<p>this is what I inadvertently think when I compare the two. In law school, the class environment is competitive, duke-it-out, subjective, argumentative, and hatred amongst classmates. In medical school, there’s nothing to argue about, and only objective, singular data to work with, which is why everyone becomes united. Same thing can be said for taking classes in philosophy versus Spanish. </p>
<p>i love objective stuff. being subjective is ok every once in a while, and taking subjective, circular and argumentative classes can help you argue or debate better, but you don’t have to go to law school for this. 3 years of annoyance? </p>
<p>if i had the aptitude for medical school i’d go in a heartbeat. technically i do, but i would have to start all over again. i love objective stuff - it calms people down. it’s proven stuff. subjective things, like you learn in law school or philosophy classes, can tend to be refuted, and what’s the use in wasting your time arguing when you could instead unite?</p>
<p>if you have different thoughts about this, please let me know. i just told you what --I-- thought. give me your thoughts on this and tell me how subjectivity is better or worse. i’d be glad to hear it.</p>
<p>Law school concerns the study of the law – a system of values, and medical school concerns the study of medicine – a science. A system of values can not be understood by using math or controlled experiments because it does not involve natural principles, like science does, but rather it involves often variant, illogical, and unpredictable human behavior. </p>
<p>By its nature law may be subjective and medicine objective, but I don’t think that law’s subjectivity necessarily means that law school brings about competitiveness and hatred, and medical school’s objectivity brings about unity. Maybe someone could enlighten me-- I don’t understand the proposed connection between subjectivity and competitiveness, and objectivity and unity. </p>
<p>Rather, I think that the apparent competitiveness in law school and the apparent unity in medical schools exists for economic reasons. At most law schools, students must graduate towards the top of their class in order to secure a high paying job. They must compete against each other for a limited number of good jobs. The exception to this rule is the top law schools like Yale where almost all graduates get a good job, and incidentally Yale is known for having a united atmosphere. Medical school students are in a more comfortable position economically. They don’t have to compete so fiercely for a limited number of high paying jobs like law students do.</p>
<p>Law, which is subjective, is necessary. It’s responsible for peace and well-being. Without it, there would be chaos. Imagine a world in which science was not regulated by law – there would be even more environmental pollution, human “guinea pigs”, all sorts of terrible things.</p>
<p>People can indulge in the intellectual joys of objective facts, but people will always have different values of right and wrong, and they will come into conflict. Ultimately subjective, univeral laws are a necessity for a peaceful society. So, there is a definite use in learning the law.</p>
<p>The unity of medical students is one of the features most complained about, actually, as it’s a reflection not of the subject matter but of the rigid, hierarchical way in which physicians are trained.</p>
<p>It is often complained – with good grounds – that physicians might be more compassionate and flexible in their thinking if their training were a little less “unified”. On the other hand, of course, medical care would be less reliable.</p>
<p>“In medical school, there’s nothing to argue about, and only objective, singular data to work with”</p>
<p>You are very much mistaken about medical school. There are countless controversies in any branch of science, and that’s particularly true in medicine, which involves philosophy, psychology, and public policy as well as science. Any decent medical school is going to involve students in these controversies.</p>
<p>justice scalia discussed how to be objective in considering original intent of language, emphasis on statutes, and emphasis of precedent. without listening to a judge or someone involved in the law talk about how he or she approaches objectivity, it’s unnecessary speculation.</p>
<p>“Justice Scalia’s almost reverent predisposition to effectively quarantine his prejudices.”</p>
<p>This reminds me of Sigmund Freud’s insistence that he was able to fully access and understand his own subconscious, so that unlike the rest of the human race, his decisions were not affected by his subconscious fears or desires.</p>
<p>Bunkum. No human being can “effectively quarantine his prejudices.” The only way to come close is to try to acknowledge them. Insisting that you have a unique ability to be objective when the rest of the legal profession is biased just ensures that when your prejudices are controlling you, you won’t recognize that that’s what’s going on.</p>
<p>See, e.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).</p>
<p>Heh – that’s not the attitude he shows in the dozens of opinions (especially the dissents) where he rants about his colleagues’ subjectivity and his own purity of thought.</p>
<p>I do agree, though, that there exist some situations where an objective truth is possible in law.</p>
<p>This is not to say that courts should always abide strictly by that concrete truth, only that one exists.</p>
<p>To draw specifically from the Constitution, I think there exist some situations in which the language in the Constitution is perfectly clear and where interpretations can be objectively referred to as right and wrong.</p>
<p>To go outside of those bounds is something that I believe most justices – conservatives and liberals alike – generally advocate. If I remember correctly, Roberts subscribes to originalism (discerning the intent of the founders) while I’ve heard others refer to the Constitution as a living, breathing, and evolving document. Well and good, and I am not making a political argument. These are subjective perspectives which are necessary for basic functioning of the government, and I don’t disagree with their existence or their use.</p>
<p>My argument here is really a very small one: sometimes, words mean certain things and cannot be construed in any other way.</p>
<p>i guess you have to show an example of that, Hanna, because i thought he was perfectly reasonable, calm, and even humble in the discussion. i mean even if you are right, i don’t think the article meant as much. he didn’t write a dissent in the case you posted.</p>
<p>No, because of course, Scalia was in the majority in Bush v. Gore – because he’s just as influenced by his desire for particular outcomes as any other human judge. I mean, please – all of a sudden he believes that the federal government should tightly supervise state functions? For an example of his attitude in dissent, and his tendency to accuse his colleagues of ruling in accordance with their prejudices instead of holding fast to principle (as he does), see his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). To wit:</p>
<p>“Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. … the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. … This case ‘does not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.”</p>
<p>you are assuming that all judges are equally influenced by subjectivity, even though in the discussion i thought we were talking about justice breyers admits to being more subjective and tries to be so because he believes it is a good thing. so why do you believe that scalia who tries to limit subjectivity, and breyers who tries to wield it, end up behaving in the same fashion? i don’t think saying “we are all human” is sufficient.</p>
<p>“so why do you believe that scalia who tries to limit subjectivity, and breyers who tries to wield it, end up behaving in the same fashion?”</p>
<p>Because that’s what I see Scalia do when he writes. I didn’t just say that we’re all human; I’ve already given you examples, and you could find many more on your own. Yes, Breyer says being subjective can be a good thing and Scalia says it’s bad. That doesn’t mean that Scalia is particularly objective, especially when he is emotionally invested in the case.</p>
<p>Like a few others have said, I don’t agree with your distinction to the degree you portray it. You did not define your terms (something they teach us in those “subjective” philosophy courses). Are you sure you have a strong idea about the content in each med school and law school, and also about the practice of medicine and the practice of law? Have you ever heard about “getting a second (or third or nth)” opinion from various doctors, for instance?</p>
<p>Do you know what goes on in philosophy classes? For example, how about logic class? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, science has never changed in the history of humanity. I don’t know if I agree with your claim about calmness, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think scientists are universally united? There are so many academic quibbles in all fields- many are the most extreme you can get.</p>