敏感性、安全性和法律:对pardo的回复

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW Legal Theory Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI:10.1017/S1352325219000120
D. Enoch, Levi Spectre
{"title":"敏感性、安全性和法律:对pardo的回复","authors":"D. Enoch, Levi Spectre","doi":"10.1017/S1352325219000120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In a recent paper, Michael Pardo argues that the epistemic property that is legally relevant is the one called Safety, rather than Sensitivity. In the process, he argues against our Sensitivity-related account of statistical evidence. Here we revisit these issues, partly in order to respond to Pardo, and partly in order to make general claims about legal epistemology. We clarify our account, we show how it adequately deals with counterexamples and other worries, we raise suspicions about Safety's value here, and we revisit our general skepticism about the role that epistemological considerations should play in determining legal policy.","PeriodicalId":44287,"journal":{"name":"Legal Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1352325219000120","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SENSITIVITY, SAFETY, AND THE LAW: A REPLY TO PARDO\",\"authors\":\"D. Enoch, Levi Spectre\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1352325219000120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In a recent paper, Michael Pardo argues that the epistemic property that is legally relevant is the one called Safety, rather than Sensitivity. In the process, he argues against our Sensitivity-related account of statistical evidence. Here we revisit these issues, partly in order to respond to Pardo, and partly in order to make general claims about legal epistemology. We clarify our account, we show how it adequately deals with counterexamples and other worries, we raise suspicions about Safety's value here, and we revisit our general skepticism about the role that epistemological considerations should play in determining legal policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1352325219000120\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325219000120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325219000120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

在最近的一篇论文中,Michael Pardo认为,在法律上相关的认知属性是所谓的“安全性”,而不是“敏感性”。在这个过程中,他反驳了我们对统计证据的敏感性相关解释。在这里,我们重新审视这些问题,部分是为了回应帕尔多,部分是为了对法律认识论做出一般性的主张。我们澄清了我们的解释,我们展示了它如何充分处理反例和其他担忧,我们在这里提出了对安全价值的怀疑,我们重新审视了我们对认识论考虑在确定法律政策中应该发挥的作用的普遍怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SENSITIVITY, SAFETY, AND THE LAW: A REPLY TO PARDO
ABSTRACT In a recent paper, Michael Pardo argues that the epistemic property that is legally relevant is the one called Safety, rather than Sensitivity. In the process, he argues against our Sensitivity-related account of statistical evidence. Here we revisit these issues, partly in order to respond to Pardo, and partly in order to make general claims about legal epistemology. We clarify our account, we show how it adequately deals with counterexamples and other worries, we raise suspicions about Safety's value here, and we revisit our general skepticism about the role that epistemological considerations should play in determining legal policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
16.70%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Administration as Democratic Trustee Representation Proportionality, Comparability, and Parity: A Discussion on the Rationality of Balancing Neglecting Others and Making It Up to Them: The Idea of a Corrective Duty The Promise and Limits of Grounding in Law The Exclusionary Power of Political Directives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1