In a message dated 11/7/2015 4:02:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
just as we can translate the problem-solving approach into the terms of ‘
conceptual analysis’, we can also always translate any explanation in terms
of ‘conceptual analysis’ into explanation in terms of a problem-solving
approach.
I like the second bit of this.
For it might well be that, if the answer to the question in the header,
"can a lawyer be a conceptual analyst?", with 'can' understood as 'may', is
given in the affirmative, the second step, if I understand the above
correctly, is that the lawyer-qua-conceptual-analyst does his job, and it is
possible to 'translate' his job (his 'explanation', in the terminology above)
in
terms of a problem-solving approach.
I think there are two ways to approach this:
(a) at the object-language level: where both 'explanations' remain at the
same level of language.
(b) at the meta-language level: we see the conceptual analyst (now lawyer)
as faced with a problem, and we see his provision of a conceptual analysis
as his attempt at a solution to this problem.
But I'll re-read McEvoy's two latest interesting posts and I may come up
with something more substantial!
And again, thanks to McEvoy for his interesting examples, and attending
commentary.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
