politics like Psychology and Philosophy applies many rules and they are very important, but they do not take precedence over the conclusion that Teaching is a Science and as far as our children............

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What is important here is to see how the new theories of cognitive science open up new horizons of comprehension in matters of theory, teaching, and practice.

Winter has discovered the revolutionary nature of the theories of SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) and is applying those theories to the teaching and practice of law.

SGCS has introduced revolutionary theories that will, in time, dramatically change much of traditional Western philosophy.

Edited by coberst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Cognitive Science does sound interesting. My tendency is to consider that someone did something which made much sense when Vatican 1 was converted to Vatican 2, so yes there is much wrong but there also is much right. The problems with how we have abused our environment have started to take its toll as well. It is still very strange how some things have actually occurred.

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.