fuzzy_logic_and_the_law stork daddy there's a paper to write. 050124 ... . FUZZY SYSTEMS - A TUTORIAL by James F. Brule' (c) Copyright James F. Brule' 1985. Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commerical advantage, the copyright notice and the title and date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the author. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission. INTRODUCTION Fuzzy sytems is an alternative to traditional notions of set membership and logic that has its origins in ancient Greek philosophy, and applications at the leading edge of Artificial Intelligence. Yet, despite its long-standing origins, it is a relatively new field, and as such leaves much room for development. This paper will present the foundations of fuzzy systems, along with some of the more noteworthy objections to its use, with examples drawn from current research in the field of Artificial Intelligence. Ultimately, it will be demonstrated that the use of fuzzy systems makes a viable addition to the field of Artificial Intelligence, and perhaps more generally to formal mathematics as a whole. THE PROBLEM: REAL-WORLD VAGUENESS Natural language abounds with vague and imprecise concepts, such as "Sally is tall," or "It is very hot today." Such statements are difficult to translate into more precise language without losing some of their semantic value: for example, the statement "Sally's height is 152 cm." does not explicitly state that she is tall, and the statement "Sally's height is 1.2 standard deviations about the mean height for women of her age in her culture" is fraught with difficulties: would a woman 1.1999999 standard deviations above the mean be tall? Which culture does Sally belong to, and how is membership in it defined? While it might be argued that such vagueness is an obstacle to clarity of meaning, only the most staunch tradtionalists would hold that there is no loss of richness of meaning when statements such as "Sally is tall" are discarded from a language. Yet this is just what happens when one tries to translate human language into classic logic. Such a loss is not noticed in the development of a payroll program, perhaps, but when one wants to allow for natural language queries, or "knowledge representation" in expert systems, the meanings lost are often those being searched for. For example, when one is designing an expert sstem to mimic the diagnostic powers of a physician, one of the major tasks i to codify the physician's decision-making process. The designer soon learns that the physician's view of the world, despite her dependence upon precise, scientific tests and measurements, incorporates evaluations of symptoms, and relationships between them, in a "fuzzy," intutive manner: deciding how much of a particular medication to administer will have as much to do with the physician's sense of the relative "strength" of the patient's symptoms as it will their height/weight ratio. While some of the decisions and calculations could be done using traditional logic, we will see how fuzzy systems affords a broader, richer field of data and the manipulation of that data than do more traditional methods. HISTORIC FUZZINESS The precision of mathematics owes its success in large part to the efforts of Aristotle and the philosophers who preceded him. In their efforts to devise a concise theory of logic, and later mathematics, the so-called "Laws of Thought" were posited [7]. One of these, the "Law of the Excluded Middle," states that every proposition must either be True or False. Even when Parminedes proposed the first version of this law (around 400 B.C.) there were strong and immediate objections: for example, Heraclitus proposed that things could be simultaneously True and not True. It was Plato who laid the foundation for what would become fuzzy logic, indicating that there was a third region (beyond True and False) where these opposites "tumbled about." Other, more modern philosophers echoed his sentiments, notably Hegel, Marx, and Engels. But it was Lukasiewicz who first proposed a systematic alternative to the bi-valued logic of Aristotle [8]. In the early 1900's, Lukasiewicz described a three-valued logic, along with the mathematics to accompany it. The third value he proposed can best be translated as the term "possible," and he assigned it a numeric value between True and False. Eventually, he proposed an entire notation and axiomatic system from which he hoped to derive modern mathematics. Later, he explored four-valued logics, five-valued logics, and then declared that in principle there was nothing to prevent the derivation of an infinite-valued logic. Lukasiewicz felt that three- and infinite-valued logics were the most intriguing, but he ultimately settled on a four-valued logic because it seemed to be the most easily adaptable to Aristotlean logic. Knuth proposed a three-valued logic similar to Lukasiewicz's, from which he speculated that mathematics would become even more elegant than in traditional Šbi-valued logic. His insight, apparently missed by Lukasiewicz, was to use the integral range [-1, 0 +1] rather than [0, 1, 2]. Nonetheless, this alternative failed to gain acceptance, and has passed into relative obscurity. It was not until relatively recently that the notion of an infinite-valued logic took hold. In 1965 Lotfi A. Zadeh published his seminal work "Fuzzy Sets" ([12], [13]) which described the mathematics of fuzzy set theory, and by extension fuzzy logic. This theory proposed making the membership