Lawyers are just figuring this out now? From the point of view of this logician, the quality of legal reasoning has always been appalling. That applies regardl

Lawyers are just figuring this out now? From the point of view of this logician, the quality of legal reasoning has always been appalling. That applies regardless of whether I agree with it. Even the ones I approve of strike me as full of holes. That may be necessary to the practicalities of law. Their job is to make rulings, in a timely manner. Unlike logicians, or scientists, they can't wait around for certainty. They throw out the arguments they can get their hands on and hope it approximates truth as well as it can under the circumstances. Of course they aren't incentivized to make good arguments. Their job is to defend their client or otherwise make their case. They would be failing to provide a "zealous defense" -- an ethical requirement for lawyers -- if they didn't consider even the most unlikely avenues that might not piss off a judge too much. I don't believe that this is the best possible system, though I do find that practically every lawyer disagrees with me on that. And they are more familiar with the theory and practice of law than I am. But I can say that I hope I never have to depend on a lawyer for anything other than the most cut and dried cases. If I do, then I will depend 100% on them for navigating whatever mysteries of persuasion they have to engage in, and recognize that it has absolutely nothing to do with the precision that I rely on in my specialty.