Archives for 

Chapter 1.3

0.00 Framework for the book


We have seen five examples of clashes between disciplinary cultures:

  1. The grudge informer case as in the Hart-Fuller debate. A clash between the applied and the fundamental sub-cultures within one discipline (Law: positivist v. realist/naturalist);
  2. The Buikhuizen affair/scandal. The clash is between α, β, γ and δ in a time where the idea that criminal behaviour (α), might be reducible to physical causes (β) was unacceptable to the (γ) sciences of the time (the 1970s) in the Netherlands — presumably as a (δ) reaction against the excesses of what called itself social Darwinism during the 1940s under the Nazi regime.
  3. The Daubert case reveals that there are so often disciplinary clashes in federal USA courtrooms, that the standards have been set to prevent problems with acceptability (and quality standards) of scientist expert testimonials. Thus the clashes covered here are from the α perspective versus β, γ and δ.
  4. The case about requiring the subject of intelligent design to be covered in science classes in USA schools.The clashes covered here are all from the β perspective versus α, γ and δ.
  5. The Lucia de Berk case shows an almost complete gamut of possible clashes. Richard Gill will discuss the case in the fourth meeting of the Honours Class.

We will use the Lucia de Berk case as a running example in our investigations of causes for discomfort between disciplines and also in our explorations for remedial heuristics. We will try and provide our individual progress in this website as individual blogs, with the aim to compile and edit them into a collectively authored/edited publishable book. The structure of the book will be:


We have a first task concerning the book:


0.11 On institutions

When considering the four different cultures (as in the Combining α − β − γ − δ, and 4 heuristics slide), it is clear that operational units do appear at different levels of aggregation and are compound, linking diverse operational sub-units (that may in turn aggregate diverse sub units at a lower level of aggregation) together. In physics, a […] Continue reading →

0.09 Realist/Pragmatist/Critical/ Naturalist Argument

Applying the two-legged analysis to legal theory yields several fields for studying the application of law — they may be named realist or pragmatist or critical or naturalist or something else. For legal scholars, the realist approach implies concern about morality, as an important issue supporting a legal system’s stability. Interestingly, a system’s stability is at stake, when […] Continue reading →

0.08 Positivist Argument

Applying the two-legged analysis to legal theory yields a theoretical/fundamental field that is named positivist. For legal scholars, the positivist approach implies detachment from morality, uncritical acceptation by the judiciary of laws that have been validly promulgated. The principle of the separation of powers binds judges to such laws. As a result, positivist legal thinking […] Continue reading →

0.06 Disciplinary legs and lacks

As far as we know any discipline stands on two legs — has both a fundamental/theoretical subdomain and a subdomain for application. It often happens that within a single discipline a cultural divide between these subdomains emerges. For instance in the law, as shown in the Hart – Fuller debate. In the β, γ and δ […] Continue reading →

0.04 What is meant by use here?

In the context of accomplishments, use equals the potential to influence. Lessig, when looking at the www in his famous (Lessig, L. (2006). Code Version 2.0. Basic Books (AZ)) and wondering what regulatory forces would fail, emerge and prevail, famously identified four regulatory forces: the law, the market, norms and architecture. Of these, architecture was […] Continue reading →

0.02 AIM: Turning Risk into Art into Use

Goya’s etching illustrates the general idea behind aiming for an accomplishment: look for what risks it helps to domesticate, look for and master some heuristics1 that may be effective and consider how this mastery may help put the heuristics to good use. So we look for the risks related to cross-disciplinary disdain, for the heuristics […] Continue reading →

0.01 SLUB HC Existential Assumptions

Adopting a few assumptions explicitly as requirements for common understanding of what we are doing in the SLUB HC may be useful: Only a few comments (and references — these are not referring to anything required for the HC). The C.P. Snow address was republished in extended form in 1965. (Snow, C. (1965). The Two […] Continue reading →

0.00 On the HC SLUB (in general)

I will upload a few of the slides presented (or left aside for reasons of time) in week one with very short comments that ought be accessible to participants. Here is the first: The SLUB honours class addresses (in a multidisciplinary manner, based on some of the “Manuals” for legal professionals) the reasons why proponents […] Continue reading →