[geebee]

I apologize in advance for what will be at least a partially incorrect comment.

But don't lawyers deal with this fuzziness to some extent by putting the question to a jury? For instance, suppose we were writing a software application to decide when to shut down a machine because it got "too hot". We could go ahead and assign a specific temperature, or perhaps set up an equation with a few different readings.

Now suppose there was some litigation because a tennis player collapsed during a tournament that was "too hot". Would the lawyer define "too hot", or would the jury? You could have a situation where all parties agree on the law, and that it turns on whether it was "too hot", and the legal system would treat the jury's definition almost as definitively as a temperature reading input into an algorithm, right?

[gamblor956]

You would never have such litigation in the first place--there is no such tort or legal concept of "too hot".

On the other hand, if the player were to sue for negligence, then the question of whether it was "too hot" is a factual question that the jury would decide, after the lawyers present evidence for their preferred answer (and possibly evidence against the undesired answer).

The jury's finding would be a finding of "fact" as to whether it was "too hot" would apply only to that case, because their finding would necessarily depend on the specific facts of that case. Juries cannot make findings of "law", which are general principles/rules that can be applied to other cases.

[jacques_chester]

> Would the lawyer define "too hot", or would the jury?

The jury.

> the legal system would treat the jury's definition almost as definitively as a temperature reading input into an algorithm, right?

For this case, yes. For all time, no. The fuzzy set of "too hot" would become the legal precedent (the stare decisis). The actual temperature would remain a question of fact and not law.

If you read up on how fuzzy logic is applied in control systems, you'll see that there's always steps to take non-fuzzy inputs and "fuzzify" them before performing the fuzzy logic itself. Afterwards you de-fuzzify to get a crisp output.

Courts work very much like that: the law retains fuzziness because no crisply algorithmic system can encompass the total complexity of the human world. That's how equity arose ... which is a law history lesson for another day.