Results for 'Evidence and Proof in Law'

1000+ found
Order:
See also
  1.  70
    Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic.Hendrik Kaptein - 2008 - Ashgate.
    With special attention being paid to recent developments in Artificial Intelligence and the Law, specifically related to evidentiary reasoning, this book ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2. Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues.William L. Twining & Iain Hampsher-Monk (eds.) - 2003 - Northwestern University Press.
    However little that various disciplines in the humanities and social sciences might seem to have in common, they share certain interests in methodological problems relating to evidence, inference, and interpretation. By pursuing these shared interests across divergent topics and fields, the contributors to this book advance our understanding of how such truth-seeking, proof-finding methods work, and of what it means to prove something in a range of contexts. Coedited by William Twining, one of the world's outstanding evidence (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching.Paul Roberts & Mike Redmayne (eds.) - 2007 - Hart.
    Innovations in Evidence and Proof' brings together leading scholars and law teachers from the US, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the UK to explore the latest developments in evidence scholarship.--Résumé de l'éditeur.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law.Susan Haack - 2014 - Cambridge University Press.
    Is truth in the law just plain truth - or something sui generis? Is a trial a search for truth? Do adversarial procedures and exclusionary rules of evidence enable, or impede, the accurate determination of factual issues? Can degrees of proof be identified with mathematical probabilities? What role can statistical evidence properly play? How can courts best handle the scientific testimony on which cases sometimes turn? How are they to distinguish reliable scientific testimony from unreliable hokum? These (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  5.  67
    Scientific Evidence and the Law: An Objective Bayesian Formalisation of the Precautionary Principle in Pharmaceutical Regulation.Barbara Osimani - 2011 - Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 11:1-24.
    The paper considers the legal tools that have been developed in German pharmaceutical regulation as a result of the precautionary attitude inaugurated by the Contergan decision. These tools are the notion of “well-founded suspicion”, which attenuates the requirements for safety intervention by relaxing the requirement of a proved causal connection between danger and source, and the introduction of the reversal of proof burden in liability norms. The paper focuses on the first and proposes seeing the precautionary principle as an (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6. Coherence, Evidence, and Legal Proof.Amalia Amaya - 2013 - 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 (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  7. Truth, Knowledge, and the Standard of Proof in Criminal Law.Clayton Littlejohn - forthcoming - Synthese 197 (12):5253-5286.
    Could it be right to convict and punish defendants using only statistical evidence? In this paper, I argue that it is not and explain why it would be wrong. This is difficult to do because there is a powerful argument for thinking that we should convict and punish defendants using statistical evidence. It looks as if the relevant cases are cases of decision under risk and it seems we know what we should do in such cases (i.e., maximize (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  8.  10
    Editors' Review and Introduction: Models of Rational Proof in Criminal Law.Henry Prakken, Floris Bex & Anne Ruth Mackor - 2020 - Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4):1053-1067.
    Decisions concerning proof of facts in criminal law must be rational because of what is at stake, but the decision‐making process must also be cognitively feasible because of cognitive limitations, and it must obey the relevant legal–procedural constraints. In this topic three approaches to rational reasoning about evidence in criminal law are compared in light of these demands: arguments, probabilities, and scenarios. This is done in six case studies in which different authors analyze a manslaughter case from different (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9. Sensitivity, Causality, and Statistical Evidence in Courts of Law.Michael Blome-Tillmann - 2015 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 4 (2):102-112.
    Recent attempts to resolve the Paradox of the Gatecrasher rest on a now familiar distinction between individual and bare statistical evidence. This paper investigates two such approaches, the causal approach to individual evidence and a recently influential (and award-winning) modal account that explicates individual evidence in terms of Nozick's notion of sensitivity. This paper offers counterexamples to both approaches, explicates a problem concerning necessary truths for the sensitivity account, and argues that either view is implausibly committed to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  10. A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth.H. L. Ho - 2008 - Oxford University Press.
