International Journal of Evidence and Proof:online first (2021)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Why can testimony alone be enough for findings of liability? Why statistical evidence alone can’t? These questions underpin the “Proof Paradox” (Redmayne 2008, Enoch et al. 2012). Many epistemologists have attempted to explain this paradox from a purely epistemic perspective. I call it the “Epistemic Project”. In this paper, I take a step back from this recent trend. Stemming from considerations about the nature and role of standards of proof, I define three requirements that any successful account in line with the Epistemic Project should meet. I then consider three recent epistemic accounts on which the standard is met when the evidence rules out modal risk (Pritchard 2018), normic risk (Ebert et al. 2020), or relevant alternatives (Gardiner 2019 2020). I argue that none of these accounts meets all the requirements. Finally, I offer reasons to be pessimistic about the prospects of having a successful epistemic explanation of the paradox. I suggest the discussion on the proof paradox would benefit from undergoing a ‘value-turn’.
|
Keywords | evidence-law risk proof paradoxes normic risk modal risk relevant alternatives statistical evidence |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Between Probability and Certainty: What Justifies Belief.Martin Smith - 2016 - Oxford University Press UK.
Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief.Henry E. Kyburg Jr - 1961 - Middletown, CT, USA: Wesleyan University Press.
View all 35 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
The Foundations of Criminal Law Epistemology.Lewis Ross - forthcoming - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy.
Similar books and articles
Proof Paradoxes and Normic Support: Socializing or Relativizing?Marcello Di Bello - 2020 - Mind 129 (516):1269-1285.
Statistical Evidence, Normalcy, and the Gatecrasher Paradox.Michael Blome-Tillmann - 2020 - Mind 129 (514):563-578.
Legal Burdens of Proof and Statistical Evidence.Georgi Gardiner - forthcoming - In James Chase & David Coady (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology. Routledge.
Epidemiological Evidence: Use at Your ‘Own Risk’?Jonathan Fuller - 2020 - Philosophy of Science 87 (5):1119-1129.
Justified Belief and Just Conviction.Clayton Littlejohn - forthcoming - In Jon Robson & Zachary Hoskins (eds.), Truth and Trial. Routledge.
Relevance and Risk: How the Relevant Alternatives Framework Models the Epistemology of Risk.Georgi Gardiner - 2020 - Synthese 199 (1-2):481-511.
Toward a More Objective Understanding of the Evidence of Carcinogenic Risk.Deborah G. Mayo - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:489 - 503.
Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management.Deborah G. Mayo & Rachelle D. Hollander (eds.) - 1994 - Oxford University Press USA.
Decision-Theoretic and Risk-Based Approaches to Naked Statistical Evidence: Some Consequences and Challenges.Rafal Urbaniak, Alicja Kowalewska, Pavel Janda & Patryk Dziurosz-Serafinowicz - 2020 - Law, Probability and Risk 19 (1):67-83.
Instrumental Rationality, Epistemic Rationality, and Evidence-Gathering.Lara Buchak - 2010 - Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):85-120.
More on Normic Support and the Criminal Standard of Proof.Martin Smith - 2021 - Mind 130 (519):943-960.
The Reasonable and the Relevant: Legal Standards of Proof.Georgi Gardiner - 2019 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 47 (3):288-318.
Truth, Knowledge, and the Standard of Proof in Criminal Law.Clayton Littlejohn - 2020 - Synthese 197 (12):5253-5286.
Epidemiological Evidence in Proof of Specific Causation.Alex Broadbent - 2011 - Legal Theory 17 (4):237-278.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2021-07-08
Total views
150 ( #79,286 of 2,520,804 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
40 ( #21,546 of 2,520,804 )
2021-07-08
Total views
150 ( #79,286 of 2,520,804 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
40 ( #21,546 of 2,520,804 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads