Talk:Indeterminacy debate in legal theory

Professors not knowing how a judge will rule

I added back this line, which 66.108.189.36 edited out, "Professors can’t award points for the conclusion because they themselves don’t know what the conclusion will be – no one knows how a judge will rule until the judge actually rules."

Isn't it obvious that if the professors knew how judges would rule on a legal question, then they could not award points to students who predict the alternate ruling, or who wrote "Maybe this, or maybe that?"

I agree with 66.108.189.36's other edit, and also recommend 66.108.189.36 register for an account so as to hide his IP (just safer that way.) --Lexisnexis1 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Most law school exams, at least for introductory courses, are designed to test a student's assimilation of the legal doctrine covered in the course at a significant level of generality. Different jurisdictions, however, vary in small ways their applications of the standard doctrine. So a judge in the Northern District of New York might rule differently on the same case as a judge in the District of Massachusetts. Someone who's doing careful research might very well be able to predict these outcomes with certainty using Westlaw or Lexis to look through old decisions handling similar cases. But no one should learn these interjurisdictional variances by heart so as to be able to produce them on the spot later on. Law school exams are an exercise in legal thinking, not legal prediction. That is why law professors design exam questions that are fantastical and difficult. There's no way to draw conclusions from exam practices over the question of whether professors know how judges will decide cases. --70.19.157.159 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

The section beginning "Today there is ubiquitous evidence that the law is largely unpredictable" is highly tendentious, and some of its claims are ridiculous. (For example, the claim that 5-4 Supreme Court decisions show that law is "largely unpredictable" is risible since the Court actively picks the hardest cases where the law is least settled out of the thousands submitted for its consideration.) I'm inclined to remove it entirely, but another option would be to present the best evidence on both sides (as reported by reputable sources, of course). Thoughts? Christopher M (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Christopher M. The section on unpredictability does not address the debate in the philosophy of law over the indeterminacy thesis, and displays no awareness of the scholarly literature. As currently written, it should be removed, but it could be replaced by a more nuanced discussion. 76.195.223.42 (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) (Lawrence B. Solum)

I'm with Christopher M. and Professor Solum. What are the statistics behind these claims? --70.19.157.159 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My take on this page so far

I have found myself dissatisfied with the academese used to discuss this topic in literature on it. I have attempted to break down the issue for ease of interpretability. Also, I am not too interested on anyone's views on what Wikipedia rules should be applied in enhancing the communicability of this topic. I think it's an important legal topic that does not get enough recognition nor critical analysis. Dennis Blewett (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Original research

Though there is a useful bibliography at the bottom, the complete lack of inline citations in the massive amounts of text added since this revision and the admission of the user responsible for adding that text (under an account and various IPs) that his description differs significantly from how those sources discuss it lead me to be quite concerned that this is a very large original research problem. If a better editor than me thinks the current text is rescue-able, great, but otherwise I propose it be reverted back to the May 2022 revision linked above. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, that user's assertion that the original research policy does not apply to him is also not heartening. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not state that the original research policy does not apply to me. Please provide a reference to that argument. I did not state that in relation to the text that I have added to the article that my textual "description differs significantly from how those sources discuss" issues. Please provide a reference to that argument. You are misrepresenting my arguments. Dennis Blewett (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"differs significantly" No, I never argued that my description differs significantly.

From the referenced talk page:

" If you're questioning where I got the idea of "normative indeterminacy," It's from the Kaehler article that I've referenced in the bibliography. I didn't think that it was reasonable to source that matter because he doesn't really describe what normative indeterminacy is, whereby I managed to circumstantially piece together an interpretation of what "normative indeterminacy" is with wikilinks to related topics to prove-up the interpretation of "normative indeterminacy."

Did I state that Kaehler discussed normative indeterminacy?

By "the idea of 'normative indeterminacy,'" I was referring to how I used the term in the wikiarticle. The term was, if I remember correctly, learned from Kaehler's article. If it had been a fact that I was referring to how Kaehler used it, then there should have been a citation to such. There was no citation to such. The reason there was no citation to such was because I considered it to be a legal concept that could have a definition as to what it was based on its parts, namely "normative" and "indeterminacy." I cannot argue that the way I used it was derived from how Kaehler used it because I do not know how Kaehler used it nor meant for it to be used.

Misconstruing someone's argument is not a good thing. Dennis Blewett (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, you fail to see how I proved up the use of "normative indeterminacy" in the wikiarticle. The link to Wikipedia article "indeterminism" laid the foundation for the topic of indeterminism. I categorized "legal doctrines" under "social norms." Now, maybe you want to be a philosopher and reject that categorization: But how far do you want to go with rejecting ideas? To nihilism?

As the topics of social norms were mentioned and that the foundation for indeterminism as a topic had already been laid, those were the referents for the topic of normative indeterminism (if I remember correctly). There was no need to cite Kaehler. Prove that the way I used "normative indeterminacy" came from Kaehler. You will not be able to reasonably do that because it is not a fact that I used "normative indeterminacy" as Kaehler used it. Dennis Blewett (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This talk page goes into further details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.149.204.97 --Dennis Blewett (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• All of this needs to be properly referenced or reverted. As it stands it impossible to work out what is OR and what is not. Considered all the additions challenged for the purposes of WP:V and specifically WP:BURDEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)