English Law's Epistemology of Expert Testimony
Journal of Law and Society 33 (4):572-595 (2006)
| Abstract | This article draws upon the epistemology of testimony to analyse recent English case law on expert evidence. It argues that the courts are implicitly committed to an internalist epistemology and an inferentialist view of testimony, and draws a distinction between testimony which is treated as authoritative (where the fact-finder accepts the inferences drawn by the expert without attempting to assess their validity) and that which is treated as merely persuasive. | |||||||||
| Keywords | Legal philosophy Epistemology of testimony Expert testimont | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
  |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesTony Pitson (2006). George Campbell's Critique of Hume on Testimony. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 4 (1):1-15.
Joel Buenting (2005). Re-Thinking the Duplication of Speaker/Hearer Belief in the Epistemology of Testimony. Episteme: Journal of Social Epistemology 2 (2):43-48.
David M. Godden & Douglas Walton (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
Michael J. Saks (2008). Explaining the Tension Between the Supreme Court's Embrace of Validity as the Touchstone of Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Lower Courts' (Seeming) Rejection of Same. Episteme 5 (3):pp. 329-342.
Axel Gelfert (2011). Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry. Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
Bruce D. Sales & Leonore Simon (1993). Institutional Constraints on the Ethics of Expert Testimony. Ethics and Behavior 3 (3 & 4):231 – 249.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-03-15Total downloads15 ( #78,614 of 549,066 )Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,324 of 549,066 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
