Strong, weak, or apparent naturalization? relative plausibility theory and conceptual analysis

• Autores: Nicola Muffato
• Localización: Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio, ISSN-e 2604-6202, Nº. 2, 2021, págs. 313-324
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i2.22465
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • The paper questions the naturalized epistemological framework for Allen’s relative plau-sibility theory (RPT). It is divided into two main sections: §1 is devoted to show that the weak/modest naturalism of Allen’s central arguments make them hardly distinguishable from a tradi-tional variety of conceptual analysis, which is neither a priori nor dependent on intuitions; §2 deals with the “empirical” character of RPT, presenting some objections to its methodological assumptions and the ambitious project of providing a unifying account of the profoundly different facets of the process of proof in USA legal systems without relying on a sufficiently wide array of sociological and empirical data and without specifying the bridge principles governing the rela-tions between the various domains of inquiry.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • ALLEN, R.J., 1986: «A reconceptualization of civil trials», in Boston University Law Review, 66(3): 401-437.
  • ALLEN, R.J., 1997: «Reasoning and its foundation: some responses», in International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 1 (special issue), 343-347.
  • ALLEN, R.J., 2013: «Taming complexity: rationality, the law of evidence and the nature of the legal system», in Law, Probability and Risk,...
  • ALLEN, R.J., 2019: «Standards of Proof and the Limits of Legal Analysis», in Diritto & Questioni Pubbliche, 19(2), 7-25.
  • ALLEN, R.J., LEITER, B., 2001: «Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence», in Virginia Law Review, 87(8), 1491-1550.
  • ALLEN, R.J., LEITER, B., 2003: «Naturalized epistemology and the law of evidence: Reply to Redmayne», in The Michigan State Law Review, 2003(4):...
  • ALLEN, R.J., PARDO, M.S., 2019a: «Relative plausibility and its critics», in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23(1-2), 5-59.
  • ALLEN, R.J., PARDO, M.S., 2019b: «Clarifying relative plausibility: A rejoinder», in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23(1-2),...
  • COLEMAN, J.L., 2001: The Practice of Principle, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • HIMMA, K.E., 2015: «Conceptual Jurisprudence. An Introduction to Conceptual Analysis and Methodology in Legal Theory», in Revus, 26, 65-92.
  • LEITER, B., 1997: «Rethinking Legal Realism: Toward a Naturalized Jurisprudence», in Texas Law Review, 76(2), 267-315.
  • LEITER, B., 2003: «Beyond the Hart/Dworkin Debate: The Methodology Problem in Jurisprudence», in The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 48(1),...
  • MEDINA, J., 2002: The unity of Wittgenstein’s philosophy: Necessity, intelligibility, and normativity, Albany: State University of New York...
  • MEDINA, J., 2006: Speaking from elsewhere, Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • NIXON, J., 2004: «What is theory?», in Educar, 34, 27-37.
  • SANDIS, C., 2010: «The Experimental Turn and Ordinary Language», in Essays in Philosophy, 11 (2), 181-196.
  • SCHAUER, F., 2019: «One small step towards a metatheory of evidence and proof», in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23(1-2),...
  • SIMON, D., 2004: «A Third View of the Black Box: Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making», in The University of Chicago Law Review, 71(2),...
  • SIMON, D., 2019: «Thin empirics», in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23(1-2), 82-89.
  • SPOTTSWOOD, M., 2014: «Bridging the gap between Bayesian and story comparison models of juridical inference», in Law, Probability, and Risk,...
  • VÁZQUEZ, C., 2019: «Less probabilism and more about explanationism», in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23(1-2), 68-74.