Naturalized epistemology and the law of evidence: methodological reflections

• Autores: Michael S. Pardo
• Localización: Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio, ISSN-e 2604-6202, Nº. 2, 2021, págs. 299-311
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i2.22484
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • This paper discusses Ronald Allen’s article, «Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence Revisited», and reflects on how epistemology can contribute to our understanding of the evidentiary proof process. I first situate Allen’s critique of recent philosophical scholarship, distinguishing between general theoretical accounts of proof (including the theory that Allen and I have defended), on one hand, and the applications of specific epistemological concepts or issues to law, on the other. I then present a methodological picture that diverges in some respects from the one that emerges from Allen’s critique. In discussing this alternative methodological picture, I explain how epistemology can contribute to legal evidence and proof while avoiding the problems that Allen identifies.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Allen, R.J. & B. Leiter, 2001: «Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence», in Virginia Law Review, 87(8): 1491-1550.
  • Allen, R.J. & M.S. Pardo, 2007: «Probability, Explanation, and Inference: A Reply», in The International Journal of Evidence & Proof,...
  • Allen, R.J. 2019a: «Relative Plausibility and Its Critics», in The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23(1- 2): 5-58
  • Allen, R.J. 2019b: «Clarifying Relative Plausibility: A Rejoinder», in The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23(1-2): 2-5-17.
  • Allen, R.J., 2020: «Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence Revisited», in this journal.
  • Cappelen, H., 2012: Philosophy without Intuitions, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Cohen, L.J., 1977: The Probable and the Provable, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Enoch, D., Spectre, L. and Fisher, T., 2012: «Statistical Evidence, Sensitivity, and the Legal Value of Knowledge», in Philosophy & Public...
  • Gettier, E., 1963: «Is Justified Ture Belief Knowledge?», in Analysis 23: 121.
  • Goldman, A.I., 1999: Knowledge in a Social World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Goldman, A.I. 2002: «Quasi-Objective Bayesianism and Legal Evidence», in Jurimetrics, 42: 237.
  • Goldman, A.I. 2012: «Philosophical Naturalism and Intuitional Methodology», in Goldman, A.I. (ed.), Reliabilism and Contemporary Epistemology....
  • Haack, S., 2014: Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Harman, G., 1986: Change in View: Principles of Reasoning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kornblith, H., 1994: «What is Naturalistic Epistemology?», in Kornblith, H. (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Laudan, L., 2008: Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leiter, B., 2017: «Naturalism in Legal Philosophy», in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-naturalism/.
  • Lipton, P., 2004: Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.
  • Lycan W.G., 2006: «On the Gettier Problem Problem», in Epistemology Futures, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Moss, S., 2021: «Knowledge and Legal Proof» in Oxford Studies in Epistemology Vol. 7, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • National Research Council, 2009: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, Washington D.C: The National Academies...
  • Quine, W.V., 1969: «Epistemology Naturalized», in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York:Columbia University Press.
  • Pardo, M.S., 2007: «Testimony», in Tulane Law Review, 82: 119.
  • Pardo, M.S. 2010: «The Gettier Problem and Legal Proof», in Legal Theory, 16: 37.
  • Pardo, M.S. 2018: «Safety vs. Sensitivity: Possible Worlds and the Law of Evidence», in Legal Theory, 24(1): 50-75.
  • Pardo, M.S. 2019: «The Paradoxes of Legal Proof: A Critical Guide», in Boston University Law Review, 99: 233.
  • Pardo, M.S. and Allen, R.J., 2008: «Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation», in Law & Philosophy, 27(3): 223-68.
  • Park, R.C., 2001: «Grand Perspectives on Evidence Law», in Virginia Law Review, 87: 2067.
  • Smith, M., 2018: «When Does Evidence Suffice for Conviction?», in Mind, 127(508): 1193-1218.
  • Williamson, T., 2002: Knowledge and its Limits, Oxford: Oxford University Press.