    This book examines the legal and moral theory behind the law of evidence and proof, arguing that only by exploring the nature of responsibility in fact-finding can the role and purpose of much of the law be fully understood. Ho argues that the court must not only find the truth to do justice, it must do justice in finding the truth.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  11.  2
    Facts in Law: Association for Legal and Social Philosophy, Ninth Annual Conference at Hatfield College, University of Durham, 2nd-4th April 1982. [REVIEW]William L. Twining (ed.) - 1983 - Steiner.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  6
    Proof in Law: Legal Language and Legal Institutions.Jerzy Wróblewski - 1989 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 2 (1):3-16.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13.  31
    Epidemiological Evidence in Proof of Specific Causation.Alex Broadbent - 2011 - Legal Theory 17 (4):237-278.
    This paper seeks to determine the significance, if any, of epidemiological evidence to prove the specific causation element of liability in negligence or other relevant torts—in particular, what importance can be attached to a relative risk > 2, where that figure represents a sound causal inference at the general level. The paper discusses increased risk approaches to epidemiological evidence and concludes that they are a last resort. The paper also criticizes the proposal that the probability of causation can (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  14.  41
    Self-Evidence and Proof.C. H. Perelman - 1958 - Philosophy 33 (127):289 - 302.
    There is an argument, well known in the history of philosophy, which makes all knowledge ultimately depend on some kind of intuitive or sensory immediacy. According to this argument, either the proposition itself is self–evident; 2 or else it can be shown to follow, with the help of a chain of intermediate links, from other propositions which are self–evident. Moreover, it is this self–evidence of immediate knowledge and only this which, again speaking traditionally, sufficiently guarantees the truth of the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  14
    An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Ratio Juris 18 (4):434-463.
    . A heuristic search procedure for inventing legal arguments is built on two tools already widely in use in argumentation. Argumentation schemes are forms of argument representing premise‐conclusion and inference structures of common types of arguments. Schemes especially useful in law represent defeasible arguments, like argument from expert opinion. Argument diagramming is a visualization tool used to display a chain of connected arguments linked together. One such tool, Araucaria, available free at , helps a user display an argument on the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  16.  51
    Evidence and Events in History.Leon J. Goldstein - 1962 - Philosophy of Science 29 (2):175-194.
    The first part of the paper distinguishes between a real past which has nothing to do with historical events and an historical past made up of hypothetical events introduced for the purpose of explaining historical evidence. Attention is next paid to those so-called ancillary historical disciplines which study historical evidence, and it is noted that the historical event is brought in to explain the particular constellation of different kinds of historical evidence which are judged to belong together. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  17. Legal proof and statistical conjunctions.Lewis D. Ross - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 178 (6):2021-2041.
    A question, long discussed by legal scholars, has recently provoked a considerable amount of philosophical attention: ‘Is it ever appropriate to base a legal verdict on statistical evidence alone?’ Many philosophers who have considered this question reject legal reliance on bare statistics, even when the odds of error are extremely low. This paper develops a puzzle for the dominant theories concerning why we should eschew bare statistics. Namely, there seem to be compelling scenarios in which there are multiple sources (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  18.  2
    Evidence and Proof.William L. Twining & Alex Stein (eds.) - 1992 - New York University Press.
    This volume brings together leading theoretical writings on legal fact-finding which are dispersed and not readily accessible.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  85
    An Interpretation of Probability in the Law of Evidence Based on Pro-Et-Contra Argumentation.Lennart Åqvist - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):391-410.
