Contextualist Answers to Skepticism, and What a Lawyer Cannot Know

Contextualism answers skepticism by proposing a variable standard of justification, keyed to the context of utterance. A lawyer's situation with respect to a criminal defendant's factual guilt is a special one. The argument here is that in this special context an especially high standard of epistemic justification applies. The standard is even more exacting than the proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard that juries are sworn to follow. The upshot is that criminal defense lawyers normally cannot know that a client is factually guilt.
Keywords contextualism  evidence  epistemology
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,351
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Mikael Janvid (2006). Contextualism in Doubt. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):197-217.
    Claudia Bianchi (2005). How to Be a Contextualist. Facta Philosophica 7 (2):261-272.

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    23 ( #63,349 of 1,088,384 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,384 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.