Giada Fratantonio
University of Edinburgh
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)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Thinking, Fast and Slow.Daniel Kahneman - 2011 - New York: New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 64 (1):200-201.
Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief.Henry E. Kyburg Jr - 1961 - Middletown, CT, USA: Wesleyan University Press.
Belief, Credence, and Norms.Lara Buchak - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 169 (2):1-27.

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.
Knowledge, Individualised Evidence and Luck.Dario Mortini - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

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.
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.
The Reasonable and the Relevant: Legal Standards of Proof.Georgi Gardiner - 2019 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 47 (3):288-318.
Risk.Duncan Pritchard - 2015 - Metaphilosophy 46 (3):436-461.


Added to PP index

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?


My notes