Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:04:22.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - On Probatory Ostension and Inference

from Part III - On Evidential Inferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2022

By
Giovanni Tuzet
Edited by
Jordi Ferrer Beltrán  and
Carmen Vázquez
Jordi Ferrer Beltrán
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Carmen Vázquez
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Get access

Summary

This contribution discusses two theses on juridical evidence: the ostension thesis and the inference thesis. According to the former, the process of juridical proof typically requires some kind of ostensive act. In this sense, the evidence consists of some kind of element susceptible of being shown, or exhibited, or indicated to someone in a given context. According to the second thesis, the process of juridical proof necessarily requires inference. In this process, juridical evidence becomes the content of one or more inferences performed by the parties or by the fact-finders (judges or jurors). It can be the content of a premise which, together with other premises, leads to a conclusion about the disputed facts; or the content of a conclusion to which the premises lead. The two theses concern the process of juridical proof, but also the evidence involved in the process, since some characters of the process affect its content. Evidence is ostensively shown and inferentially processed.

Keywords

Legal evidenceinferenceostensionproof
Type
Chapter
Information
Evidential Legal Reasoning
Crossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions
 , pp. 138 - 158
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, R. J. and Pardo, M. (2007). The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence, The Journal of Legal Studies, 36 (1), 107–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R. J. (1992). The Evolution of Hersay Rule to a Rule of Admission, Minnesota Law Review, 76, 797–812.Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. (1994). Factual Ambiguity and Theory of Evidence, Northwestern Law Review, 88, 604–34.Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. (2014). Burdens of Proof, Law, Probability and Risk, 13(3–4), 195–219.Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. (2016). The Hearsay Rule as a Rule of Admission Revisited, Fordham Law Review, 84, 1395–405.Google Scholar
Anderson, T., Twining, W. and Schum, D. A. (2005). Analysis of Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, S. (1996). Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy, Harvard Law Review, 109(5): 923–1028.Google Scholar
Brewer, S. (1998). Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process, Yale Law Journal, 107: 1535–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brewer, S. (2017). The Logocratic Conception of Evidence as Argument. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. (2015). Essays in Legal Philosophy. Bernal Pulido, C., Huerta Ochoa, C., Mazzarese, T., Moreso, J. J., Navarro, P. E. and Paulson, S. L., eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burks, A. W. (1949). Icon, Index, and Symbol, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 9 (4), 673–89.Google Scholar
Canale, D. and Tuzet, G. (2009). The A Simili Argument: An Inferentialist Setting, Ratio Juris, 22 (4), 499–509.Google Scholar
Capone, A. and Poggi, F. (2016). Pragmatics and Law. Philosophical Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capone, A. and Poggi, F. (2017). Pragmatics and Law. Practical and Theoretical Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1977). Theory of Knowledge, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Coffa, J. A. (1991). The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap. To the Vienna Station. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, N. A. (2010). Fact-Finding without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
CP, Collected Papers of C.S. Peirce C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss (vols. 1–6) and A. Burks (vols. 7–8), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–58. (References by volume and paragraph number).Google Scholar
Dahlman, C. (2017). Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence, Argumentation, 31 (1), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damaška, M. (1997). Evidence Law Adrift. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ferrer, J. (2005). Prueba y verdad en el derecho, 2nd ed. Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Ferrer, J. (2007). La valoración racional de la prueba. Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Frank, J. (1949). Courts on Trial. Myth and Reality in American Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Gascón, M. (2010). Los hechos en el derecho. Bases argumentales de la prueba, 3rd ed. Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (2005). Evidence. In Golding, M. P. and Edmundson, W. A. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 163–75.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2004a). Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law, Ratio Juris, 17, 15–26.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2004b). Epistemology Legalized: Or, Truth, Justice, and the American Way, The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 49, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, H. L. (1999). A Theory of Hearsay, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 19, 403–19.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D. and Summers, S. J. (2012). The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence. Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and Necessity, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from Words. Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error, and Criminal Law. An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McJohn, S. M. (1993). On Uberty: Legal Reasoning by Analogy and Peirce’s Theory of Abduction, Willamette Law Review, 29, 191–235.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Misak, C. J. (1995). Verificationism. Its History and Prospects. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Misak, C. J. (2017). James on Religious Experience, Philosophical Inquiries, 5, 63–74.Google Scholar
Nance, D. A. (1988). The Best Evidence Principle, Iowa Law Review, 73, 227–97.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S. and Allen, R. J. (2008). Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation, Law and Philosophy, 27, 223–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, Language and Reality. Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1953). From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1970). Philosophy of Logic, 2nd ed. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1976). The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, 2nd ed. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1934). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge, 1959.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1964). Introduction to Logic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal Evidence, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1912). The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2003). Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Summers, R. S. (1999). Formal Legal Truth and Substantive Truth in Judicial Fact-Finding – Their Justified Divergence in Some Particular Cases, Law and Philosophy, 18, 497–511.Google Scholar
Taruffo, M. (1992). La prova dei fatti giuridici. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Tuzet, G. (2016). La prova ragionata, Analisi e diritto, vol. 2016, 127–61.Google Scholar
Twining, W. (1984). Evidence and Legal Theory, Modern Law Review, 47, 261–83.Google Scholar
Twining, W. (2006). Rethinking Evidence. Exploratory Essays, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wigmore, J. H. (1913). The Principles of Judicial Proof Boston MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations Anscombe, G. E. M. and Rhees, R., eds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Notes for Lectures on ‘Private Experience’ and ‘Sense Data’, The Philosophical Review, 77, 275–320.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×