patergentium/wellspring
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update 08-courts-apologia.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
wellspringcp
2020-10-09 12:03:56 +11:00
committed by GitHub
parent 6fb8bbef77
commit ad0ef47924
1 changed files with 0 additions and 2 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
08-courts/08-courts-apologia.md
View File

@@ -22,8 +22,6 @@ The ideal for a court process is **not** that a jury of peers should be the fina
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.
Phrased differently: the jury acts as a substitute for an inductive reasoning engine since we don't have a formal model of induction; but since we have a formalization of deduction, we don't need a substitute deductive engine, so we hold the jury to strict standards on deduction.
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.
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.