A Hypothetical Rule

Sizing the Opposition IV

[Ebal’s Plea, twenty-four of thirty-two]

In the last post I concluded that Haughwout’s scholarly refutation should satisfy a standard. Such I discerned might resemble Federal Code of Civil Procedure Article 56.

Here I propose such a standard clothed in a hypothetical.

Why the dressing?

This supplies context.

Rule 56 has hefty substance behind it, the United States’ highest court and an abundance of case law.

My standard has none, other than an appeal to fair play and justice.

The hypothetical supplies at least imaginary substance and authority which makes the standard easier to conceive.

My proposed rule and its hypothetical context is as follows:

Hypothetical

The Sovereign Isles of Scholarandria

A Future Date of our Lord

The world’s first mega trillionaire founded the Sovereign Isles of Scholarandria. At first, he bought the main isle. Later, he acquired a score of surrounding ones.

The isles he populated with thinkers and tinkerers of the highest order. Monthly stipends with accommodations for families he provided.

In time, he established a renowned university.

The isles prospered growing in wealth and population.

Eventually, they achieved nationhood.

That brings us to the heart of this tale.

Journals at Scholarandrian University have published two competing peer review articles. These discuss a tablet found on a Samaritan mountain. Quite a stir these instigate among the Isle’s archaeological, epigraphical, historical, and religious communities..

The first article by Dr. S. Ling makes fantastic claims about this artifact.

The second by M. S. Wout alleges to have refuted, i. e. disproved those claims.

Several influential Scholarandian citizens believe Dr. Ling’s position worthy of regard, even action.

A vocal delegation of citizenry, however, especially from the archaeological, religious, and epigraphic communities, vehemently denounce Ling’s claims as “silly”, “a nothingburger”, “a classic case of pareidolia.”

Most of each camp, nevertheless, dismiss the ruckus as simply normal academia at work.

That was until a recent event unfolded in the Isles’ news media.

An extremely rich governor of one of Scholarandria’s southern most isles approached the Prime Minister with this proposition:

“I will fund an archaeological expedition to the Samaritan mountain.

There I aim to complete excavation of its controversial archaeological site. I ensure employment of the brightest minds in all fields necessary for a successful expedition. At their disposal will be the latest and finest scientific tools and processes.”

He asked the PM only this:

“Use your clout with the United Nations to achieve these two concessions:

• an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to allow this excavation; and
• a contingent of armed U. N. peace keepers to protect the archaeological work.”

The PM promised to look into the matter.

Word of this conference, however, leaked.

Subsequently, the nightly news aired word of the PM / Governor meeting.

Resultantly, the previous ruckus intensified exponentially.

One side emphasized that an excavation risks the tenuous peace of a war torn region.

Acknowledging such, others nevertheless stressed the necessity of immediate excavation to protect historically precious artifacts–ones that potentially clarify how mankind’s distant past clarifies the present and future.

Others declare that the evidence supporting Dr. Ling’s claims fails to meet the simplest tests of credibility.

Alarmed about political ramifications, the PM seeks the advice of the Isle’s Commission on Scholarship (SCOS).

Subsequently, that Commission issued this press release:

“The Scholarandrian Commission on Scholarship (SCOS) finds the consternation brewing over the Samaritan Mountain issue refreshing. Why? This tumult reflects Scholarandrians’ active engagement in matters of intellectual concern.

Another aspect of this tumult we also find gratifying. We note that our SCOS Code contains longstanding provisions that address a core issue of this controversy.

The parties involved we thus encourage to avail the provisions found in SCOS Code Provision 56.”

The press release continued by highlighting pertinent sections of that provision:

Prov. 56

“Prologue: Many times in the past a university peer review journal has published an academic paper. Then later it or another publishes an article allegedly refuting, i. e.. debunking, the previous article. In other words, the succeeding article’s language manifests a conscious disproval rather than a denial of the original paper’s accuracy.

For these situations the Isle’s Commission on Scholarship implements this provision:

Be it known that the Commission finds that:

When one peer review article of this Isle alleges to debunk another previously issued article, significant negative consequences can adhere for the author of the alleged debunked article. That being so we provide the following optional remedy:

The original article’s author can file with the Commission a formal challenge to debate the merits of the disproval.

The cost of this will be three Scholarandrian crypto coins (about $100,000.00)

This challenge the original journal and the debunking one must publish in their next edition.

From the date of that publication the author of the “debunking” article shall have sixty days to respond.

To do so they must:

• Deposit three Scholarandrian crypto coins with the Commission in order to “Call” the disproval challenge; or
• Absent issuing the “Call”, allow the 60 days to elapse. This will trigger his/ her article’s publisher printing a retraction, one that must effectively convert the article from a “disproval” to “a challenge of accuracy.”

Note that owing to the largesse of the Governor, Dr. Ling almost immediately posts his three coins.

Mr. Wout timely follows suit.

The news release continued:

Prov. 56 (Continued)

On challenge and acceptance being issued the Commission will appoint an independent arbiter to resolve the conflict.

Guess who they appoint? That is right! It is me!

As such, I have already overseen building the record, briefing, etc. as Prov. 56 requires.

That material the journal articles here and here encapsulate.

Additionally, Prov. 56 mandates:

Prov. 56 (Continued)

The arbiter’s written decision must:

• Include a list of the matter’s material facts, that is, controverted facts that are indispensable to the disproving article’s claims; and
• Grant the “disproval” if a reasonable persons could not genuinely dispute the material fact(s); and
• Deny the “disproval”, if otherwise.
  

SCOS Code Prov. 56 concludes:

Prov. 56 (Continued)

The party to whom the arbiter renders a favorable decision shall receive four Scholarandian crypto coins, the Commission one, and the arbiter one.

I wish!

Real World Application

We return now from my fantasy island.

Nevertheless, I endorse the Scholarandrian Code’s wisdom. It approximates the summary justice article of U. S. Code of Civil Procedure Article 56. It doing so it provides an objective measure for balancing academic economy with fair play.

Thus, I intend to follow it in dealing with our real world Stripling v. Haughwout.

My plan for doing so I outline in the next post.

Next post: “The Plan“