Meeting of 7 May 2007
bipartition NEW STUDY
Following a preliminary assessment of the object of study, it would seem useful to abandon the division of labor between the and substantial prospect that the case in favor of the division between activities authoritative and non authoritative that would seem more fruitful.
The two study groups are reconstituted then in order to deepen:
- authoritative perspective, headed by the working group of Prof. Renna
- perspective is authoritative, headed by the working group of Prof. Boscolo
So redefined the approach to research, it was decided to identify some key issues that the whose resolution is essential step common to both perspectives, first of all, the definition of analogy.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: THE DEFINITION OF SIMILARITY
from a reading of the contribution of Giannini would seem possible to define an analogy as a process of reformulation of the standard as a tool for the discovery of a "hidden rule" by extrapolation of general principles.
It is then important to understand if indeed there is no border between the activity of extrapolation of the principles underlying the rules and the application by analogy of them and also understand what the relationship between the principle and the ratio of the standard.
Two points:
1. Analogy is always reformulation?
2. It 's true or not that the analogy is always the extrapolation of general principles?
In order to find a meeting point on these preliminary questions, we are all invited to find material useful case law (at least two sentences) and forward Post along with a few reflections.
0 comments:
Post a Comment