Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Hopefully_Anonymous comments on Fake Explanations - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 August 2007 09:13PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (84)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Hopefully_Anonymous 21 August 2007 11:11:59AM 1 point [-]

Incidentally, this is an area where legal instruction is superior to scientific instruction at the graduate/pre-thesis level.

Comment author: gwern 02 July 2010 05:50:19AM 3 points [-]

How so?

Comment author: AtreidesOne 29 November 2016 06:09:20AM 0 points [-]

Perhaps due to the presumption of innocence? They are constantly aware that you have to have proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict someone, whereas in other fields we are more likely to assume an answer exists?

Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 27 August 2012 02:26:06PM 3 points [-]

A bit late, but I'd like an answer to this too. I enjoyed talking to law students at college. They clearly have the same sort of minds as mathematicians, except they can also talk like proper humans do, and their problems are interesting. If they have a better way of teaching that sort of thing, maybe someone should try using it for science.

Comment author: Phoenix_Wright 23 December 2012 01:16:16AM 3 points [-]

I think perhaps the reason one would say that legal education is better is that it is understood from the first day that many of the problems that will be posed actually have no answer ("What is justice?" "How can we balance the interests in this scenario?" "What would the reasonable [sic] person do given this dilemma?") and that what is important is the quality of the reasoning you use to come to your answer, not the outcome.

When a well-argued, incorrect answer is scored more highly than a correct answer with no justification, the get-the-gold-star incentive is removed and it improves quality of thought on the matter.

Maybe this person meant something entirely different; I can't claim to speak on their behalf.

Comment author: Desrtopa 09 May 2013 02:34:55PM 2 points [-]

It would be no surprise if legal training turns out clever arguers, but there's a big difference between arguing persuasively and getting the right answer. Training in questions where there is no single right answer may improve students' rhetoric, but I think it's likely to leave them underprepared when they have to weigh in on questions where there is a single right answer, and no amount of argument will make any other answer acceptable.