82,891
edits
Substance and form: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Hume: you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”. The [[JC]]: you cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”. | Hume: you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”. The [[JC]]: you cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”. | ||
{{Tabletop}} | |||
|- | |||
|Substance | |||
|Form | |||
|- | |||
| Lord Denning making it up as he goes along ([[constructive trust]]s, for example) | |||
| Dogmatic application of the [[doctrine of precedent]] | |||
|- | |||
|[[Discovery]] | |||
|[[algorithm]]s and [[heuristic]]s | |||
|- | |||
|[[Structuring]] | |||
|[[internal audit]] | |||
|- | |||
|Legal | |||
|Compliance | |||
|- | |||
|Management | |||
| [[HR]] | |||
{{tablebottom}} | |||
{{Seealso}} | {{Seealso}} | ||
*Closely related to the [[technology paradox]] | *Closely related to the [[technology paradox]] | ||