function (or the values False and True) operate over the range of real numbers [0.0, 1.0]. New operations for the calculus of logic were proposed, and showed to be in principle at least a generalization of classic logic. It is this theory which we will now discuss. BASIC CONCEPTS The notion central to fuzzy systems is that truth values (in fuzzy logic) or membership values (in fuzzy sets) are indicated by a value on the range [0.0, 1.0], with 0.0 representing absolute Falseness and 1.0 representing absolute Truth. For example, let us take the statement: "Jane is old." If Jane's age was 75, we might assign the statement the truth value of 0.80. The statement could be translated into set terminology as follows: "Jane is a member of the set of old people." This statement would be rendered symbolically with fuzzy sets as: mOLD(Jane) = 0.80 where m is the membership function, operating in this case on the fuzzy set of old people, which returns a value between 0.0 and 1.0. At this juncture it is important to point out the distinction between fuzzy systems and probability. Both operate over the same numberic range, and at first glance both have similar values: 0.0 representing False (or non- membership), and 1.0 representing True (or membership). However, there is a distinction to be made between the two statements: The probabilistic approach yields the natural-language statement, "There is an 80% chance that Jane is old," while the fuzzy terminology corresponds to "Jane's degree of membership within the set of old people is 0.80." The semantic difference is significant: the first view supposes that Jane is or is not old (still caught in the Law of the Excluded Middle); it is just that we only have an 80% chance of knowing Šwhich set she is in. By contrast, fuzzy terminology supposes that jane is "more or less" oild, or some other term correspondig to the value of 0.80. Further distinctions arising out of the operations will be noted below. The next step in establishing a complete system of fuzzy logic is to define the operations of EMPTY, EQUAL, COMPLEMENT (NOT), CONTAINMENT, UNION (OR), and INTERSECTION (AND). Before we can do this rigorously, we must state some formal definitions: Definition 1: Let X be some set of objects, with elements noted as x. Thus, X = {x}. Definition 2: A fuzzy set A in X is characterized by a membership function mA(x) which maps each point in X onto the real interval [0.0, 1.0]. As mA(x) approaches 1.0, the "grade of membership" of x in A increases. Definition 3: A is EMPTY iff for all x, mA(x) = 0.0. Definition 4: A = B iff for all x: mA(x) = mB(x) [or, mA = mB]. Definition 5: mA' = 1 - mA. Definition 6: A is CONTAINED in B iff mA = mB. Definition 7: C = A UNION B, where: mC(x) = MAX(mA(x), mB(x)). Definition 8: C = A INTERSECTION B where: mC(x) = MIN(mA(x), mB(x)). It is important to note the last two operations, UNION (OR) and INTERSECTION (AND), which represent the clearest point of departure from a probabilistic theory for sets to fuzzy sets. Operationally, the differences are as follows: For independent events, the probabilistic operation for AND is multiplication, which (it can be argued) is counterintuitive for fuzzy systems. For example, let us presume that x = Bob, S is the fuzzy set of smart people, and T is the fuzzy set of tall people. Then, if mS(x) = 0.90 and uT(x) = 0.90, the probabilistic result would be: mS(x) * mT(x) = 0.81 whereas the fuzzy result would be: Š MIN(uS(x), uT(x)) = 0.90 The probabilistic calculation yields a result that is lower than either of the two initial values, which when viewed as "the chance of knowing" makes good sense. However, in fuzzy terms the two membership functions would read something like "Bob is very smart" and "Bob is very tall." If we presume for the sake of argument that "very" is a stronger term than "quite," and that we would correlate "quite" with the value 0.81, then the semantic difference becomes obvious. The probabilistic calculation would yield the statement If Bob is very smart, and Bob is very tall, then Bob is a quite tall, smart person. The fuzzy calculation, however, would yield If Bob is very smart, and Bob is very tall, then Bob is a very tall, smart person. Another problem arises as we incorporate more factors into our equations (such as the fuzzy set of heavy people, etc.). We find that the ultimate result of a series of AND's approaches 0.0, even if all factors are initially high. Fuzzy theorists argue that this is wrong: that five factors of the value 0.90 (let us say, "very") AND'ed together, should yield a value of 0.90 (again, "very"), not 0.59 (perhaps equivalent to "somewhat"). Similarly, the probabilistic version of A OR B is (A+B - A*B), which approaches 1.0 as additional factors are considered. Fuzzy theorists argue that a sting of low membership grades should not produce a high membership gradel instead, the limit of the resulting membership grade should be the strongest membership value in the collection. Other values have been established by other authors, as have other operations. Baldwin [1] proposes a set of truth value restrictions, such as "unrestricted" (mX = 1.0), "impossible" (mX = 0.0), etc. The skeptical observer will note that the assignement of values to linguistic meanings (such as 0.90 to "very") and vice versa, is a most imprecise operation. Fuzzy systems, it should be noted, kay no claim to establishing a formal procedure for assignments at this level; in fact, the only argument for a particular assignment is its intuitive