March 6, 2012
In an article I wrote a few years ago, Legal Argument and Small-Scale Organization, I pointed out that there is more to case synthesis than rule synthesis: "the rule explanation is an important part of the synthesis." "The rule explanation is also a synthesis of all relevant cases."
Michael D. Murray has written an article, Rule Synthesis and Explanatory Synthesis: A Socratic Dialogue between IREAC and TREAT, that discusses explanatory synthesis in detail.
Abstract: This Article explores the theory and process of explanatory synthesis in comparison to rule synthesis and case-to-case analogical reasoning as a method of demonstrative legal reasoning and analysis and legal rhetoric. The Article takes the form of a Socratic dialogue to discuss the analytical and rhetorical advantages of explanatory synthesis. Explanatory synthesis provides an important option for inductive reasoning and argumentation within the deductive paradigm of legal analysis, and has rhetorical advantages over other forms of analogical reasoning when examined using the tools of modern argument theory and the rhetorical canons of law and economics. "
March 6, 2012 | Permalink