The law of the law of interpretation

Posted on June 10, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

William Baude (University of Chicago) and Stephen E. Sachs (Duke University) recently posted on SSRN an important paper titled “The Law of Interpretation.” (How important? Their paper will be published in the Harvard Law Review–that important!) Law professors like Baude and Sachs and their kin have killed millions of trees writing papers and whole books about legal interpretation (the Baude & Sachs paper, for example, is 85 pages and contains 372 footnotes) because interpretation is so central to what courts do in deciding hard cases, especially cases involving constitutional law. Specifically, courts must resort to various theories of interpretation when there are gaps in the law or when the applicable law consists of conflicting rules or legal principles. For their part, Baude and Sachs claim that “legal interpretation … is deeply shaped by preexisting legal rules. These rules tell us what legal materials to read and how to read them. Like other parts of the law, what we call ‘the law of interpretation’ has a claim to guide the actions of judges, officials, and private interpreters — even if it isn’t ideal. We argue that legal interpretive rules are conceptually possible, normatively sensible, and actually part of our legal system.” In other words, the authors claim that there are rules of legal interpretation and that these rules comprise a second-order legal system.

Nevertheless, although we don’t want to be “that guy,” we are obliged to point out a fundamental logical flaw in their argument, a blind spot that destroys their entire theoretical edifice in a single blow. Specifically: what happens when there are gaps in these second-order interpretative rules themselves, or when the rules in this second-order system are themselves in conflict? Is there a third-order law (i.e. a law of the law of interpretation) to help us interpret the second-order interpretation rules, or do we have an infinite regress? (Addendum: we have posted a formal reply to Baude & Sachs on SSRN.)

Credit: Babel’s Dawn

Posted in Law, Logical Fallacies, Philosophy | 8 Comments

Most stolen books

Posted on June 9, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

Posted in Bayesian Reasoning, Cheating, Culture, Economics | Leave a comment

Where do we place our bets?

Posted on June 8, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

Posted in Bayesian Reasoning, Current Affairs, Law, Politics, Racism | 2 Comments

Bayesian models as predictions

Posted on June 7, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

Our friend and colleague Jeremy E.C. Genovese recently brought this short theoretical paper to our attention. The paper, which was written by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Richard D. Morey, and Michael D. Lee, is titled “Bayesian benefits for the pragmatic researcher,” and we strongly recommend it. In brief, their paper explains how we can use Bayesian methods to answer to practical but non-experimental questions that standard statistical methods are unable to answer, e.g. is there any correlation between the box office success and the quality of Adam Sandler movies? What we liked most about the paper, however, is the authors’ Popperian discussion about the role of prediction in Bayesian models. Here is an excerpt (emphasis in original):

For a Bayesian, the crucial task is to specify [his] model generatively, before it has made contact with the observed data. In the other words, the model needs to be specified in such a way that it generates data and thereby makes predictions. Without making predictions, a model cannot be tested in a meaningful way.

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 10.16.56 AM

Credit: Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Richard Morey, and Michael Lee

Posted in Bayesian Reasoning, Probability | Leave a comment

“Respondeat Superior” (the Law of Agency)

Posted on June 6, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

Because of the ubiquity of principal-agent relationships in the business world, we will spend an entire lecture on the law of agency in our next class. Also, although we have been focusing mostly on the founding of Facebook this semester, let’s take a “time out” from social media, and let’s instead consider the fictional world of secret agent #007 James Bond.

In legal terms, Mr Bond works for the British secret intelligence service, known as “MI6” for short. Mr Bond is thus the AGENT, while MI6 is the PRINCIPAL. Whenever we see a principal-agent relationship, an important legal question that often arises is this: When is the principal legally liable for the acts committed by its agents? Under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, the answer depends in large part on whether the principal’s agents are employees or whether they are independent contractors.

Consider, by way of example, the opening car chase sequence in the film “Skyfall,” in which James Bond and fellow secret agent Eve Moneypenny chase some bad guys and appear to inflict various harms against merchants of the Grand Bazaar, a huge market located in Istanbul, Turkey (pictured below), where this car chase sequence takes place. Now, let’s imagine what would happen if the owner of the Grand Bazaar were to sue MI6 in tort on behalf of its merchants for the negligent acts of MI6’s agents James Bond and Eve Moneypenny. Would MI6 be legally liable under the law of agency — specifically, under the doctrine of respondeat superior — for the property damage caused by secret agents Bond and Moneypenny in the course of their mission? To answer this question, we will re-enact a hypothetical legal proceeding in our next class: Grand Bazaar vs. MI6. We will need several student volunteers for this in-class assignment:

  1.  Barrister-at-law* for the Grand Bazaar: Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to argue why MI6, the principal, is legally liable for the torts (property damage) caused by its secret agents James Bond and Eve Moneypenny during the car chase scene in the Grand Bazaar.
  2. Barrister-at-law for MI6: Your mission is to argue why MI6, the principal, is not legally liable for the tortious act of its secret agents James Bond and Eve Moneypenny.
  3. Barrister-at-law for the secret agents: Your mission is to argue why your clients James Bond and Eve Moneypenny did not commit any torts, i.e. are not themselves directly responsible for the property damage that occurred during the car chase.
  4. The Jury: The class as a whole will play the role of the jury.
[*] Note: A barrister is how a trial lawyer is referred to in England.
Posted in Ethics, Law | Leave a comment

The Greatest of All-Time

Posted on June 5, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

In addition to the video below of Muhammad Ali’s greatest moments in the ring, we want to share this loving memory of Ali by our friend and colleague, the poet/writer Luanne Castle. Here is an excerpt:

When I was a little kid, there were two big celebrities whose names swirled around me on a weekly, if not daily, basis: Marilyn Monroe and Cassius Clay … For me, the name Cassius Clay itself was memorable, as was his personality and his reputation. He was a bit of a P.T. Barnum, bellowing and insisting upon attention and admiration. He was talented, and he knew it. He was handsome, and he knew it. He had the “IT” factor, and he knew it. He was also willing to stand up for himself and didn’t hold himself back, furthering civil rights by engendering in my generation the notion that OF COURSE all people should be equal. He did that with his expectations.

Then he converted, changed his name, and avoided the draft–and stirred up even more attention for himself. At that point, he tested the sympathies of middled-aged middle America. But for my generation, he showed that you don’t have to accept things just because the government says it is so. You can fight against what you feel is wrong. He showed that some things are worth fighting for. Whether you agreed or not with his political stance, it was impossible not to recognize that he was a FORCE and a TEACHER. We were young. We were blank slates. We learned so much from him.

Posted in Bayesian Reasoning, Current Affairs, History, Truth | 2 Comments

Math Clock

Posted on June 4, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

Courtesy of Geek Alert (hat tip: who else? Cliff Pickover)

Posted in Culture, Mathematics | 3 Comments

Daniel Dennett’s four rules

Posted on June 3, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

We recently stumbled upon this short post by Maria Popova (“How to criticize with kindness”) explaining philosopher Daniel Dennett’s “four rules” of fair-minded, scholarly criticism. In brief, before you begin to refute or criticize someone else’s ideas, you should do three things first:

  1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
  2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
  3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
  4. [Criticize all you want now.]

In the alternative, here is a much more crisp and concise “Twitter-style” version of these same rules, courtesy of “agmaster” via reddit:

  1. Ensure understanding.
  2. Express info gained.
  3. Note points agreed with.
  4. if needed Criticize.

Thanks Dr Dennett!

 

Posted in Academia, Bayesian Reasoning, Cooperation, Philosophy, Truth | 4 Comments

How couples meet

Posted on June 2, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

Or, to be more precise, how couples who publish their wedding announcements in the New York Times meet. Data scientist Todd W. Schneider built a special-purpose website called Wedding Crunchers that analyzes wedding announcements published in the Sunday Times. His data set now includes more than 63,000 wedding announcements dating back to 1981. Here, however, via Vox, is a smaller breakdown based on the most recent 702 wedding announcements published in the N.Y. Times (since August 23, 2015):

nyt how they met

Credit: Todd Schneider; hat tip: Randy Olson

Posted in Culture, Games, Lotteries, Probability | Leave a comment

Metallica v. Napster

Posted on June 1, 2016 by F. E. Guerra-Pujol

“Napster was the ultimate geek banner, a battle that had been fought by hackers on the biggest stage of all. Ultimately, the hackers had lost, but … it was still the biggest hack in history.”–Ben Mezrich, Accidental Billionaires (Ch. 18)

We are going to focus on Napster in our next class, and we are going to re-enact a preliminary injunction hearing in the case of Metallica v. Napster. In that case, the rock band Metallica sued Napster for copyright infringement, in essence, accusing Napster of allowing its users to steal Metallica’s music. Accordingly, we are going to need four student-volunteers for this activity:

(1) Two students will represent the plaintiff, the rock band Metallica, and so your side will argue why Napster’s file-sharing system is illegal (copyright infringement) and why your client is entitled to an injunction.

(2) The other two students will represent the defendant, the peer-to-peer file-sharing website Napster. Your side will argue why Napster’s file-sharing system constitutes “fair use” under federal copyright law.

Here is some background: Before Sean Parker discovered Facebook, he co-founded a company called Napster, a peer-to-peer file-sharing website that allowed users to share MP3 music files with each other (see image below, courtesy of the website “How Stuff Works”). At the time (1999-2001), Napster was huge. According to Wikipedia, for example, “verified Napster use peaked with 26.4 million users worldwide in February 2001.” By the way, Metallica wasn’t the only plaintiff who sued Napster. The powerful Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) also brought a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against Napster in December 1999, and the RIAA eventually persuaded a court to issue an injunction shutting down the website … But did the court make the correct decision?

Critical thinking question: How is a website like YouTube any different than the old Napster?

Posted in Ethics, Law, Music | 2 Comments