strength. What fuzzy logic does propose is to establish a formal method of operating on these values, once the primitives have been established. Š HEDGES Another important feature of fuzzy systems is the ability to define "hedges," or modifier of fuzzy values. These operations are provided in an effort to maintain close ties to natural language, and to allow for the generation of fuzzy statements through mathematical calculations. As such, the initial definition of hedges and operations upon them will be quite a subjective process and may vary from one project to another. Nonetheless, the system ultimately derived operates with the same formality as classic logic. The simplest example is in which one transforms the statement "Jane is old" to "Jane is very old." The hedge "very" is usually defined as follows: m"very"A(x) = mA(x)^2 Thus, if mOLD(Jane) = 0.8, then mVERYOLD(Jane) = 0.64. Other common hedges are "more or less" [typically SQRT(mA(x))], "somewhat," "rather," "sort of," and so on. Again, their definition is entirely subjective, but their operation is consistent: they serve to transform membership/truth values in a systematic manner according to standard mathematical functions. A more involved approach to hedges is best shown through the work of Wenstop [11] in his attempt to model organizational behavior. For his study, he constructed arrays of values for various terms, either as vectors or matrices. Each term and hedge was represented as a 7-element vector or 7x7 matrix. He ten intuitively assigned each element of every vector and matrix a value between 0.0 and 1.0, inclusive, in what he hoped was intuitively a consistent manner. For example, the term "high" was assigned the vector 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.0 and "low" was set equal to the reverse of "high," or 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Wenstop was then able to combne groupings of fuzzy statements to create new fuzzy statements, using the APL function of Max-Min matrix multiplication. These values were then translated back into natural language statements, so Šas to allow fuzzy statements as both input to and output from his simulator. For example, when the program was asked to generate a label "lower than sortof low," it returned "very low;" "(slightly higher) than low" yielded "rather low," etc. The point of this example is to note that algorithmic procedures can be devised which translate "fuzzy" terminology into numeric values, perform reliable operations upon those values, and then return natural language statements in a reliable manner. Similar techniques have been adopted by others, primarily in the study of fuzzy systems as applicable to linguistic approximation (e.g. [2], [3], [4]). APL appears to be the language of choice, owing to its flexibility and power in matrix operations. OBJECTIONS It would be remarkable if a theory as far-reaching as fuzzy systems did not arouse some objections in the professional community. While there have been generic complaints about the "fuzziness" of the process of assigning values to linguistic terms, perhaps the most cogent criticisms come from Haack [6]. A formal logician, Haack argues that there are only two ares in which fuzzy logic could possibly be semonstrated to be "needed," and then maintains that in each case it can be shown that fuzzy logic is not necessary. The first area Haack defines is that of the nature of Truth and Falsity: if it could be shown, she maintains, that these are fuzzy values and not discrete ones, then a need for fuzzy logic would have been demonstrated. The other area she identifies is that of fuzzy systems' utility: if it could be demonstrated that generalizing classic logic to encompass fuzzy logic would aid in calculations of a given sort, then again a need for fuzzy logic would exist. In regards to the first statement, Haack argues that True and False are discrete terms. For example, "The sky is blue" is either true or false; any fuzziness to the statement arises from an imprecise definition of terms, not out of the nature of Truth. As far as fuzzy systems' utility is concerned, she maintains that no area of data manipulation is made easier through the introduction of fuzzy calculus; if anything, she says, the calculations become more complex. Therefore, she asserts, fuzzy logic is unnecessary. Fox [5] has responded to her objetions, indicating that there are three areas in which fuzzy logic can be of benefit: as a "requisite" apparatus (to describe real-world relationships which are inherently fuzzy); as a "prescriptive" apparatus (because some data is fuzzy, and therefore requires a fuzzy calculus); and as a "descriptive" apparatus (because some inferencing systems are inherently fuzzy). Š His most powerful arguments come, however, from the notion that fuzzy and classic logics need not be seen as competitive, but complementary. He argues that many of Haack's objections stem from a lack of semantic clarity, and that ultimately fuzzy statements may be translatable into phrases which classical logicians would find palatable. Lastly, Fox argues that despite the objections of classical logicians, fuzzy logic has found its way into the world of practical applications, and has proved very successful there. He maintains, pragmatically, that this is sufficient reason for continuing to develop the field. APPLICATIONS Areas in which fuzzy logic has been successfully applied are often quite concrete. The first major commercial application was in the area of cement kiln