The Embedded Epistemologist

Dispatches from the Legal Front

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In ordinary circumstances, we can assess the worth of evidence well enough without benefit of any theory; but when evidence is especially complex, ambiguous, or emotionally disturbing-as it often is in legal contexts-epistemological theory may be helpful. A legal fact-finder is asked to determine whether the proposition that the defendant is guilty, or is liable, is established to the required degree of proof by the [admissible] evidence presented; i.e., to make an epistemological appraisal. The foundherentist theory developed in Evidence and Inquiry can help us understand what this means; and reveals that degrees of proof cannot be construed as mathematical probabilities: a point illustrated by comparing the advantages of a foundherentist analysis with the disadvantages of probabilistic analyses of the evidence in the Sacco and Vanzetti case (1921), and of the role of the statistical evidence in Collins (1968).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)206-235
Number of pages30
JournalRatio Juris
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

The Embedded Epistemologist : Dispatches from the Legal Front. / Haack, Susan.

In: Ratio Juris, Vol. 25, No. 2, 06.2012, p. 206-235.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2ef2ace3dd8a4fbfafee3633079ea99e,
title = "The Embedded Epistemologist: Dispatches from the Legal Front",
abstract = "In ordinary circumstances, we can assess the worth of evidence well enough without benefit of any theory; but when evidence is especially complex, ambiguous, or emotionally disturbing-as it often is in legal contexts-epistemological theory may be helpful. A legal fact-finder is asked to determine whether the proposition that the defendant is guilty, or is liable, is established to the required degree of proof by the [admissible] evidence presented; i.e., to make an epistemological appraisal. The foundherentist theory developed in Evidence and Inquiry can help us understand what this means; and reveals that degrees of proof cannot be construed as mathematical probabilities: a point illustrated by comparing the advantages of a foundherentist analysis with the disadvantages of probabilistic analyses of the evidence in the Sacco and Vanzetti case (1921), and of the role of the statistical evidence in Collins (1968).",
author = "Susan Haack",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00510.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "206--235",
journal = "Ratio Juris",
issn = "0952-1917",
publisher = "Basil Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Embedded Epistemologist

T2 - Dispatches from the Legal Front

AU - Haack, Susan

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - In ordinary circumstances, we can assess the worth of evidence well enough without benefit of any theory; but when evidence is especially complex, ambiguous, or emotionally disturbing-as it often is in legal contexts-epistemological theory may be helpful. A legal fact-finder is asked to determine whether the proposition that the defendant is guilty, or is liable, is established to the required degree of proof by the [admissible] evidence presented; i.e., to make an epistemological appraisal. The foundherentist theory developed in Evidence and Inquiry can help us understand what this means; and reveals that degrees of proof cannot be construed as mathematical probabilities: a point illustrated by comparing the advantages of a foundherentist analysis with the disadvantages of probabilistic analyses of the evidence in the Sacco and Vanzetti case (1921), and of the role of the statistical evidence in Collins (1968).

AB - In ordinary circumstances, we can assess the worth of evidence well enough without benefit of any theory; but when evidence is especially complex, ambiguous, or emotionally disturbing-as it often is in legal contexts-epistemological theory may be helpful. A legal fact-finder is asked to determine whether the proposition that the defendant is guilty, or is liable, is established to the required degree of proof by the [admissible] evidence presented; i.e., to make an epistemological appraisal. The foundherentist theory developed in Evidence and Inquiry can help us understand what this means; and reveals that degrees of proof cannot be construed as mathematical probabilities: a point illustrated by comparing the advantages of a foundherentist analysis with the disadvantages of probabilistic analyses of the evidence in the Sacco and Vanzetti case (1921), and of the role of the statistical evidence in Collins (1968).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861327732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861327732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00510.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00510.x

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 206

EP - 235

JO - Ratio Juris

JF - Ratio Juris

SN - 0952-1917

IS - 2

ER -