See also:
Profile: Christopher R. Green (University of Mississippi)
  1. Christopher R. Green, Originalism and the Sense-Reference Distinction.
    I deploy the sense-reference distinction and its kin from the philosophy of language to answer the question what in constitutional interpretation should, and should not, be able to change after founders adopt a constitutional provision. I suggest that a constitutional expression's reference, but not its sense, can change. Interpreters should thus give founders' assessments of reference only Skidmore-level deference. From this position, I criticize the theories of constitutional interpretation offered by Raoul Berger, Jed Rubenfeld, and Richard Fallon, and apply the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Christopher R. Green, The Epistemic Parity of Testimony, Memory, and Perception.
    Extensive literatures exist on the epistemology of testimony, memory, and perception, but for the most part these literatures do not systematically consider the extent of the analogies between the three epistemic sources. A number of the same problems reappear in all three literatures, however. Dealing simultaneously with all three sources and making a careful accounting of the analogies and disanalogies between them should therefore avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Other than limits on the scope of which memorially- and testimonially-based beliefs (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Christopher R. Green (2007). Suing One's Sense Faculties for Fraud: 'Justifiable Reliance' in the Law as a Clue to Epistemic Justification. Philosophical Papers 36 (1):49-90.
    The law requires that plaintiffs in fraud cases be 'justified' in relying on a misrepresentation. I deploy the accumulated intuitions of the law to defend externalist accounts of epistemic justification and knowledge against Laurence BonJour's counterexamples involving clairvoyance. I suggest that the law can offer a well-developed model for adding a no-defeater condition to either justification or knowledge but without requiring that subjects possess positive reasons to believe in the reliability of an epistemic source.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation