| |
MagicAccordingToFrank 22 - 06 Feb 2008 - Main.DanielButrymowicz
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="TextDiscussionCohenandFrank" |
Eben alluded to us not quite getting the meaning of "magic" according to Frank. Let's use this space to work it out.
-- AdamCarlis - 02 Feb 2008 | | Basically, whether we choose to subject someone to the Ordeals or whether we subject them to a jury trial, there will be an element of human subjecitvity, maybe even magic!!, that we as a society must accept. In fact, I believe that a thorough reading of Frank lends the inference that a bit of magic may be necessary for a functioning legal system. After all, without omnipotent and omnicient judges and juries, how else would we find OJ not guilty?
-- AdamGold? - 05 Feb 2008 | |
> > | In the interest of clarity, here’s an attempt at briefly summarizing our approach to the issues Eben has raised. Please critique/improve this.
Magic is an attempt by primitive man to understand and solve practical problems that cannot be explained by the science he derives from observable/rational means.
“Magic, then, appears to be primitive man’s ways of dealing with specific practical problems when he is in peril or in need, and his strong desires are thwarted because his rational techniques, based upon observation, prove ineffective.” (Frank)
Magic is not antithetical to science. They exist on a spectrum, with problems that can be easily handled by technological/observable means on one end and problems that require a “non-empirical, illusory” approach on the other. (Julia)
- What is the fundamental problem?
The fundamental problem faced by anyone trying to enforce a system of laws is that observable/technological science can’t discern accurately whether people are guilty or innocent.
- How do magic and the ordeal relate to the fundamental problem?
The ordeal is the primitive “magic” solution to the fundamental problem. It relies on divine or magical forces that manifest themselves in a physically observable way to indicate guilt or innocence.
On Julia’s spectrum, the problems posed by a trial are outside the realm governed by non-magic science. A magic solution is necessary.
We still have not fixed the fundamental problem (our technology still can’t accurately separate guilt from innocence). We have, however, jettisoned the ordeal as irrational and replaced it with a serious of constructed rules that, Frank argues, constitute a “non-empirical, illusory” method of determining guilt.
-- DanielButrymowicz - 06 Feb 2008 | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |