Dabo Mihi Factum

In court, everything must be proved according to strict rules. It teaches humility. It can lead to a professional curvature, which is that few things I think are certain and true, because I see no evidence. A trial lawyer has a habit that, after almost every sentence, he writes the word “proof” and lists the evidence on which the veracity of the sentence is based. Even with such a rigorous approach, 50% of evidence-based claims turn out to be wrong (50% of cases are lost).

How many true statements do press articles, historical, biographical, psychological, etc.? Most of these categories would not have had a chance to be taken to court, as can already be seen from the content itself. The number of hidden assumptions and loose elegant hypotheses in them is so large that it is difficult to read them practically. It is only in scientific journals that the likes of HBR and others cease to raise numerous questions in the mind of the reader about what the author of the text for good reason omits.

I miss The Editor Lewandowska’s texts. I started reading DGP some time ago and I am very impressed with the legal knowledge of DGP Editors. I once “got tired” of a long article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that discussed the BFG’s constitutional judgment. I was amazed at the legal knowledge of the author (Doctorate). DGP already has it.