Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:53:23 +0100

From: Ken Oliphant

Subject: Law's (Il)logic

Just following up on Steve's point:

I think the courts (and Holmes) assume that a "logical" inference is one that follows from deductive (eg syllogistic) reasoning, as opposed to inductive reasoning. But, as Steve notes, there's nothing "illogical" about the latter.

Ken Oliphant, Cardiff Law School, Law Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3AX

Tel: 029 2087 5365. Web page: http://www.cf.ac.uk/claws/staff/oliphant.html

>>> "Hedley, Steve" 10/08/06 12:35 PM >>>

I'm puzzled by the example. Lambert JA didn't say that the inference was "logical" - in fact he went to a certain amount of trouble to say that it wasn't. Presumably, he thought the word "inference" could be used to mean simply "a reasoned conclusion" - and the dictionaries agree. (There is also the more specialised meaning of "a conclusion dictated by logic", but that plainly isn't what Lambert meant.)

Calling this "illogical", simply because it isn't dictated by logic, seems to me the same error repeatedly made by Mr Spock (Leonard Nimoy) in a well-known SF TV show. A conclusion is only "illogical" if it conflicts with logic. A conclusion reached without the aid of logic isn't necessarily illogical. And the life of the law, as Ken has just reminded us ...

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>