The judge's direction to the jury exhorts them to be exclude all emotional bias and proceed by strict logic and at the same time to bring their common sense and vast collective experience of life to bear on the matter. These are not contradictory ideals but disparate ones, there is no assured way of following both at the same time. It would be possible to align them if they were accompanied by a short lecture on Bayesian probabilities, but in practice that would not provide any clarity but only confusion and obfuscation. It is the very disparity between the two goals that calls forth the deepest resources for judgment, resources that cannot be placed entirely under either rubric. In general the tendency of theory is to find syntheses which resolve more and more of the disparities that arise, and in this way they lead to a thinking which is more machinal and less profound than if the contradiction were left free of sublation.