Welcome to the blog that supports
What is Dialexica?
It’s a tool for the legal industry. The mission is to provide platform which will enable attorneys and, especially litigators, to make better sense of case documents. The tools, analytics and information we provide will assist litigators to craft truly evidence-based narratives evolving from the data and information contained in the case files.
The screwy name?
Well, like everything we do, there IS a method to the madness.
First, think of stories, which are usually told as dialectics : thesis, antithesis, synthesis. When a person seeks to convince someone that his or her position is correct, s/he usually resorts to some form of “dialectic.”In a debate, the contrary point of view, or qualification, is made by an opponent,–and litigation is no different.
It’s the thematic approach to nearly every children’s movie (and closing argument) ever made. The main difference between a fairy tale and courtroom argument is that the court imposes rules and obligations which can make telling the story difficult. When lawyers use the dialexica, the job will become much easier.
As you can learn from Wikipedia, “The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference.” That’s what makes it fun, because we know from classification studies that classification is 90% of the battle. That’s why we’re taught to outline essays in high school: once you set the stage, the rest is detail.
We, of course, double dip into the meaning bucket here, because lawyers in the United States are taught using the Socratic Method…a form of dialectical instruction.Sometimes it devolves into a contest of ego, but the better professor will lead the class to water, then step back and watch each one drink.
So, yes, lawyers are taught to think in an adversarial fashion, yet we must make the point that dialectical thinking is NOT the best way to assess and analyze information. Telling the story requires nuance, even if the outcome is a proof requiring that one party be right and the other, wrong. The lawyer as “gladiatorial story teller” needs to understand and manipulate the evidence rhetorically, without (one hopes) doing violence to the truth.
In our view, the truth is usually hidden in large scale litigation, and the lawyers are “chancing their arms,” because they have no idea of what the real story told in teh documents actually is. We expect Dialexica to help change that sad state of affairs.
Now, let’s add the more obvious “lex” to the equation,–after all, it is the pure form of Latin for “law.”
Throw in a double entendre and you double points for this project providing a set of rules itself. There’s a name for that (“the name of the thing describes itself”), but that’s enough Ivory Tower philosophy for one day.
Finally, add a pretentious ending that can support a domain name and you end up with something like “a guide to telling stories for the legal profession.”
Clever, hunh?
How will we do it?
That part, is coming. But, here’s a big basket of hint:
- Ontology
- Taxonomy
- Classification
- Facets
- Attributes
- Open Source [ ]
The last bit is EXTREMELY important. The license decision is forthcoming , but will be in the nature of retaining copyright, yet enabling liberal use of resources we publish, e.g. on the Files page.
Just don’t take our ideas,–or, of those who work with us as your own without attribution and all will be well.
