Want to make analytic philosophy papers the exemplars of lively and clear prose? Just read some articles from The Harvard Law Review. My own personal experience with lawyers is that most of them know the law as well as a heating & cooling engineer knows the temperature systems of the typical modern building. That being said, heating & cooling engineers don't presume to have insights into the human condition, while many smart lawyers seem to think they do have such general knowledge. Lawyers are the potentates of process, and I give them their due, but they should leave conversations of substance to those who actually know facts which see the light of day outside of the pages of briefs.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
At Uncertain Principles, Chad opines that "research methods" look different on the science-y side of campus than they do for his colleagues in the humanities and social sciences:
When the college revised the general education requirements a few years ago, one of the new courses created had as one…
While the Republican War on Science isn't doing as well as it once was, there still is too much politicization of scienctific results. Commenting on a BBC article about the UCS statement about scientific integrity, Jim at TeachtheFacts.org gives an excellent description of science (italics mine…
Joe Carter is making a curiously convoluted argument. He's trying to get at why the majority of the American public does not accept the theory of evolution, and he's made a ten part list of reasons, which boils down to placing the blame on the critics of intelligent design creationism. We're all…
Life is about choices made in the context of scarcity and constraint. In an ideal world (OK, my ideal world) I would be dictator, and all would do my bidding and satisify most proximate desires. Alas, it doesn't work that way. We all have to jump through hoops to get where we want. Whatever…
Do you mind letting us know about what has stoked your ire?
Do you mind letting us know about what has stoked your ire?
lawyers run this country (e.g., congress). i have acquaintances & friends who are/were lawyers. frankly it scares me to think that smart people who don't know much about the world (aside from law obviously), but can argue about it in a sophisticated manner, call the shots. on a personal level it is kind of irritating talking to prominent yale educated lawyers, they think they are the shit. they have the g-mojo for sure, but they also seem not to know jack (again, excepting the law) in relation to how smart they are, but are pretty unaware of this. so i checked out some law review articles to make sure that i wasn't totally off base.
Lawyers & the courts are worse than Congress -- the latter is at least nominally influenced by the public, sometimes more than nominally.
Be grateful that you live far away from Manhattan or DC! Imagine having to listen to these know-nothing pricks during your daily commute on the metro. Even worse if you're trying to study in an area where law students are prepping for any kind of test -- they're not lawyers just yet, so they overshoot how haughty they're supposed to behave.
so they overshoot how haughty they're supposed to behave.
*shrug* yeah. haughtiness is an issue. but MDs have it too. my main beef with lawyers is their aspiration for public service makes me nervous (a much, much, higher % of my arrogant J.D. acquaintances aspire to this than my M.D. ones).
Then again, there's Bill Frist.
In my experience, lawyers are pretty good at recognizing what they don't know within the law domain. It's interesting that they're not always so good at recognizing what they don't know outside of it. I wonder if the problem lies in the fact that they're smart people (often pretty well read) who're victims of the narrow scope and practical focus of professional school education.
At least they're not economists, though. Economists don't just think they know everything; they actually think they learned it through studying economics.
Then again, there's Bill Frist.
the quantitative comparison is pretty lopsided though.
In my experience, lawyers are pretty good at recognizing what they don't know within the law domain. It's interesting that they're not always so good at recognizing what they don't know outside of it. I wonder if the problem lies in the fact that they're smart people (often pretty well read) who're victims of the narrow scope and practical focus of professional school education.
well, this is kind of true with most 'professions.' robert conquest once said that 'people are always reactionary about what they know best.' whether the details of the sentiment are correct, the general tendency toward precise and coherent conceptualization in one's one domain vs. sloppy reasoning is pretty common.
At least they're not economists, though. Economists don't just think they know everything; they actually think they learned it through studying economics.
sure. though i would offer that quantitative economics at least has something cogent to grasp on to and reject.
in any case, the main beef isn't that lawyers don't know material outside law. it is that they dominate the anglo-saxon ruling caste.
The biggest problem with lawyers might be the lack of science background in general. Here is the class of 2009 at Columbia Law: http://www.law.columbia.edu/jd_applicants/admissions/classprofile?&call…
Less than 10% of the entering class has a science background. In state schools, the number is even lower.
I think scientists make terrific lawyers - able to cut to the chase more efficiently than those trained in the humanities (this is a broad generalization). While most science grads are still not rushing to get into law school, because of the boom in the biotech industry, ensuing patent law issues and bigger bucks, some are.