In Defense of Weird Hypotheticals
Professor Allen (this issue) critiques the value of using “weird” hypotheticals to mine intuitions about legal systems. I respond by supporting the value of “thin” hypotheticals for providing information about how people reason generally, rather than for revealing peoples’ specific answers. I note t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Marcial Pons
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Quaestio Facti |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/22477 |
| _version_ | 1827940429418463232 |
|---|---|
| author | Barbara A Spellman |
| author_facet | Barbara A Spellman |
| author_sort | Barbara A Spellman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Professor Allen (this issue) critiques the value of using “weird” hypotheticals to mine intuitions about legal systems. I respond by supporting the value of “thin” hypotheticals for providing information about how people reason generally, rather than for revealing peoples’ specific answers. I note that because legal systems are the products of many minds thinking about how other minds operate, the object of inquiry is metacognition—that is, understanding how reasoning works. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T09:10:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c7abab719eda4a4290adc1b01ad81d74 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2660-4515 2604-6202 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T09:10:18Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Marcial Pons |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Quaestio Facti |
| spelling | doaj.art-c7abab719eda4a4290adc1b01ad81d742023-05-27T13:24:48ZengMarcial PonsQuaestio Facti2660-45152604-62022021-01-01210.33115/udg_bib/qf.i2.2247722426In Defense of Weird HypotheticalsBarbara A Spellman0University of Virginia School of LawProfessor Allen (this issue) critiques the value of using “weird” hypotheticals to mine intuitions about legal systems. I respond by supporting the value of “thin” hypotheticals for providing information about how people reason generally, rather than for revealing peoples’ specific answers. I note that because legal systems are the products of many minds thinking about how other minds operate, the object of inquiry is metacognition—that is, understanding how reasoning works.https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/22477legal epistemologyreasoningmetacognitionpsychology and law |
| spellingShingle | Barbara A Spellman In Defense of Weird Hypotheticals Quaestio Facti legal epistemology reasoning metacognition psychology and law |
| title | In Defense of Weird Hypotheticals |
| title_full | In Defense of Weird Hypotheticals |
| title_fullStr | In Defense of Weird Hypotheticals |
| title_full_unstemmed | In Defense of Weird Hypotheticals |
| title_short | In Defense of Weird Hypotheticals |
| title_sort | in defense of weird hypotheticals |
| topic | legal epistemology reasoning metacognition psychology and law |
| url | https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/22477 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT barbaraaspellman indefenseofweirdhypotheticals |