    The purpose of this paper is to improve on the logical and measure-theoretic foundations for the notion of probability in the law of evidence, which were given in my contributions Åqvist [ (1990) Logical analysis of epistemic modality: an explication of the Bolding–Ekelöf degrees of evidential strength. In: Klami HT (ed) Rätt och Sanning (Law and Truth. A symposium on legal proof-theory in Uppsala May 1989). Iustus Förlag, Uppsala, pp 43–54; (1992) Towards a logical theory of legal (...): semantic analysis of the Bolding–Ekelöf degrees of evidential strength. In: Martino AA (ed) Expert systems in law. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 67–86]. The present approach agrees with the one adopted in those contributions in taking its main task to be that of providing a semantic analysis, or explication, of the so called Bolding–Ekelöf degrees of evidential strength (“proof-strength”) as applied to the establishment of matters of fact in law-courts. However, it differs from the one advocated in our earlier work on the subject in explicitly appealing to what is known as “Pro-et-Contra Argumentation”, after the famous Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. It tries to bring out the logical form of that interesting kind of reasoning, at least in the context of the law of evidence. The formal techniques used here will be seen to be largely inspired by the important work done by Patrick Suppes, notably Suppes [(1957) Introduction to logic. van Nostrand, Princeton and (1972) Finite equal-interval measurement structures. Theoria 38:45–63]. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  20. Statistical Evidence, Normalcy, and the Gatecrasher Paradox.Michael Blome-Tillmann - 2020 - Mind 129 (514):563-578.
    Martin Smith has recently proposed, in this journal, a novel and intriguing approach to puzzles and paradoxes in evidence law arising from the evidential standard of the Preponderance of the Evidence. According to Smith, the relation of normic support provides us with an elegant solution to those puzzles. In this paper I develop a counterexample to Smith’s approach and argue that normic support can neither account for our reluctance to base affirmative verdicts on bare statistical evidence nor (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  53
    Safety Vs. Sensitivity: Possible Worlds and the Law of Evidence.Michael S. Pardo - 2018 - Legal Theory 24 (1):50-75.
    ABSTRACTThis article defends the importance of epistemic safety for legal evidence. Drawing on discussions of sensitivity and safety in epistemology, the article explores how similar considerations apply to legal proof. In the legal context, sensitivity concerns whether a factual finding would be made if it were false, and safety concerns how easily a factual finding could be false. The article critiques recent claims about the importance of sensitivity for the law of evidence. In particular, this critique argues (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  22.  56
    Epistemology and the Law: Why There is No Epistemic Mileage in Legal Cases.Marvin Backes - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (9):2759-2778.
    The primary aim of this paper is to defend the Lockean View—the view that a belief is epistemically justified iff it is highly probable—against a new family of objections. According to these objections, broadly speaking, the Lockean View ought to be abandoned because it is incompatible with, or difficult to square with, our judgments surrounding certain legal cases. I distinguish and explore three different versions of these objections—The Conviction Argument, the Argument from Assertion and Practical Reasoning, and the Comparative Probabilities (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  23. Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology.Larry Laudan - 2006 - Cambridge University Press.
    Beginning with the premise that the principal function of a criminal trial is to find out the truth about a crime, Larry Laudan examines the rules of evidence and procedure that would be appropriate if the discovery of the truth were, as higher courts routinely claim, the overriding aim of the criminal justice system. Laudan mounts a systematic critique of existing rules and procedures that are obstacles to that quest. He also examines issues of error distribution by offering the (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  24. Burdens of Evidence and Proof : Why Bear Them? A Plea for Principled Opportunism in (Leaving) Legal Factfinding (Alone).Hendrik Kaptein - 2008 - In Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25.  41
    Legal Stories and the Process of Proof.Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (3):253-278.
    In this paper, we continue our research on a hybrid narrative-argumentative approach to evidential reasoning in the law by showing the interaction between factual reasoning (providing a proof for ‘what happened’ in a case) and legal reasoning (making a decision based on the proof). First we extend the hybrid theory by making the connection with reasoning towards legal consequences. We then emphasise the role of legal stories (as opposed to the factual stories of the hybrid theory). Legal stories (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  26. Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. pp. 45-57.
    Presumption is a complex concept in law, affecting the dialogue setting. However, it is not clear how presumptions work in everyday argumentation, in which the concept of “plausible argumentation” seems to encompass all kinds of inferences. By analyzing the legal notion of presumption, it appears that this type of reasoning combines argument schemes with reasoning from ignorance. Presumptive reasoning can be considered a particular form of reasoning, which needs positive or negative evidence to carry a probative weight on the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27.  43
    Scientific and Legal Standards of Statistical Evidence in Toxic Tort and Discrimination Suits.Carl Cranor & Kurt Nutting - 1990 - Law and Philosophy 9 (2):115 - 156.
