Judge Jones is using legal realism school of jurisprudence.
The philosophical school, historical school, realist school, sociological school, and analytical school are the five schools of jurisprudence.
Legal realism is a theory according to which public policy and prevailing social interests are the sources of all law. In accordance with this view, judges decide cases by taking into account social concerns and public policy in addition to abstract norms.
Legal realism is a kind of jurisprudence that places more emphasis on the law's application in daily life than it does in books. To this purpose, it focused primarily on the acts of judges and the variables that affected judicial decision-making processes.
To learn more about legal realism here
brainly.com/question/14482497
#SPJ4
Whenever a research is done, you must reject or accept a null hypothesis (the one you consider is not correct) or your work hypothesis (the theory you think is must probably accurate or close to the truth) usually, when performing a research, you will not always obtain positive or statistically significant results, that validate your hypothesis. Is actually, not unusual that extremes (or extraordinary results) come out (unexpected for several reasons: incorrect size of the sample, improper selection of the subjects- a bias- lack of correct determination of the variable measured or failure to determine the type of the variable-numerical, categorical, ratio,etc-)
Positive or negative results are yet, results whether they prove or reject your hypothesis. Failing to establish a scientific hypothesis does not necessarily mean that they did something wrong, it just says that the hypothesis tested does not approach correctly to the epistemological truth (ultimately, any research is only a mere approximation to reality). Therefore, when two scientists deny sharing<em> unusual results</em>, they are acting unethically, hiding results that can mean something from a different point of view.
reference
Nicholson, R. S. (1989). On being a scientist. Science, 246(4928), 305-306.
Answer:
Your answer is true!!!!!!!!!!!!
Explanation:
Your welcomee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Answer: Under the Great Law, democratic principles were built into the decision making process: equality among all chiefs, in the Grand Council with the same level of authority. ... men were nominated as chiefs (male authority) by women (female authority) both men and women belonged to the mother's clan (giving women authority)
All of the tribe thought the sachem was very wise and did the best thing for the tribe. He also had a council to help him make decisions, called sagamores. The tribe would present the sachem with gifts. The sachem was also in charge of the land the tribe lived on and decided about selling any of the land. Explanation:
