Ascertainment of facts is basic to both science and law and it rests upon proof. In this context, proof is a quantum and quality of evidence or data sufficient to support a conclusion. But criteria for determining what degree of evidence/data is adequate have taken centuries to develop and are still elusive. Science uses quantitative criteria subject to statistical analysis. Law uses verbally described categorical criteria. Analytically, both processes rest upon subjective judgements or assumptions. Science, because of the nature of the questions it addresses, has an empirical or pragmatic mode of validation that other disciplines lack, but ultimately proof of facts in all disciplines rests upon judgements of probability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LoevingerL.: ‘Facts, evidence, and legal proof’, West. Reserve Law Rev., 1958, 9, 154. Reprinted in R. D. Henson (ed.): ‘Landmarks of law’ 422; 1960; and in M. R. Cohen and F. Cohen: ‘Readings in jurisprudence and legal philosophy’, 2nd edn, 669; 1979, Boston, MA, Little, Brown.
MillJ. S.: ‘A system of logic: ratiocinative and inductive’; 1843(1947 edn, London, Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd).
10.
CohenM. R. and NagelE.: ‘An introduction to logic and scientific method’, Chap. XIII;1934, San Diego, CA, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
11.
HarréR.: ‘The philosophies of science’, 2nd edn; 1985, London, Taylor and Francis.
12.
BooleG.: ‘An investigation of the laws of thought on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities’; 1854.
13.
BooleG.: ‘The mathematical analysis of logic’; 1847(1948 edition, New York, Philosophical Library).
14.
PopperK. R.: ‘The logic of scientific discovery’; 1959, New York, Harper.
15.
BynumW. F., BrowneE. J. and PorterR.(eds.): ‘Dictionary of the history of science’, 386, under ‘simplicity’; 1981, Lawrenceville, NJ, Princeton University Press.
16.
HowsonC. and UrbachP.: ‘Scientific reasoning: the Bayesian approach’; 1989, Peru, IL, Open Court.
17.
‘Federal Rules of Evidence, US code annotated’, Rule 201, Title 28, Appendix;St Paul, MN, West Publishing Co.
18.
PayneJ. L.: ‘The congressional brainwashing machine’, Public Interest, Summer1990, 3.
19.
PayneJ. L.: ‘Limiting government by limiting congressional terms‘, Public Interest, Spring1991, 106.
20.
‘Addington v. Texas’, 441 US 418, at 423, 1979.
21.
‘Grogan v. Garner’, US, 111 SCt 654, 1991.
22.
‘Brown v. Bowen’, 447 F2d 342, 7th Cir., 1988.
23.
‘Branion v. Gramly’, 855 F2d 1256, at 1263, no. 5, 7th Cir., 1988.
24.
‘Commonwealth v. Beausoleil’, 397 Mass 206, 490 NE2d 788, 1986.
25.
‘Inire the paternity of MJB’, 144Wis2d638, 425 NW2d 404, 1988.
BynumW. F., browne and porter(eds.): ‘Dictionary of the history of science’, 340, under ‘probability’; 1981, Lawrenceville, NJ, Princeton University Press.
39.
PopperK. R.: ‘The logic of scientific discovery’, Chap. VIII, ‘Probability’; 1959. New York, Harper.
40.
PopperK. R.: ‘The logic of scientific discovery’, 203; 1959, New York, Harper.
41.
‘Branion v. Gramly’, 855 F2d 1256, 1264, 7th Cir., 1988.
42.
GödelK.: ‘On formally undecidable propositions of ‘Principia mathematica’ and related systems’; 1931(first English edition 1962, Oxford, Oxford University Press).
