82,903
edits
Dilbert’s programme: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|myth|}}Dilbert’s programme is a legal theory formulated by pioneering German jurist [[Havid Dilbert]],<ref>To be clear, the programme and its progenitor owe nothing to Scott Adams and everything to William Archibald Spooner.</ref> in the early part of the 21st century, which Dilbert proposed as a solution to the foundational crisis in pedantry, when attempts to clarify the foundations of punctiliousness were beset by [[paradox]] and inconsistency. Dilbert proposed to ground all existing theories of literal-mindedness to a finite, complete set of definitions and legal propositions, and provide a proof that these axioms were consistent. | {{a|myth|}}Dilbert’s programme is a legal theory formulated by pioneering German jurist [[Havid Dilbert]],<ref>To be clear, the programme and its progenitor owe nothing to Scott Adams and everything to William Archibald Spooner.</ref> in the early part of the 21st century, which Dilbert proposed as a solution to the foundational crisis in pedantry, when attempts to clarify the foundations of punctiliousness were beset by [[paradox]] and inconsistency. Dilbert proposed to ground all existing theories of literal-mindedness to a finite, complete set of [[definitions]] and legal propositions, and provide a proof that these axioms were consistent. | ||
Dilbert therefore eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any contract, on the grounds that | The Dilbert programme therefore eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any contract, on the grounds that it may opens the way to an unstable state of [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. | ||
Thus, wherever Dilbert found undefined words, he defined them, where no better formulation presented itself, exactly as they were, to avoid all [[doubt]], of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], even those small enough to cross the pedantry threshold into outright paranoia. | Thus, wherever Dilbert found undefined words, he defined them, where no better formulation presented itself, exactly as they were, to avoid all [[doubt]], of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], even those small enough to cross the pedantry threshold into outright paranoia. | ||