control, an operation which requires that an operator monitor four internal states of the kiln, control four sets of operations, and dynamically manage 40 or 50 "rules of thumb" about their interrelationships, all with the goal of controlling a highly complex set of chemical interactions. One such rule is "If the oxygen percentage is rather high and the free-lime and kiln- drive torque rate is normal, decrease the flow of gas and slightly reduce the fuel rate" (see Zadeh [14]). A complete accounting of this very successful system can be found in Umbers and King [10]. The objection has been raised that utilizing fuzzy systems in a dynamic control environment raises the likelihood of encountering difficult stability problems: since in control conditions the use of fuzzy systems can roughly correspond to using threshholds, there must be significant care taken to insure that oscillations do not develop in the "dead spaces" between threshhold triggers. This seems to be an important area for future research. Other applications which have benefited through the use of fuzzy systems theory have been information retrieval systems, a navigation system for automatic cars, a predictive fuzzy-logic controller for automatic operation of trains, laboratory water level controllers, controllers for robot arc-welders, feature-definition controllers for robot vision, graphics controllers for automated police sketchers, and more. Expert systems have been the most obvious recipients of the benefits of fuzzy logic, since their domain is often inherently fuzzy. Examples of expert systems with fuzzy logic central to their control are decision-support systems, financial planners, diagnostic systems for determining soybean pathology, and a meterological expert system in China for determining areas in which to establish rubber tree orchards [14]. Another area of application, akin to expert systems, is that of information retrieval [9]. Š CONCLUSIONS Fuzzy systems, including fuzzy logic and fuzzy set theory, provide a rich and meaningful addition to standard logic. The mathematics generated by these theories is consistent, and fuzzy logic may be a generalization of classic logic. The applications which may be generated from or adapted to fuzzy logic are wide-ranging, and provide the opportunity for modeling of conditions which are inherently imprecisely defined, despite the concerns of classical logicians. Many systems may be modeled, simulated, and even replicated with the help of fuzzy systems, not the least of which is human reasoning itself. REFERENCES [1] J.F. Baldwin, "Fuzzy logic and fuzzy reasoning," in Fuzzy Reasoning and Its Applications, E.H. Mamdani and B.R. Gaines (eds.), London: Academic Press, 1981. [2] W. Bandler and L.J. Kohout, "Semantics of implication operators and fuzzy relational products," in Fuzzy Reasoning and Its Applications, E.H. Mamdani and B.R. Gaines (eds.), London: Academic Press, 1981. [3] M. Eschbach and J. Cunnyngham, "The logic of fuzzy Bayesian influence," paper presented at the International Fuzzy Systems Association Symposium of Fuzzy information Processing in Artificial Intelligence and Operational Research, Cambridge, England: 1984. [4] F. Esragh and E.H. Mamdani, "A general approach to linguistic approximation," in Fuzzy Reasoning and Its Applications, E.H. Mamdani and B.R. Gaines (eds.), London: Academic Press, 1981. [5] J. Fox, "Towards a reconciliation of fuzzy logic and standard logic," Int. Jrnl. of Man-Mach. Stud., Vol. 15, 1981, pp. 213-220. [6] S. Haack, "Do we need fuzzy logic?" Int. Jrnl. of Man-Mach. Stud., Vol. 11, 1979, pp.437-445. [7] S. Korner, "Laws of thought," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 4, MacMillan, NY: 1967, pp. 414-417. [8] C. Lejewski, "Jan Lukasiewicz," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 5, MacMillan, NY: 1967, pp. 104-107. Š [9] T. Radecki, "An evaluation of the fuzzy set theory approach to information retrieval," in R. Trappl, N.V. Findler, and W. Horn, Progress in Cybernetics and System Research, Vol. 11: Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Hemisphere Publ. Co., NY: 1982. [10] I.G. Umbers and P.J. King, "An analysis of human decision-making in cement kiln control and the implications for automation," Int. Jrnl. of Man- Mach. Stud., Vol. 12, 1980, pp. 11-23. [11] F. Wenstop, "Deductive verbal models of organizations," Int. Jrnl. of Man-Mach. Stud., Vol. 8, 1976, pp. 293-311. [12] L.A. Zadeh, "Fuzzy sets," Info. & Ctl., Vol. 8, 1965, pp. 338-353. [13] L.A. Zadeh, "Fuzzy algorithms," Info. & Ctl., Vol. 12, 1968, pp. 94- 102. [14] L.A. Zadeh, "Making computers think like people," I.E.E.E. Spectrum, 8/1984, pp. 26-32. 050125 ... oldephebe so "fuzzy logic" as a term or ascription as an instrumentality of refutation - does not have to neccessarily constitute in and of itself, nor carry the whieght or stigma of pejorative associations and relationships to a woefully inept carraige of argumentation - that to address the complex system of variables that act upon the process of judicial deliberation, assessment of "truth" search for justice in order to render a decision that within an acceptable range substantiation that proves the prosecution or defense' case (beyond a reasonable doubt - that is the inviolable standard) - balance, fairness, equanimity these are the principals that ring forth in our our sacred tombs of civil governance that are on the same level as holy writ -and inspired, dictated the the imperatives of justice, and equally its component and facilitator our advesarial system of justice. The rigidity and sometimes even the reductive calculus of a binomial rubric of logic and deliberation is inadequate to address the complexity and chaos wich forms the arena of human interaction... didn't read the above essay but that's my take for what it's worth ... 