    Many legal disputes turn on scientific, especially statistical, evidence. Traditionally scientists have accepted only that statistical evidence which satisfies a 95 percent (or 99 percent) rule — that is, only evidence which has less than five percent (or one percent) probability of resulting from chance.The rationale for this rule is the reluctance of scientists to accept anything less than the best-supported new knowledge. The rule reflects the internal needs of scientific practice. However, when uncritically adopted as a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28.  54
    On Evidence, Medical and Legal.Donald W. Miller & Clifford Miller - 2005 - Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 10 (3):70-75.
    Medicine, like law, is a pragmatic, probabilistic activity. Both require that decisions be made on the basis of available evidence, within a limited time. In contrast to law, medicine, particularly evidence-based medicine as it is currently practiced, aspires to a scientific standard of proof, one that is more certain than the standards of proof courts apply in civil and criminal proceedings. But medicine, as Dr. William Osler put it, is an "art of probabilities," or at best, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  29.  5
    Evidence and Association: Epistemic Confusion in Toxic Tort Law.Mark Parascandola - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (5):S168-S176.
    Attempts at quantification turn up in many areas within the modern courtroom, but nowhere more than in the realm of toxic tort law. Evidence, in these cases, is routinely presented in statistical form. The vagueness inherent in phrases such as 'balance of probabilities' and 'more likely than not' is reinterpreted to correspond to precise mathematical values. Standing alone these developments would not be a cause for great concern. But in practice courts and commentators have routinely mixed up incompatible quantities, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30.  38
    Proof with and Without Probabilities: Correct Evidential Reasoning with Presumptive Arguments, Coherent Hypotheses and Degrees of Uncertainty.Bart Verheij - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1):127-154.
    Evidential reasoning is hard, and errors can lead to miscarriages of justice with serious consequences. Analytic methods for the correct handling of evidence come in different styles, typically focusing on one of three tools: arguments, scenarios or probabilities. Recent research used Bayesian networks for connecting arguments, scenarios, and probabilities. Well-known issues with Bayesian networks were encountered: More numbers are needed than are available, and there is a risk of misinterpretation of the graph underlying the Bayesian network, for instance as (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  31.  78
    Warrant, Causation, and the Atomism of Evidence Law.Susan Haack - 2008 - Episteme 5 (3):253-266.
    The epistemological analysis offered in this paper reveals that a combination of pieces of evidence, none of them sufficient by itself to warrant a causal conclusion to the legally required degree of proof, may do so jointly. The legal analysis offered here, interlocking with this, reveals that Daubert’s requirement that courts screen each item of scientific expert testimony for reliability can actually impede the process of arriving at the conclusion most warranted by the evidence proffered.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  32.  44
    Legal Proof and Fact Finders' Beliefs.Jordi Ferrer Beltrán - 2006 - Legal Theory 12 (4):293-314.
    In procedural-law scholarship as well as in the theoretical analysis of the notion of proof as a result of the joint assessment of all items of evidence introduced in a trial, reference is frequently made to notions such as the conviction, belief, or certainty of a judge or a jury member about what happened. All these notions underscore the mental states involved in the process of determining the facts on the part of a judge or a jury. In (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  33.  87
    The Objective Bayesian Conceptualisation of Proof and Reference Class Problems.James Franklin - 2011 - Sydney Law Review 33 (3):545-561.
    The objective Bayesian view of proof (or logical probability, or evidential support) is explained and defended: that the relation of evidence to hypothesis (in legal trials, science etc) is a strictly logical one, comparable to deductive logic. This view is distinguished from the thesis, which had some popularity in law in the 1980s, that legal evidence ought to be evaluated using numerical probabilities and formulas. While numbers are not always useful, a central role is played in uncertain (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34.  5
    Review of Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic by Hendrik Kaptein, Henry Prakken and Bart Verheij Applied Legal Philosopby Series, 2009. [REVIEW]Douglas Walton - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):371-377.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35.  17
    Criminal Quarantine and the Burden of Proof.Michael Corrado - 2019 - Philosophia 47 (4):1095-1110.
