Professor Allen (this issue) critiques the value of using “weird” hypotheticals to mine intuitions about legal systems. I respond by supporting the value of “thin” hypotheticals for providing information about how people reason generally, rather than for revealing peoples’ specific answers. I note that because legal systems are the products of many minds thinking about how other minds operate, the object of inquiry is metacognition—that is, understanding how reasoning works.

Barbara A. Spellman, In defense of weird hypotheticals, 2 Quaestio Facti: International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning 325–327 (2021).
UVA Law Faculty Affiliations