050125 ... 42 usc 1983 You're referring to the fuzzy logic in advocates' arguments, right? I guess that type of fuzzy legal logic isn't inherently bad, because if it doesn't involve any ethical or legal violations it might qualify as vigorous advocacy. However, I'm pretty sure that Stork Daddy is referring to fuzzy logic in the legal opinions of justices, which are almost certainly a bad thing if you like an objective standard of law. Such fuzzy logic makes the law hard to understand and predict, which, the beauty of the non-binary amorphous human butterfly aside, is not good for real people in real legal disputes. 050125 ... stork daddy the fuzzy logic involved in judicial interpretation of law was specifically what i was referring to (though it was, in fairness, not stated specifically). I haven't yet decided if the detriments outweigh the benefits or even whether or not a more rigid system, taking into account the pragmatism of a social endeavor like law, is even possible. Something that deserves a deep analysis though. 050125 ... oldephebe well, i didn't state it but yeah, the intent was to address the sometimes repressive, expedient, usurpations and redefinitions of the very core of American jurisprudense. Now, I realize that statement contains a potential beam of cognitive dissonance or at least non-intentional irony in that in the 20th century it was activist judges or at least judges swayed to abandon thier prior defacto role as gaurdians and perpetuators of the status quo with respect to the marginalization of women, union representation, equal rights, freedom of the press, descrimination, equal access for the handicapped as well. and uh....butterfly? ... 050126 ... RIC did you mean bi-valent instead of bi-nomial? 050126 ... oldephebe objective standard of justice - in and of itself upon the sterile slide of legal theory the term embodies supposedly an exemplary and elegant rubric that supposedly functions as a talismanic rudder to compensate for the potential ideological and philosophical fealty of flawed men in black robes presiding over legal transactions in a potentially peremptory manner. here's the thing: that term objective standard of justice can be invoked in fact as a pretext to validate judicial hubris and bridle and or marginalize and or invalidate a case whose verdict may have the far reaching effect of setting a precedent which could strike at the heart of a legal convention that was NOT just nor represented equality and freedom. Our constitution, in fact our omnibus repository of legal theory and practise and guidlines are rife with the echoes of milton and tocquevill (sp). The dissonance of and unjust application of this rubric occurs when judges, particularly those in the federal circuit court don the armor of objective standard of justice to forward a clearly unjust societal agenda. clearly i am not an attorney and have no legal training or education, but the term fuzzy logic invoked to obstensibly and implicitly to perpetuate an autocratic and patriarchal hegemony upon a peoples, a society that owes it's very existance to libert, egalitarianism and fraternity, the ideological guide posts that galvanized a rag tag group of soldiers and legistlators to challenge th collective might of britain and break away. ... 050126 ... 42 usc 1983 I suppose a more rigid system might be more formalistic, and no one’s really in favor of that these days. I guess judges are always going to bend logic to a certain extent, though perhaps not consciously, to obtain the result they want. Recognizing that this exists is one thing, sanctioning it outright is perhaps another. When I think of fuzzy logic and the law, I think of, say, holdings on proximate cause, which often seem like intuitive decisions dressed up in language of logic and objectivity. Like if you don’t want to find proximate cause you say that some negligent action was merely a condition rather than a cause, or maybe you just revert to the catchall of non-forseeability. Ultimately, I prefer when a judge openly says that his decision is based on equity or policy rather than pretending that he’s dispassionately applying an objective rule. (Not that equity and policy can’t be objective--it just seems that they’re more intuitive than the formalistic rules some judges opinions seem to invoke.) So yeah, that probably would make a good law review article. 050126 ... stork daddy i would tend to agree that i prefer the opinions in which judges are intellectually honest, rather than those which create a distinction i find arbitrary and meaningless and yet still have to memorize. 050126 ... Chicken Fuzzy Logic:- Time_and_Causality of Karma... 050126 ... * Time_and_Causality_of_Karma... * 050126 ... Egg and The Law = ? The_rule_of_Law... 050126 ... kx21 123:- 050126 ... Finger Time_and_Causality_of_Karma... 050126 ... Moon The_rule_of_Law 050126 ... . "an order where, instead of might making right, right would make might." 050126 ... 42 usc 1983 So then what are the benefits of fuzzy law logic? Just that it allows a judge to make an intuitively just decision not supported by a formal reading of current law? 050126 ... mp21k ...It's_simply_not_true_that_there_was_'no_contact'... that there were no relationships between "Chicken" and "Egg"... 