There are definitely practicing lawyers who are familiar with “the sequences”, not sure about the judges specifically. Whether it makes them better lawyers compared to those who are not, is not at all clear. I also suspect that there would be plenty of disagreement on which direction is a/the positive one.
Whether it makes them better lawyers compared to those who are not, is not at all clear.
I can imagine that for a lawyer, rationalization is a more important skill than rationality. You get rewarded for convincing the judge and jury that your client is right, not for figuring out the truth.
I wonder what are the incentives for judges, though.
There are definitely practicing lawyers who are familiar with “the sequences”, not sure about the judges specifically. Whether it makes them better lawyers compared to those who are not, is not at all clear. I also suspect that there would be plenty of disagreement on which direction is a/the positive one.
I can imagine that for a lawyer, rationalization is a more important skill than rationality. You get rewarded for convincing the judge and jury that your client is right, not for figuring out the truth.
I wonder what are the incentives for judges, though.