Update 08-courts-apologia.md

08-courts/08-courts-apologia.md

@@ -12,14 +12,14 @@ Common law attempts to grant the common man a veto over the government's power b
 
 ## What went wrong with common law?
 
-Common law did well to adopt Aristotle's epistemology and acknowledge that only reason based on the evidence of the 5 senses could validly arrive at objective conclusions. It was due to this recognition that the common law constrained the criteria for valid evidence and witness testimony to that which could be directly testified to by the five senses; and the jury was to serve as the independent, unbiased, reasoning mind that took in the facts in evidence and reasoned itself to the verdict.
+Common law did well to adopt Aristotle's epistemology and acknowledge that only reason based on the evidence of the senses and introspection could validly arrive at objective conclusions. It was due to this recognition that the common law constrained the criteria for valid evidence and witness testimony to that which could be directly testified to by the senses and introspection; and the jury was to serve as the independent, unbiased, reasoning mind that took in the facts in evidence and reasoned itself to the verdict.
 
-Considered in this way, we can see that the common law process was *trying* to be a sound, reasoning mind that applied the Aristotelian laws of valid inference to the facts in evidence that were brought forward in order to objectively settle a dispute.
+Considered in this way, we can see that the common law process was *trying* to be a sound, reasoning mind that applied the Aristotelian laws of valid inference to the facts in evidence that were brought forward in order to objectively settle a dispute using the laws of logic.
 
-The ideal for a court process is **not** that a jury of peers should be the final court of appeal. The ideal that common law was striving to arrive at was that Aristotelian reason itself, the law of Identity, the one true arbiter of objectivity, should be the final court of appeal. The common law tried, but failed to implement an Aristotelian reasoning process.
+The ideal for a court process is **not** that a jury of peers should be the final court of appeal. The ideal that common law was striving to arrive at was that Aristotelian reason itself, the **law of Identity**, the one true arbiter of objectivity, should be the final court of appeal. The common law tried, but failed to implement an Aristotelian reasoning process.
 
 Its failure however, was not due to its goal being flawed, but to our knowledge being incomplete. To wit, we know the rules of valid **deductive** inference. Deductive logic has been well understood ever since Aristotle formalized it during his floruit. But deductive reasoning is not all that comprises reasoning: there is also induction. Thus, because we have not yet found a genius philosopher who could formalize and explicate for us the rules of valid inductive generalization, we could not eliminate the bias of individual human judges and juries from the common law process. The trial by jury is the common law's stand-in for a pure, unbiased reasoning court process.
 
-Even at the time of this writing, we still have not yet formalized induction. For this reason, Wellspring will also have to adopt the imperfect common law process with trial by jury - and moreover, we will still have the Achilles' heel of activist judges who will refuse to merely read the constitution as an input, and reason about its contents to draw valid inferences about whether or not a particular law is constitutional, in a originalist fashion, but will instead interpret the text of the constitution to draw the conclusions which their personal politics would prefer.
+Even at the time of this writing, we still have not yet formalized induction. For this reason, `Wellspring` will also have to adopt the imperfect trial by jury process - and moreover, we will still have the Achilles' heel of activist judges who will refuse to merely read the constitution as an input, and reason about its contents to draw valid inferences about whether or not a particular law is constitutional, in a originalist fashion, but will instead interpret the text of the constitution to draw the conclusions which their personal politics would prefer.
 
-But understand that the aspiration goal of an individualist court system is **not** for a jury to be the final appellate authority. Trial by jury is an imperfect substitute for what the true ideal is: that Aristotle's **law of identity** itself -- that pure reason itself -- be the final appellate authority.
+Until such time as we have formalized induction, we will have to continue using trial by jury. But understand that the aspiration goal of an individualist court system is **not** for a jury to be the final appellate authority. Trial by jury is an imperfect substitute for the true ideal: that Aristotle's **law of identity** itself -- pure reason itself -- be the final appellate authority.