Comments on: Epistemological Honesty on the Bench

By: John G. Bell

John G. Bell — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:28:10 +0000

When I lived in a housing Co-op back in the late 70s we apprehended a thief taking food from our larder. The police arrived an hour after our call which was unfortunate as the thief tried to escape several times. When we asked the officers why they took their time one of the explained that they had assumed that we would beat the thief, the frats always did, and they didn’t want to witness it.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor notion of judicial activism is so comfortable to her that she is willing to put it on tape. It reminds me of the quote that the law is a very human institution. What we today acknowledge as abuse through repetition and familiarity becomes method in time. In the future all judges of various political beliefs will be activists. One more restraint lost in the dust of history.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:32:38 +0000

The different interpretations lead to the same predictions because we cannot do reversible measurements. If you consider the general case of an observer that can implement arbitrary unitary transformations on a system, then one could verify that the Copenhagen interpretaion is false.

As David Deutsch has pointed out along time ago, you could do a measurement of a system, then forget about the result of the measurement, but not that you have measured the system, and the wavefunction of the system won’t have collapsed (one has to forget by dumping the information back on the measured system). That the wavefunction has not been affected can be verified.

By: Ellipsis

Ellipsis — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:46:53 +0000

Justin — yes, indeed district-level precendent is not of the binding kind on other districts, but it is still regarded as “precedent” of the persuasive variety, assuming that it is in fact reasonable. Although I think Sotomayor is an excellent candidate, and this particular soundbite is just not her at her best, to say district-level opinions are “not precedential” sort of implies they can be ignored, obviously not the case. I know what she means and that’s fine, though.

By: blanton

blanton — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:00:49 +0000

Hmm. I still think that the lack of ambiguity and non-contradictoriness of nature is an experimental phenomenon, not some sort of received truth about nature and science. We believe it to be true because it makes successful predictions, not because ambiguity and contradiction are excluded a priori. That is, “right and wrong answers” *might* not exist in some cases in nature — it is just that we don’t have any compelling case of that actually happening on our hands right now.

By: The Science Pundit

The Science Pundit — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:15:33 +0000

Ambiguity and contradiction are attributes of language and perception. They only exist in the natural world in so much as language and perception are a part of the natural world. You cannot have a liar’s paradox without language and you cannot have an “impossible object” (a la Escher) without perceptions (and expectations).

So science will always have ambiguity and contradiction because scientists must use perception and language to study the natural world. But those things creep in during observation and description and are not a part of the natural world (being studied) per se.

In law and theology, however, that which is being studied and applied exists only in language. So while ambiguity and contradiction will inevitably slip in during interpretation and application, it was also there from the beginning.

In this sense, Sean is right about science versus law and theology.

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:03:43 +0000

@ Ellipsis
Rulings at the trial court level are binding only on that trial court. Other courts may find them to be persuasive, but that is unlikely unless there is no appellate ruling anywhere near point or the author of the opinion is a particularly brilliant jurist.

By: Rob Knop

Rob Knop — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:17:31 +0000

Re: quantum mechanics, there are debates about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. That reflects more of our imperfect understanding of it than it does of any ambiguous nature in the underlying reality, though.

And, even beyond that, people with different interpretations about quantum mechanics agree on what the equations predict for the results of experiments.

By: RD

RD — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:40:36 +0000

Sean you say
“In law and politics … we are supposed to pretend that the text has a One True Meaning”.
Now that is a thoughtless characterization that betrays the simplistic world of science that you inhabit.

There is no One True Meaning. Law and politics are not about revealing Truth, they are a Process to find an optimal solution in the face of competing interests. Of course we try to do this more or less with some consistency, hence the Law and the constitution. Your answer will depend on where you are coming from and it won’t be the same as another person’s answer.

By: 27 May 2009 (am) Back to Politics and all that. « blueollie

27 May 2009 (am) Back to Politics and all that. « blueollie — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:40:42 +0000

[...] on science: a scientist talks about why he is grateful to be in science (where one can just search for “truth”) rather than in a field where the answers ought [...]

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:19:40 +0000

Sad but true. But having empathy and creating policy are specifically forbidden by the constitution! I thought Obama was supposed to be a constitutional lawyer. please…

Supreme Court Oath:

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the POOR AND TO THE RICH , and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”