With respect to the former, which is not really precedential reasoning at all, the instant court may learn from a previous case, or be persuaded by some decision in the past, but the decision to do what another court has done on an earlier occasion is not based on the previous case's status as a precedent. Instead the decision exemplifies the fundamental human capacity to learn from others and from the past. There are many instances in which the instant court will be persuaded by the reasoning of another court, but if the instant court is genuinely persuaded, then it is not relying on-obeyingprecedent at all.' To see why this is so, consider a simple nonlegal example: Suppose I am boiling an egg. I boil it for six minutes, and am pleased to discover that it is cooked to precisely my preferred hardness. Consequently, the next time I boil an egg I do so, not surprisingly, for six minutes. I have learned from the previous "case," but when I boil the second egg for six minutes, I am not boiling it for six minutes because I boiled it for six minutes on the previous occasion. I am boiling it for six minutes because six minutes is the right time. I know this because I have learned from the previous action, but on subsequent occasions I make the decision because of what I then know.

Unknown, Frederick Schauer - Thinkin…, loc. 66