    In the recent literature a number of free will skeptics, skeptics who believe that punishment is justified only if deserved, have argued for these two points: first, that the free will realist who would justify punishment has the burden of establishing to a high level of certainty - perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly at least by clear and convincing evidence - that any person to be punished acted freely in breaking the law; and, second, that that level (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  36.  2
    Edited by Francesco Paolo de Ceglia. The Body of Evidence: Corpses and Proofs in Early Modern European Medicine. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2020, X + 355 Pp. ISBN: 9789004284814. [REVIEW]Katherine D. Watson - forthcoming - Centaurus.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  14
    Disability Law and the Case for Evidence-Based Triage in a Pandemic.Govind Persad - 2020 - Yale Law Journal Forum 130:26-50.
    This Essay explains why model policies proposed or adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that allocate scarce medical resources by using medical evidence to pursue two core goals—saving more lives and saving more years of life—are compatible and consonant with disability law. Disability law, properly understood, permits considering medical evidence about patients’ probability of surviving treatment and the quantity of scarce treatments they will likely use. It also permits prioritizing health workers, and considering patients’ post-treatment life expectancy. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  38.  84
    Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays.William L. Twining - 1994 - Cambridge University Press.
    The Law of Evidence has traditionally been perceived as a dry, highly technical, and mysterious subject. This book argues that problems of evidence in law are closely related to the handling of evidence in other kinds of practical decision-making and other academic disciplines, that it is closely related to common sense and that it is an interesting, lively and accessible subject. These essays develop a readable, coherent historical and theoretical perspective about problems of proof, evidence, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  39.  3
    Targeted Killing and the Criminal Law.Alec Walen - 2019 - In Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Springer Verlag. pp. 753-771.
    The moral justification for targeted killing turns on it being justified as an act of self-defense. That justification can be assessed by addressing five questions: Is the targeted person a threat who lacks the right to threaten? Has the targeted person forfeited some of her claim not to be killed? Even if the answer to the first two questions is positive, is targeted killing a necessary and proportionate response? Is the evidence in favor of targeted killing high enough to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40.  52
    Science, Truth, and Forensic Cultures: The Exceptional Legal Status of DNA Evidence.Michael Lynch - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (1):60-70.
    Many epistemological terms, such as investigation, inquiry, argument, evidence, and fact were established in law well before being associated with science. However, while legal proof remained qualified by standards of ‘moral certainty’, scientific proof attained a reputation for objectivity. Although most forms of legal evidence continue to be treated as fallible ‘opinions’ rather than objective ‘facts’, forensic DNA evidence increasingly is being granted an exceptional factual status. It did not always enjoy such status. Two decades (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  41. Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence: Evidential Transitivity in Connection with Fossils, Fishing, Fine-Tuning, and Firing Squads.Elliott Sober - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 143 (1):63-90.
    “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” is a slogan that is popular among scientists and nonscientists alike. This article assesses its truth by using a probabilistic tool, the Law of Likelihood. Qualitative questions (“Is E evidence about H ?”) and quantitative questions (“How much evidence does E provide about H ?”) are both considered. The article discusses the example of fossil intermediates. If finding a fossil that is phenotypically intermediate between two extant species provides (...) that those species have a common ancestor, does failing to find such a fossil constitute evidence that there was no common ancestor? Or should the failure merely be chalked up to the imperfection of the fossil record? The transitivity of the evidence relation in simple causal chains provides a broader context, which leads to discussion of the fine-tuning argument, the anthropic principle, and observation selection effects. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  42.  37
    Evidence and Association: Epistemic Confusion in Toxic Tort Law.Mark Parascandola - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (3):176.
