TILLERS ON EVIDENCE
 JURIST >> OPINION >> Blogs >> Tillers on Evidence 

—————————————————————————————
Professor Peter Tillers of Cardozo Law School in New York blogs for JURIST on the latest evidence issues...
—————————————————————————————
Friday, May 13, 2005
Forename, Surname

In her biography of H.L.A. Hart Nicola Lacey refers to Hart as "Herbert." This does not feel quite right to me. Perhaps this is because I want the biographer to distance herself from her formidable subject.

I have reached p. 118. There is a lot of personal detail here. Not all of the details about Hart's life to this point are clearly tied to Hart's intellectual interests. Without that connection, some of the details seem a bit tedious.

I still don't see much tragedy in Hart's life. (He has now gone through WWII and he is contemplating going "up" to Oxford to be a don.) But perhaps the tragedy lies in the future? Further reading will tell. (Or perhaps my benchmark for "tragedy" is different than Lacey's?)

The book jacket states: "To generations of lawyers, H.L.A. Hart is known as the twentieth century's greatest legal philosopher." Question: Does she mean English lawyers? Commonwealth lawyers? U.K., Commonwealth, and American Lawyers? In any event, there are other pretenders to the throne of 20th century legal philosophy. Hans Kelsen is one.

As Lacey recounts the details of Hart's life, she mentions numerous individuals who played a role in Hart's life. I am familiar with many but not all of the names she mentions. I wonder if Lacey gives the reader -- particularly the reader without much knowledge of those times and the intellectual currents in the U.K. and at Oxford --, I wonder if Lacey gives the reader a sufficiently good feel for those times and currents. Thus far my sense is that Lacey gives us (many) hints of what the world was like in those times and places but that her account should have been, in certain respects, more sweeping, and in other respects, more focused. Some of the individuals Lacey mentions are not interesting in their own right and it does not appear that all of them influenced Hart in significant ways. But my judgments here are thoroughly and unforgivably provisional: I have not yet seen the denouement of the very interesting story that Lacey tells.

Posted by Peter Tillers at 11:28 AM
| #


Power Law Degree

What is a "power law degree distribution"? It's not what most of you lawyers, law teachers, and judges think it is. See Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means.

  • N.B. I have no idea if this book is any good.

  • Posted by Peter Tillers at 9:06 AM
    | #

    Thursday, May 12, 2005
    H.L.A. Hart

    I am reading Nicola Lacey's A Life of H.L.A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream (Oxford 2004). So far not much of a nightmare ... but I am only at p. 56.

    Postscript: In his published writings Hart did not mention Hegel -- or, if he did, he did so only in passing. But Hart knew the literature on Hegel very well. Hart really was a remarkable person.

    Posted by Peter Tillers at 10:16 PM
    | #


    Well-Trained Historians

    So President Putin:

    “If the Baltic countries became part of the USSR in 1939, then there is no way we could occupy them in 1941, since they were already part of the Soviet Union,” Putin argued. “Maybe I did not study well at the university because I drank a lot of beer in Soviet times, but I have something left in my head because the history professors were good,” he added.
    ISN Security Watch, May 11, 2005

    Posted by Peter Tillers at 7:47 PM
    | #

    Archive of Tillers on Evidence

    Powered by BloggerPro
    Web commenting by Haloscan

    Would you like to blog for JURIST? JURIST is currently seeking law professors interested in voicing opinions and views in specific subject areas on a regular basis. E-mail JURIST@law.pitt.edu

    JURIST BLOGGER


    Professor Peter Tillers

    "I have practiced a little bit of law -- I worked as a litigator, once in California and once in Texas -- but for most of my professional life I have studied and taught law.

    In the early part of my academic career I dabbled in philosophy, particularly the philosophies of Kant and Hegel. But as I matured, I came to my senses. This explains why during the last 15 years I have devoted much more attention to evidence, inference, and proof in litigation than to German Idealism and similar matters. However, I did not succeed in completely obliterating the influence of philosophy and epistemology on my thinking. Thus, in my effort to understand and explain the process of proof in litigation, I have devoted a great deal of attention to matters such as probability theory and theories of evidence, inference, induction, and proof.


    Peter Tillers is Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University. He revised volumes 1 &1A of Wigmore on Evidence (1983) and is the author of Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence (1988; with E. Green).