Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Epistemic theories rely on unrealistic hypotheticals that... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Epistemic theories of standards of proof are flawed as applied to actual legal systems.

    Epistemic theories rely on unrealistic hypotheticals that do not reflect the actual operation of legal systems.

    Justice & PunishmentTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Epistemic theories make epistemological demands that are impossible to satisfy i...Epistemic theories of standards of proof are flawed as applied to actual legal s...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Justice & Punishment
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Semantic legal theories cannot account for genuine disagreement about ...78%Epistemic theories of standards of proof are flawed as applied to actu...77%There must be something wrong with construing legal theories as mere s...77%Natural law theories permit departure from posited law only to the ext...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evidence-legal
    View source passageHide passage
    On a different epistemic interpretation, the evidence is sufficient to meet a legal standard of proof, and a finding of legal liability is permissible, only if the factfinder can gain knowledge of the defendant’s liability—to be precise, of the material facts establishing such liability—from the evidence (Duff et al. 2007: 87–91; Pardo 2010; for a critical overview of knowledge-centered accounts, see Gardiner forthcoming). High probability of liability alone will not suffice. On more subtle know

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective