5 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
  2. Jul 2019
    1. I’m reminded of how Greenspan’s observers in the financial industry tended to project all manner of genius onto him simply because he refused to articulate, in any concrete way that involved anything so crass as a narrative, what he was thinking or doing. For market watchers and finance industry savants, Greenspan was a human koan upon which they were expected to puzzle out their own economic enlightenment. If you didn’t get it, you were the idiot. 

      The Alan Greenspan fallacy

  3. May 2019
  4. Apr 2018
    1. Interesting parts on the more manipulative aspects of persuasion. They are not necessarily evil, or fallacious.

      Parts look a lot like a this 2007 article : https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.copyblogger.com/persuasive-writing/

  5. Feb 2014
    1. A CAUTIONARY NOTE Don’t brief the case until you have read it through at least once. Don’t think that because you have found the judge’s best purple prose you have necessarily extracted the essence of the decision. Look for unarticulated premises, logical fallacies, manipulation of the factual record, or distortions of precedent. Then ask, How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law? What does it show about judicial policymaking? Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness? How might it have been better decided?

      Read the case to identify:

      • unarticulated premises
      • logical fallacies
      • manipulation of the factual record
      • distortions of precedent.

      Then ask:

      • How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law?

      • What does it show about judicial policymaking?

      • Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness?

      • How might it have been better decided?