050126 ... why NOT Is that the Final_answer? Show one ...And_I_will_tell_you_How_wonder_you_are... 050126 ... stork daddy well i think the very nature of our constitution and our judicial branch as well as our adoption of a common law rather than civil code approach shows that in our society there is a premium on laws and governance stable enough to not appear arbitrary but also flexible enough to evolve with changing needs and societal expectations. i believe the fuzziness of the law and legal reasoning allows for subtle (or not so subtle) changes based on policy that can reflect the needs of society. the very fact that rules are always being confronted by new facts in each case and that this process demands the broadening or shrinking of rules in order to stay within their intended result necessitates a degree of discretion. this is why there are judges who apply the law rather than computer programs into which the facts are programmed (perhaps largely because computer programs are not yet capable of the requisite fuzzy logic). while judicial expansion of laws will always be in tension with the role of the legislature, the very nature of fitting various fact patterns within this law or that law requires interpretation at the very least. a lot of the fuzzy logic involved in law is the inherent fuzziness between interpretation and creation. i think the check on overly broad judicial discretion is that there is at least a basic framework of rules that must be followed, and that the public expects. no judge ever justifies his decision by stating simply "i felt like it." judges have discretion in the same way that nfl referees have discretion in deciding the line between unecessary roughness and the regular vigorous physicality in any given play. the standards judges used are agreed on standards within the legal community and the ironclad rule that all interpretations must be at least made in consideration of past decisions insures that laws will evolve in a more continuous than discrete way. another check on judicial discretion is appeal of course. i don't see anyway to get around fuzzy logic in the law, however, when our very minds do not work in the absolute discrete logic of plato but rather much more like the models fuzzy logic attempts to describe. the best we can do is approximate the sort of precision a binary model boasts. to have absolutely clear and immutable laws would require that every possible fact was taken into account ahead of time and ruled on. this is outside the scope of current human possibility. this is why i find fuzzy logic to be a core part of the law's pragmatic approach. the rule of law is far from arbitrary, but it is equally far from some apriori commandment from heaven. the benefits then are to be seen in how the law allows humans to formulate rules on those proscribed actions which are relatively invariate while also leaving elbow room for those gray areas which are not invariate enough to be considered universal or clear. of course the consequences are that there is a degree of uncertainty in the law. this does not surprise me as the law is merely a reflection of moral and social philosophy, which also contain a degree of uncertainty. the one defense of the uncertainty is that no one involved in the law is surprised by uncertainty or tough cases. in fact they expect uncertainty often, and expand their understanding of legality and the social contract underlying it by constantly dealing with uncertainty. 050126 ... stork daddy we are also in many ways a society concerned with the general consequences of a rule rather than the individual consequences. this is another saving grace. even though a rule may sometimes in an individual case seem injust, our law recognizes what the general consequences of enforcing or disinheriting a rule would be. another note on the tension between legislation and judicial decisions is that judicial embrace of fuzzy logic allows for a much more efficient way of responding to societies demand. any law that strikes too against the will of the general populace can mostly be (and often is) struck down. the judicial interpretation and creation of law is something which our society in many senses condones, as evidenced by the many situations in which congress provides for broad judicial discretion. the idea there most likely being that the will of the people can sometimes develop through the common law. the ultimate check, however, remains the legislature. as a society we seem content with changes judges make as long as they are relatively good ones. if they are not, there is always the mostly superior power of the legislature to put it to a more representative vote. of course legislative bodies have their own fuzzy logic to deal with. 050126 ... stork daddy i should note that blatant inconsistencies can be frustrating, and i can only imagine having to explain to a client (who had enough riding on the case to want to litigate it) that the safebet fell through. 