= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on [LINK] Law Goes Meta - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (5)
I'm not sure I agree. Many legal doctrines, especially procedural doctrines (like jurisdiction), are justified based on knock-on effects. But that is different than recursive analysis.
Or, to use LW terminology, meta != decision-theoretic reasoning.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I was simply making the point that many people don't understand the difference between procedural issues and substantive ones.
Fair enough. I'm just allergic to invocations of "meta" to explain complicated things.
Which is incredibly ironic, given my original post. :)