    Attempts at quantification turn up in many areas within the modern courtroom, but nowhere more than in the realm of toxic tort law. Evidence, in these cases, is routinely presented in statistical form. The vagueness inherent in phrases such as 'balance of probabilities' and 'more likely than not' is reinterpreted to correspond to precise mathematical values. Standing alone these developments would not be a cause for great concern. But in practice courts and commentators have routinely mixed up incompatible quantities, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  12
    Evading the Burden of Proof in European Union Soft Law Instruments: The Case of Commission Recommendations.Corina Andone & Sara Greco - 2018 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 31 (1):79-99.
    The European Union is making increased efforts to find simpler and more effective ways to function adequately in the eyes of its citizens by using ‘soft law’ instruments such as recommendations. Although they have no legally binding force, recommendations have practical and legal effects occurring partly due to their normative content in which a course of action is prescribed and further supported by arguments intended to persuade the addressees of a political position. Although recommendations function as persuasive instruments due to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  44.  6
    Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process.Sheila Jasanoff - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2):328-341.
    “Relying on Science, Romney Files Death Penalty Bill.” With that headline, a press release on April 28, 2005 announced that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was seeking to reintroduce by legislation the death penalty that the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled unconstitutional in 1984. The remainder of the text left little doubt that science was a major basis for the governor's action. The press release quoted Romney as saying that the bill provided a “gold standard for the death penalty in the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45.  50
    Evidence and the Law of Excluded Middle: Brentano on Truth.Maria van der Schaar - 1999 - In Timothy Childers (ed.), The Logica Yearbook 1998. Filosofia.
    The central question of my paper is whether there is a coherent logical theory in which truth is construed in epistemic terms and in which also some version of the law of excluded middle is defended. Brentano in his later writings has such a theory.2 My first question is whether his theory is consistent. I also make a comparison between Brentano’s view and that of an intuitionist at the present day, namely Per Martin-Löf. Such a comparison might provide some insight (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46.  21
    Law and Order in Fourteenth-Century England: The Evidence of Special Commissions of Oyer and Terminer.Richard Kaeuper - 1979 - Speculum 54 (4):734-784.
    The hundreds of files of Ancient Petitions in the Public Record Office, London, contain scores of petitions like the following, which was sent to king and council, probably in 1327, by John de Bannebury, farmer of the Church of Hackney in Middlesex.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  47.  1
    Gender and Evidence in Family Law Reform: A Case Study of Quantification and Anecdote in Framing and Legitimising the ‘Problems’ with Child Support in Australia.Kay Cook & Kristin Natalier - 2016 - Feminist Legal Studies 24 (2):147-167.
    Despite claims of ‘evidence based policy’, the place of empirical evidence in family law reform is ambiguous. There is ongoing socio-legal analysis of the differential value and uses of quantitative data and anecdote in detailing women’s experiences and advocating for change. In this paper, we engage with these issues through a focus on how data were constructed in a key government report, Every Picture Tells a Story, which was used to officially define the problem and outline recommendations in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  48. Recent Work on the Proof Paradox.Lewis D. Ross - 2020 - Philosophy Compass 15 (6).
    Recent years have seen fresh impetus brought to debates about the proper role of statistical evidence in the law. Recent work largely centres on a set of puzzles known as the ‘proof paradox’. While these puzzles may initially seem academic, they have important ramifications for the law: raising key conceptual questions about legal proof, and practical questions about DNA evidence. This article introduces the proof paradox, why we should care about it, and new work attempting (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  49.  51
    A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence.Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
    This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  50.  2
    On the Nature, Status, and Proof of Hume’s Principle in Frege’s Logicist Project.Matthias Schirn - 2016 - In Sorin Costreie (ed.), Early Analytic Philosophy – New Perspectives on the Tradition. Springer Verlag.
    Sections “Introduction: Hume’s Principle, Basic Law V and Cardinal Arithmetic” and “The Julius Caesar Problem in Grundlagen—A Brief Characterization” are peparatory. In Section “Analyticity”, I consider the options that Frege might have had to establish the analyticity of Hume’s Principle, bearing in mind that with its analytic or non-analytic status the intended logical foundation of cardinal arithmetic stands or falls. Section “Thought Identity and Hume’s Principle” is concerned with the two criteria of thought identity that Frege states in 1906 and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000