tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11461767.post115382722465034474..comments2023-10-08T16:13:53.045+03:00Comments on The Last Ditch (Archives): Committee opposes 'Tesco law' - Law - Times OnlineTom Painehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01254163054362676487noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11461767.post-1154090594135954002006-07-28T16:43:00.000+04:002006-07-28T16:43:00.000+04:00Thanks. You didn't need to say that. This is an in...Thanks. You didn't need to say that. This is an interesting subject I don't often get to debate. Architecture and medicine are - of course - based on science. When you say that scientific principles apply even though we don't know them yet, you open up a can of worms. Maybe there are scientific principles applicable to law (or anything else) that we just don't know yet? That might be true, but I Tom Painehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254163054362676487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11461767.post-1154074373704248912006-07-28T12:12:00.000+04:002006-07-28T12:12:00.000+04:00Medicine is absolutely subject to scientific princ...Medicine is absolutely subject to scientific principles - just because we don't necessarily understand them doesn't mean that's not the case. The human body is a very complex biological machine, with great variety, but is a machine nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>Architects work with engineers to ensure that they produce designs that can stand; whilst they bring creativity and art to the design process Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11461767.post-1154018386177710202006-07-27T20:39:00.000+04:002006-07-27T20:39:00.000+04:00Law is about human behaviour and is therefore not ...Law is about human behaviour and is therefore not susceptible to scientific principles. However, neither is medicine or archictecture, in my experience! Both (like law) have scientific elements, but they are still both subject (like law) to all the vagaries of human individuality. Equally, like law, when they profess to be at their most scientific, they are usually the most wrong!Tom Painehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254163054362676487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11461767.post-1154013461792143262006-07-27T19:17:00.000+04:002006-07-27T19:17:00.000+04:00Of course you are right in practice - I was being ...Of course you are right in practice - I was being a bit trite!<BR/><BR/>However I think the principle of trying to be as simple as possible (and no simpler) should still be the overriding theme in law. And those skilled professionals only interpret the law spouting out of Parliament, which can be of dubious quality.<BR/><BR/>PS. I don't really think the comparison with doctors or engineers is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11461767.post-1153920417842368572006-07-26T17:26:00.000+04:002006-07-26T17:26:00.000+04:00Here, here! Miss HHere, here! <BR/><BR/>Miss HThe 'Twenty-Something'https://www.blogger.com/profile/15233994767073249095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11461767.post-1153847088836522432006-07-25T21:04:00.000+04:002006-07-25T21:04:00.000+04:00So would everybody. That's what Napoleon tried to ...So would everybody. That's what Napoleon tried to achieve with his Napoleonic Code. It didn't work, unfortunately (or fortunately if you're a full time professional with years at University and work experience!). <BR/><BR/>B^)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, would you want only buildings that Everyman could design? Or surgery that any kid with a penknife could achieve? Why should Law, the fundamental Tom Painehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254163054362676487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11461767.post-1153832869838369342006-07-25T17:07:00.000+04:002006-07-25T17:07:00.000+04:00I'd rather have a legal system and laws that don't...I'd rather have a legal system and laws that don't require full-time professionals with years at University and work experience to understand them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com