6 Ergebnisse.

How do we know what we think we know? The answer is evidence, but evidence is no simple thing. What counts as evidence in a scientific context or private dispute may not stand up in court. Frederick Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and philosophy to assess the nature of evidence in the era of "fake news.

How do we know what we think we know? The answer is evidence, but evidence is no simple thing. What counts as evidence in a scientific context or private dispute may not stand up in court. Frederick Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and philosophy to assess the nature of evidence in the era of ¿fake news.¿

Ideal for undergraduate courses in philosophy of law, this comprehensive anthology examines such topics as the concept of law, the dispute between natural law theorists and legal positivists, the relations between law and morality, criminal responsibility and legal punishment, the rights of the individual against the state, justice and equality, and legal evidence as compared with scientific evidence. The readings have been selected from both ...

Aimed at law students and upper-level undergraduates, this primer on legal reasoning is also an original exposition of basic legal concepts that scholars and lawyers will find stimulating. Schauer's analysis of what makes legal reasoning special will be a valuable guide for students and a challenge to a wide range of current academic theories.

Keine Beschreibung.

profiling and bad profiling. If we can effectively determine which is which, we stand to gain, not lose, a measure of justice.