David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 16 (1):111-133 (2002)
Legal argumentation, like argumentation generally, occurs against a background of shared understanding and competence. This view, inspired by Kuhn's understanding of scientific reasoning, is in stark contrast to more traditional ârule-followingâ accounts of legal argumentation. Below I consider reasons to reject the more traditional view of legal reasoning in favor of a roughly Kuhnian account of legal reasoning and conclude by raising skeptical questions about the cogency of legal reasoning when the tacitly accepted background conditions that make it possible are not critically examined
|Keywords||Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas Bush v. Gore legal argumentation paradigm precedent rule following|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
F. Atria (1999). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited. Law and Philosophy 18 (5):537-577.
Neil MacCormick (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Aldo Schiavello (2011). Neil MacCormick's Second Thoughts on Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. A Defence of the Original View. Ratio Juris 24 (2):140-155.
Amalia Amaya (2011). Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence. Ratio Juris 24 (3):304-329.
Pauline Westerman (2010). Arguing About Goals: The Diminishing Scope of Legal Reasoning. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (2):211-226.
Jaap Hage (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.
David T. Ritchie (2008). Mastering Legal Analysis and Communication. Carolina Academic Press.
Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang (2009). Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182.
Kenneth M. Ehrenberg (2011). The Anarchist Official: A Problem for Legal Positivism. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 36:89-112.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Anthony Reeves (2011). Judicial Practical Reason: Judges in Morally Imperfect Legal Orders. Law and Philosophy 30 (3):319-352.
Added to index2010-09-11
Total downloads15 ( #232,907 of 1,792,630 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #282,371 of 1,792,630 )
How can I increase my downloads?