I intended to refer to it as a counterpoint to bad writing and bad logic. Analyzing the essay led me to hope that Garon might revisit the topic. Applying a cross-disciplinary approach, I was struck that the core conflict he is describing in his essay is a conflict between a Platonic and an Aristotelean philosophical set. I think that the points he makes would benefit from comparison to other clashes of those two sets, and the various efforts that have been made to harmonize movements that have spit into Platonic and Aristotelean halves. It would be nice to see conflict analysis address a modern conflict in light of the historic issues and interactions.
Attorneys tend to think that they use solid logic.
It is important to consider that most disciplines, and most lines or schools within a discipline, have a grammar of logic that functions with substantial assumptions and gaps. Critical path analysis reflects that until about 1987 or 1988, if you went to a doctor, on the average, you were more likely to have your health hurt than helped. So, how we know something, our episteme, makes a big difference in how we communicate and for some, it determines how we judge whether something is valid or not. It is difficult, I think, for some to conceptualize the world with another world view, but like learning one's first wordprocessing program, if you've done it once, successive tries are easier . The legal culture is a strong one.