050126 ... oldephebe a yes but what about amending the statute, or simply excersise the deliberative authority the judge already has to address the ameliorating and or mitigating circumstances of a case. I mean there's supposed to be an implicit arrangement between the citizen and the judiciary, that above all justice, justice would be the goal, the aspiration of every sober man/women clothed in black carrying the immense whieght, authority and imprimature of office. We can struggle over the relative value of (the) meaning, and or simply meaning of the terms and concepts that will address a specific case - adjudicators do not suddenly ascend to the crest of Olympus and become endowned with infallible reasoning. They are the same ego driven overtly competitive preening pit bulls hoaring out their respective hustle/talent for the highest dollar who suddenly become elevated to the bench and those frailties do not fade and wither in the ethers off inform thier deliberations of the cases paraded befor them. I used to construct letters of credit (that were later inspected by an attorney on a fee per job basis) and the one thing that we had to address as all social and hence legal transactions is the difficulty of definition in that it can be made tortuously complicated (see referances to philatetic forceps) by the disparate interests of the various lexicographers. I must abandon this thread to address some exigencies of parenthood. Thought the posts of usc1983 and S were intelligent, thorough and equinanimous. ... 050129 ... RIC and those frailties do not suddenly fade and wither into the ethers, or dissapear into the many folds of his/her immense black robe - those frailties and deeply embedded biases inform thier deliberations... is THAT what you were trying to say? 050129 ... uh... yeah 050129 ... oldephebe anyone ever read any of the decisions by justice felix frankfurter? he is thought to have shaped some of the best legal minds of the 20th century and i think he or his mentor clerked for justice learned hand, no i mean justice oliver wendall holmes..well anyway he is part of that lineage and is said to have imparted his experiences..made the gods of the law come to life before the rapt students of his harvard law seminars...but i haven't delved into the philosophical underpinnings of felix frankfurters or even scalia (who i find to be reeking of hubris and a disconcerting affinity for el duce kind of unilateral conduct and deliberation ... yes. i am rambling on this one...discussion of the Law exacts waaaaaaaaaaay to much systematic thinking and linear thought...i'm not into linear...at least not tonight ... 050129 ... stork daddy the question is, what is justice 050129 ... 42 usc 1983 Well, although judges are human, the ones I've seen in action have been pretty dispassionate and even-handed in the way they interpret and apply the law. Evidently federal judges often make less than first year associates at big firms. So while they have egos and are to a certain degree competitive like everyone else, they are also public servants. Even the judges who are impatient and irritable and constantly snapping at attorneys seem to decide legal issues pretty fairly. I guess there are always bad judges, like that weird penis pump judge who was recently arrested. But you know what? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his holdings were fair and predictable, bizarre courtroom behavior aside. Of course, I've really only seen relatively mundane matters decided in court. I think that at the appellate level and higher, or on matters of first impression at any level, more abstract issues of justice and judges' personal biases are more significant. 050129 ... oldephebe Well put. I guess the few trials that I've been privy to and tangentially a part of has kind of jaded me. More often than not in my experience and from my perspective judicial excellence and or impartiality is a function, an albeit subordinate one, of the defendants socioeconomic strata, the prowess and reputation of his hired guns and in some respects his ethnic identity. What IS justice? God I'd surely like to know. Because you have the judge who is a defacto agent/ally/extention of the attorney generals office, the defendant who may or may not be guilty is ushered into the arena in the uniform of the convicted his limbs are bound in chains and manacles, we're all aware of the prejudical effect, the bias, the reverberations that such a stark image would illicit in the deepest core of our national and mostly judeo-christian sense of morality and or righteous indignation. The stigma, the galvanizing power of these images exert a powerful influence even before the first word is uttered. And yes law professors will intone soberly that the system works well (which in and of itself does not neccessarily mean and or is equivelent to some naive utopian concept of justice) when rules of law and rules of practise are lucid and consistant with one another. It's operation is impaired when an issue is raised about the interpretation of law/to the facts of a specific case. this is true for many kinds of social and legal transactions, criminal, tax law, and civil. (this is hardly inclusive pardon my reductuve and inadequate categorization) The internet age and the presence and utilization of new technologies, new processes as well as the ubiquity of satellites in commerce, governance etc. has created new areas of law, these kinds of unwieldy chimeras that straddle heretofore disparate arenas and disciplines and hence areas of law. So, to some extent the law and it's practitioners must serve the goal of flexibiliity when there is a glaring, and hence mitigating exception to legal and social convention. But then some would say a few innocent people tried and convicted is the cost of uniformity. new technologies, the world of science, commerce, social responsibility are all distilled through the constitution - i think S or USC1983 aptly stated the modern condition of the constitution in that it is always in flux, a dynamic social and talismanic instrument of governance..it HAS to be though right? It can't stay frozen in amber, it can't be viewed as this static revered iconograpy. what is justice? Well, I'm sure that S and U1983 by virtue of thier legal training could give an elegant and comprehensice technical exposition on the concept of justice. (yes justice can be a highly abstract term still..) I think for the rest of us joe six packs justice is just like what somebody said about pornography..we know it when we see it. ... 