I'm working on writing a letter to Harvard, and am scrolling through their online course catalog to find classes I can gush about. Unfortunately, the classes that sound the most interesting are the ones about which I am the most suspicious. Consider this:
"Law and Psychology: the Emotions
Love, jealousy, guilt, anger, fear, greed, compassion, hope, and joy play important roles in the lives of lawyers and those with whom they interact. The most effective lawyers are not just good thinkers, they are also empathic students of human emotions. This seminar will offer students a chance to explore what is missing from the traditional law school rational actor model of human nature through discussion of readings primarily from psychology (but with contributions from economics, biology, philosophy, and literature) about the nature and operation of the emotions, the use of emotion in persuasion and negotiation, emotions and the good life, and the role of emotions in moral and legal decision making. Students will be asked to write short papers (1-2 pages) on each week's readings. There will be no required final examination or term paper."
Law can certainly benefit from the insights of economics, psychology, statistics, philosophy, and sociology. In the appropriate fields of law, it also benefits from biology, medicine, computer science and others. I am pleased to see that law school classes take this into account. But I can't help but feel that what classes like this one produce are dilettantes, who draw only the superficial lessons from the fields they dabble in.
I try to be responsible about knowledge. From my brief studies in history and biology, I am acutely aware of how much lurks beneath the surface platitudes of popular versions of these fields (and many others). I try to accept my profound ignorance about basically everything that matters in the world and move on.
Entering a profession where epistemic irresponsibility seems to be par for the course is an unpleasant prospect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On the plus side, the less expert your knowledge in an area is, the less entrenched you might be in your viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteIn theory a superficial knowledge of a wide range of fields is exactly what a lawyer should have, so that you can call upon more expert testimonials and determine what that testimony means and whether or not it sounds plausible. Of course, in order for this theory to work, the lawyer in question has to open to hearing expert opinions that disagree with them, so as long as you hold onto the belief that you're ignorant, you'll be solid.
At least that's my cheery version of things.