Towards the end of his sociology of law, Max Weber says about the legal layman, whose legal thinking is ‘word-bound’: ‘He tends above all to become a word-rabulist when he believes he is arguing “juristically”. In addition, it is natural for him to draw conclusions from the individual to the individual: the legal abstraction of the ‘expert’ is far removed from him." Such patronising legal arrogance seems to spring only from the pen of a habilitated lawyer. In fact, the lay approach described in this way appears approach described above all appears to be a manifestation of a deep-rooted mistrust of specialised legal argumentation and a defiant reaction against it. The understandable defence reaction to what is perceived as a hair-splitting interpretation can easily lead to a lay imitation of a supposedly legal approach. Added to this is a technical jargon that is only seemingly accessible, which resembles everyday language in the absence of a meta-language of jurisprudence, without necessarily being synonymous with it. Weber's observation, especially from the lawyer's point of view, is not without a certain plausibility in terms of everyday theory. Speaking of the logic of law, it would be useful to list the traps of ‘fallacy’ into which jurists frequently fall, together with examples.

Logical Rationality, fallacy, methodology.