050130 ... oldephebe personally, i don't see what's wrong with utilizing the legistlative mechanism of the provision...i mean sure it's tough to get unpopular, libertatrian or liberal provisions attached to established law..but if the goal, if THE GOAL is justice, if the goal is to sharpen the scapel, the instrument of law to addrest ever more increasing levels of complexity and subtley that reign over chaotic and highly specialized human interactions - why NOT let reason and empathy, decency inform the deliberative process instead of just political fealty or political expediency..and yeah i sound like your typical college freshman asking that..naive..rushing to romanticize my every articulation - don't you see? that THAT - I say THAT is what has been dead in the soul of america for almost 50 years or so. A quiet black moss creeping over the corpus of America. Where is our national memory? I'd like to think that there was a time in the not too distant memory of America when we were bound to decency, to egalitarianism to a true sense of enveloping heteroganaeity. I spent most of my life prior to becoming a father in small towns. Small towns aren't all patriarchally repressed fiefdoms that marginalized women and people of color. They weren't all Norman Rockwell veneers covering a spiritual dystopia of abuse, incest, and moralistic tyranny. They were places were the kids ah... were you felt SAFE. Places where you really could go fishing with a stick and a string and a hook, I'm talking about the 70's and the 80's folks not the 50's. Everyone knew everyone else from the richest family that owned the hardware chain to the pig farmer who worked his sons so hard they would wind up with woeful GPA's and sometimes had to come to school reeking of porcine dung. In fact some of the kids clothes were spattered with it. I never forgot that image, or the stench in the close quarters of an old school bus shuddering as it lubered over the dirt roads - and I always wondered why wouldn't his mom and dad give him time to shower? these reminicses have NOTHING explicitly to do with the discussion of fuzzy logic per se...but...it is true that under some of those mistily recalled conventions of modesty and mom's apple pie and chevy pick up trucks and red pig tails and riding the hay wagon to the bon fire - that underneath all of that yes..there was still the savageness, the harshness of the natural man...the wolf that lurked in the folds of the sunny smiles...some of us were aware of him..some of us wouldn't know it's presence until we were away at school/college colliding with kids who weren't from the city but who were from a suburban sub-culture that was bereft of empathy and observance of the golden rule and good sportsmanship and why most of my friends were in the boyscouts and the eagle scouts and it was a thing to be proud of in that little cluster of towns on the edge of montgomery county as it abuts bucks county and hanover township. somewhere along the way nature or life forgot to wash that naivitae that earnestness out of my spirit, i'm essentially still a choirboy - sure, i've taken my share of blows by life..i've ashamedly handed out a few myself...but there still remains these wistful pangs...geez i'm not sure how to say this..don't wanna sound like jimmy stewart but then jimmy stewart was from a small town in rural pennsylvania so..... i still get these wistful pangs of longing for the time when postures of hostility and exhausted and ironic blah were the exception...now it's the norm. we're not kind to one another, doesn't matter the color or social strata - we're not equiped any more to be decent people, young old middle aged..whatever. don't know what any of this has to do with the law maybe it has something to do with justice or what's responsible for the lack of justice in our world...you know cause justice can be argued for outside the courtroom...at the pharmacy counter or in the teller line at the bank or on the phone with the utility company rep who refused to acknowledge her billion dollar a year employer has made a mistake...justice can be argued for anywhere amongst neighboors and strangers amongst the cars and drivers that flood the nations highways...one simple honest appeal for decency..just to say..hey..you stepped on my toe, you cut me off you blah blah blah..maybe you didn't mean to i get that, tell me was there something that i did to precipitate that? you know you don't HAVE to shout me down or be afraid and premptively strike thinking that i'll shout you down...here we are at this point at this place..we don't have take the sword out of it's hilt premptively do we? i mean i'm just trying to find out how we got here..i need to be heard and so do you. i'm still moved by a lot of the things that moved me as a thin stalk of wheat bending into that gentle early summer wind... ... i mean can we just stop and meditate upon our souls for a while? ... 050130 what's it to you? who go blather from