My point is that a well referenced synthesis may just be evidence of a lack of creativity.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:49 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Calling Bullshit I can't find the majority opinion. This page implies there should be one: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21a24.html The dissenting opinions are all HTML linked. Maybe I'm just incompetent. Yeah, there's no doubt that the provenance of the artifact (and its content) is also important and might submit to (manual) deconstruction. But at some point AI will eventually do a much better job. The robots will be better postmodernists than we could ever be. On 9/13/21 10:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > If there is an artifact, it makes me wonder what the point of the artifact > practitioner is. Law, medicine, this should all fall to AI. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:20 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Calling Bullshit > > Exactly. EricC's comment on correlations between the originalist-textualist > axis and the liberal-conservative axis ignores the useful idiot, Tool, > aspect. The question is one of whether or not there is such a thing as Ground > Truth. When ACB makes some decision based on some occult perspective, > originalist or pragmatist or whatever, how can she be sure she's not merely a > tool for the conservatives? > > In long-winded, written out justifications, that artifact allows for both > criticism/error-correction *and* postmodern reinterpretation of that > artifact. But with dead-of-night, unsigned rulings, we're no better off than > drunk texting one's ex- ... or "wingin' it" when cutting lumber for your > porch. > > So, here, ACB is demonstrating that she *is* a political hack, by defending > occult decisions, post hoc. And it doesn't really matter what quadrant it > lands on in the 2D space. What matters is the *method*, laid out in bare > artifacts that we can all criticize. > > One of my employees argued, in response to my criticism, that I simply don't > understand his "method" or "process". Well, yeah. Right. Of course I don't > understand your (pretention at a) method or process because I have no > artifacts to either learn from or deconstruct. No artifact = no method. > Similarly, the guy building our porch is doing a fantastic job. But he does > it all in his head ... no design documents ... no drafting ... etc. Do > savants contribute to society? Or are they really just crypto-leeches on > society? ACB can claim to be originalist till the cows come home. But we'll > never know for sure. And she can never know for sure, either. Decades from > now, we'll be able to induce some methods from her written opinions. But not > yet. > -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
