Tuesday, December 4, 2007

More on Models and Games

Posted by Jeff Lipshaw

I apologize to Alan (and readers here); I've been guest-blogging over at Concurring Opinions (which just celebrated its 2,000,000th hit), but I thought I'd repeat over here some comments on the article he so kindly highlighted.   

I followed the Larry Solum model of posting a thought piece, and then later a more fulsome exploration of the topic.  In a prior iteration, the thought piece was known as "Aboutness, Thingness. . . ."  The last thing to go was the old title, and the second to last were the first several paragraphs of the old introduction, I suppose because the words are like children, these particWonder ular words had been around since I first put fingers to keyboard, and, if truth be known, I thought they were really clever.  But these are all aspects either of self-deception or unwillingness to make choices, and who of all people inspired me but Katie Holmes (or at least her character in Wonder Boys, Hannah Green) who observed to Michael Douglas (as Grady Tripp) that writing was about making choices and he had made none in the manuscript of his second novel.

The gist of the piece, if I were to put it blog-colloquially, is how some modes of making sense of cause-and-effect, particularly in the realm of human behavior, just plain miss the boat.  In natural science, an example would be trying to explain dog behavior and conditioning at the level of physiology.  That level of explanation might suffice for a physiologist who is interested in measuring muscle contractions at feeding time, but it doesn't tell the microbiologist much, nor does it do much to explain at the level of operant conditioning.  In the social sciences, the distinction would be (courtesy of historian Thomas Haskell), the difference between explanatory cause and attributive cause.  If you ask the thug why he beat the old man, an answer that involves neural pathways and muscular contractions may explain cause and effect at one level, but it doesn't make sense in the same way this answer does:  "because I wanted his wallet full of money."

The part of the piece with which I had the most fun was where I applied the foregoing to the 2003 Yale Law Journal article by Alan Schwartz and Bob Scott on contract interpretation.  In a nutshell (but you will have to read the piece to see why), my claim was that their mode of explanation simply missed the boat in the same explanatory versus attributive way.


Abstracts Highlights - Academic Articles on the Legal Profession | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Models and Games:


Post a comment