The Dialogical Roots of Deduction: Historical, Cognitive, and Philosophical Perspectives on Reasoning, Catarina Dutilh Novaes (Cambridge University Press 2021), 271 pages (Book Review)

Abstract

Many legal scholars argue that deduction is at the center of legal reasoning. It also holds pride of place in legal-writing and legal-theory texts. Some, on the other hand, have argued that deduction is not central—or at least not necessary—to the process of legal reasoning. Others have gone further, arguing that deduction and the IRAC or CREAC organizational paradigm are hallmarks of an oppressively racist and misogynistic legal system. This review is no place to rehearse or extend those arguments, but Catarina Dutilh Novaes’ book The Dialogical Roots of Deduction: Historical, Cognitive, and Philosophical Perspectives on Reasoning is essential for understanding them, for understanding what deduction is, has been, and perhaps should be. Of course, as Dutilh Novaes says, “it is not surprising that philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists would be impressed by the deductive method, with its allure of certainty and its promise of unshakable foundations.” This review does not take special pains to evaluate Dutilh Novaes’ principal claims. Instead, my evaluation is that this book succeeds broadly in achieving her hopes that the reader leaves “with a richer, more nuanced conception of deduction,” including “obtain[ing] a better appreciation of how much of a cognitive oddity deduction really is.” So if you talk about what lawyers, judges, and your students do as “deduction,” “deductive,” “syllogisms”’ or “syllogistic,” you should read this book just to be sure you know what you’re talking about.

Keywords: deduction, syllogism, legal reasoning, dialogical argument