9 found
Sort by:
  1. Amalia Amaya (2013). Coherence, Evidence, and Legal Proof. Legal Theory 19 (1):1-43.
    The aim of this essay is to develop a coherence theory for the justification of evidentiary judgments in law. The main claim of the coherence theory proposed in this article is that a belief about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is a belief that an epistemically responsible fact finder might hold by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. The article argues that this coherentist approach to evidence and legal proof has the resources to (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Amalia Amaya & H. L. Ho (eds.) (2013). Law, Virtue and Justice. Hart Publishing.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Gregory Alexander, Larry Alexander, Amalia Amaya, Amy Baehr, Ludvig Beckman, Charles Beitz, Vera Bergelson, Mitchell Berman, Michael Blake & Linda Bosniak (2012). Please Join Us in Thanking All of Those Experts in Law and Philosophy for Devoting Time and Effort to Review the Papers We Have Sent Them. The Editor and Publisher Acknowledge the Colleagues Listed Below for Their Excellent Reviews of Papers for Which Final Decisions Have Been Made in 2012. Law and Philosophy 31:769-770.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Amalia Amaya (2011). Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence. Ratio Juris 24 (3):304-329.
    This paper examines the concept of coherence and its role in legal reasoning. First, it identifies some problem areas confronting coherence theories of legal reasoning about both disputed questions of fact and disputed questions of law. Second, with a view to solving these problems, it proposes a coherence model of legal reasoning. The main tenet of this coherence model is that a belief about the law and the facts under dispute is justified if it is “optimally coherent,” that is, if (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Amalia Amaya (2011). Virtudes, argumentación jurídica y ética judicial. Diánoia 56 (67):135-142.
    Según Manuel Atienza, la teoría de la argumentación jurídica se tiene que ocupar de responder tres preguntas: cómo analizar una argumentación, cómo evaluarla y cómo argumentar. Esta concepción de la teoría de la argumentación jurídica es, sin embargo, demasiado restrictiva. Además de proporcionar una respuesta adecuada a estas preguntas, una teoría de la argumentación jurídica debe ocuparse también de la cuestión de qué virtudes debe tener un juez para hacer buenas argumentaciones. La teoría de la argumentación jurídica está, por ello, (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Amalia Amaya (2011). Virtue and Reason in Law. In Maksymilian Del Mar (ed.), New Waves in Philosophy of Law. Palgrave Macmillan.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Amalia Amaya (2008). Inference to the Best Legal Explanation. In Hendrik Kaptein (ed.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Amalia Amaya (2008). Justification, Coherence, and Epistemic Responsibility in Legal Fact-Finding. Episteme 5 (3):pp. 306-319.
    This paper argues for a coherentist theory of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law, according to which a hypothesis about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is such that an epistemically responsible fact-finder might have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. It claims that this version of coherentism has the resources to address a main problem facing coherence theories of evidence and legal proof, namely, the problem of the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Amalia Amaya (2007). Formal Models of Coherence and Legal Epistemology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):429-447.
    This paper argues that formal models of coherence are useful for constructing a legal epistemology. Two main formal approaches to coherence are examined: coherence-based models of belief revision and the theory of coherence as constraint satisfaction. It is shown that these approaches shed light on central aspects of a coherentist legal epistemology, such as the concept of coherence, the dynamics of coherentist justification in law, and the mechanisms whereby coherence may be built in the course of legal decision-making.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation