Abstract
This response to Allen and Pardo focuses mainly on questioning the comparative nature of juridical proof under their relative plausibility theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen
RJ
Pardo
MS
(2019 ) Relative plausibility and its critics . International Journal of Evidence and Proof 23 (1-2 ): 5 –59 .
2.
Buchak
L
(2014 ) Belief, credence and norms . Philosophical Studies 169 (2 ): 285 –311 .
3.
Cohen
LJ
(1977 ) The Probable and the Provable . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
4.
Dworkin
R
(1985 ) Principle, policy, procedure . In:
Dworkin
R
. A Matter of Principle . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .
5.
Fann
KT
(1970 ) Peirce’s Theory of Abduction . The Hague : Martinus Nijhoff .
6.
Harman
G
(1965 ) Inference to the best explanation . The Philosophical Review 74 (1 ): 88 –95 .
7.
Ho
HL
(2008 ) A Philosophy of Evidence Law—Justice in the Search for Truth . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
8.
Lipton
P
(2004 ) Inference to the Best Explanation . 2nd ed . London : Routledge .
9.
Moss
S
(2018 ) Probabilistic Knowledge . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
10.
Musgrave
A
(1988 ) The ultimate argument for scientific realism . In:
Nola
Robert
(ed.) Relativism and Realism in Science . Dordrecht : Springer .
11.
Smith
M
(2016 ) Between Probability and Certainty . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
12.
Smith
M
(2017 ) When does evidence suffice for conviction? Mind 127 (508 ): 1193 –1218 .
13.
Stephen
JF
(1872 ) The Indian Evidence Act with an Introduction on the Principles of Judicial Evidence . Calcutta : Thacker, Spink & Co .
14.
van Fraasen
BC
(1898 ) Laws and Symmetry . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
15.
Wills
W
(1850 ) An Essay on the Principles of Circumstantial Evidence, Illustrated by Numerous Cases . 3rd ed . London : Butterworth .