>The terms 'realism' and 'conventionalism' have been used variously. I don't. I see PLATONISM as a realist philosophy of mathematics. On the other hand, Ayer's isn't. In "Language, Truth, and Logic", he does regard things like 2 + 2 = 4 as analytic a priori -- contra Kant who saw it as synthetic a priori. McEvoy constantly mentions the greatness of Popper as 'the best' after Kant, and this may invite as to what Popper thought of the 'synthetic a priori'. Ayer thought it null. > Yes, there are different versions of 'realism' and 'conventionlism' and some are perhaps not that far apart: for example, there is a Wittgensteinian version of 'conventionalism' that is perhaps not very far way from a Popperian version of 'realism' (for Popper's version of 'realism' acknowledges there are many 'conventionalist' elements in knowledge): a main difference is perhaps highly abstract - that Popper would say our knowledge may correspond in a realist or truth-like way to reality as reality is 'in itself' (though this correspondence can never be known or justified, but can only be meta-guessed as part of 'metaphysical realism'), whereas Wittgenstein might view this kind of claim as going beyond anything we can sensibly say or show. The Popperian view of "2 + 2 = 4", its epistemic status, of course raises important issues (as does any philosophical view of it), as important as the Popperian view of "e = mc2". And while Popper's views on science are thought to be well-known, there are important aspects of his view of "e = mc2" that are not well-known - it is well-known that Popper takes "e = mc2" to be falsifiable but it is not well-known how Popper locates "e = mc2" within a framework of 'metaphysical realism'. It is well-known that Popper is a non- even anti-inductivist, but it is not well-known how 'metaphysical realism' is a crucial part of his alternative. While such a discussion might seem a digression in terms of "legal reasoning", not only is it important in itself but I think it is a discussion that might prepare the way to discussing "legal reasoning". But that's perhaps for other posts. Here I'd like to end with a 'realist'-type challenge to anyone, like JLS, who seems to think the two analyses posted of Pilcher do not obviously raise questions of fact with right or wrong answers. Pilcher is either a case based on "constitutional law" or it is not. The tutor claims it is (his claim based, I suggest, on mistaking the court's conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction for the basis of its decision). I claim it is not (and my posts contain many arguments in support). Can JLS explain how both claims can be true? And can JLS, or anyone, explain how the tutor is right by specifying what it is in "constitutional law" that determines the Pilcher result? Bear in mind, lawyers do not get results by making claims about the "law" as an unspecified generality but only by specifiying the "law" they rely on. So: specify. If you cannot, then by any fair standard (which may not be the standard of the dogmatic or the philosopher), you have failed in your claim. And your failure is fairly clear-cut, just as you would understand your lawyer's failure as fairly clear-cut if they claimed to a court "We rely on the law here and ask the court to..." and the court interjected "What law, specifically?" and the lawyer said "None specifically - just the law." Dnl Ldn On Wednesday, 11 December 2013, 15:36, "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote: My last post today, but I thought of bringing in the sophists in. I'm not sure how much deals with them in accounts of legal reasoning, but they should figure large. This statement at the end of the passage quoted below from the Wikipedia entry for "Sophist" should be clear enough: "In addition, Sophists had great impact on the early development of law, as the sophists were the first lawyers in the world. Their status as lawyers was a result of their extremely developed argumentation skills. -- vide: Martin, Richard. "Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom." Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece. New York: Oxford, 1988. 108–130." And of course, if there is a thing as philosophical approach to legal reasoning, the root of it must be found in the philosophers's interactions with the sophists. Oddly, I also read, in Rome, the sophist's role was minimised: "They orated over topics like poetry and public speaking. They did not teach debate or anything that had to do with politics because rhetoric was restrained due to the empirical government’s rules -- vide: McKay, Brett (2010). Classical Rhetoric 101: A Brief History)". Which is a bit ambiguous in that, strictly, the origin of philosophy in Rome can be traced to a famous episode where a group of Greek philosophers argued one day _for_ justice and the next day _against_ it, which the Romans found 'ambiguous'. Cheers, Speranza Fom Wikipedia: "The first sophists prepared Athenian males for public life in the polis by teaching them how to debate through the art of rhetoric. The art of persuasion was the most important thing to have a successful life in the fifth century Athens social commonplace when rhetoric was in its most important stage. The sophists' rhetorical techniques were extremely useful for any young nobleman looking for public office. The societal roles the Sophists filled had important ramifications for the Athenian political system at large. The historical context provides evidence for their considerable influence, as Athens became more and more democratic during the period in which the Sophists were most active." "Athens was a flourishing democracy before the Sophists started their teachings there. The Sophists certainly were not directly responsible for Athenian democracy, but their cultural and psychological contributions played an important role in its growth. They contributed to the new democracy in part by espousing expertise in public deliberation, since this was the foundation of decision-making, which allowed and perhaps required a tolerance of the beliefs of others. This liberal attitude would naturally have precipitated into the Athenian assembly as Sophists acquired increasingly high-powered clients." "Continuous rhetorical training gave the citizens of Athens "the ability to create accounts of communal possibilities through persuasive speech". This was extremely important for the democracy, as it gave disparate and sometimes superficially unattractive views a chance to be heard in the Athenian assembly. In addition, Sophists had great impact on the early development of law, as the sophists were the first lawyers in the world. Their status as lawyers was a result of their extremely developed argumentation skills -- vid: Martin, Richard. "Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom." Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece. New York: Oxford, 1988. 108–130. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html