Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Legal argumentation (2)
- Legal evidence (2)
- Ad hominem (1)
- Argumentation-based litigation game (1)
- Cartesianism (1)
-
- Cross-examination (1)
- Diversity (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Fractality (1)
- Identity (1)
- Indigenous cosmovision (1)
- Judicial fairness and justice (1)
- Law and science (1)
- Legal reasoning (1)
- Neoplatonism (1)
- Proportionality (1)
- Rights as trumps (1)
- Rights of nature (1)
- Spiritual reasoning (1)
- Trial (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Philosophy
Between Evidence And Facts: An Argumentative Perspective Of Legal Evidence, Wenjing Du, Minghui Xiong
Between Evidence And Facts: An Argumentative Perspective Of Legal Evidence, Wenjing Du, Minghui Xiong
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper, we will present an argumentative view of legal evidence. In an argumentation-based litigation game, the only purpose of the suitor (S) or the respondent (R) is to maximize their own legal rights while the purpose of the trier (T) is to maintain judicial fairness and justice. Different selections of evidence and different orders of presenting evidence will lead to different case-facts and even adjudicative results, the purpose of litigation is to reconcile a balance among the three parties - S, R, and T.
The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari
The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari
OSSA Conference Archive
The Frye and Daubert rulings give us two very different ways to intend the relation between law and science. Through the contributions of Wellman and Walton, we will see how the main method to question the expert’s testimony before a judge deferent to science is to question her personal integrity by using ad hominem arguments. Otherwise, using Alvin Goldman’s novice/expert problem, we will investigate if other manners of argumentative cross-examinations are possible.
“Identity-Based” And “Diversity-Based” Evidence Between Linear And Fractal Rationality, Maurizio Manzin
“Identity-Based” And “Diversity-Based” Evidence Between Linear And Fractal Rationality, Maurizio Manzin
OSSA Conference Archive
I identify two types of evidence: one based on “linear” rationality (LR) and the other based on “fractal” rationality (FR). For LR, evidence depends only on systematic coherence, and all other sources of knowledge (intuitive, perceptive, symbolic, poetic, moral, etc.) are marginalized. For FR, evidence requires an approach more adherent to the “irregularities” of life. LR philosophically entails a Neoplatonist and Cartesian account on identity, whereas FR entails Plato’s account on identity and diversity as coessential.
Rights Of Nature And Indigenous Cosmovision: A Fundamental Inquiry, Jingjing Wu
Rights Of Nature And Indigenous Cosmovision: A Fundamental Inquiry, Jingjing Wu
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper, I ask whether we can weigh and balance indigenous cosmovision—the reasoning used as the main source of legitimacy in some rights of nature legislation—within a secular legal system. I examine three barriers that rights of nature and their corollary spiritual reasoning are likely to encounter if they are invoked in secular courts: (a) spiritual reasoning is non-defeasible (Part 3) and (b) irrational (Part 4), and (3) the current concept of human rights as a universal legal norm is based on a circular logic (Part 5). In order to overcome these barriers, I draw inspiration from Dworkin’s ‘rights …