The notion of individualised evidence holds the key to solve the puzzle of statistical
evidence, but there's still no consensus on how exactly to define it. To make progress on the …

Should we use the same standard of proof to adjudicate guilt for murder and petty theft? Why
not tailor the standard of proof to the crime? These relatively neglected questions cut to the …

Legal epistemology has been an area of great philosophical growth since the turn of the
century. But recently, a number of philosophers have argued the entire project is misguided …

In epistemology, the concept of knowledge is of distinctive interest. This fact is also reflected
in the discussion of epistemic value, which focuses to a large extend on the value problem of …

A jury needs “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to convict a defendant of a crime.
The standard is vexingly difficult to pin down, but some legal epistemologists have given this …

The proof paradox results from conflicting intuitions concerning different types of fallible
evidence in a court of law. We accept fallible individual evidence but reject fallible statistical …

Criminal courts make decisions that can remove the liberty and even life of those accused.
Civil trials can cause the bankruptcy of companies employing thousands of people, asylum …

Aiming to convict only on the basis of evidence that makes it rational to believe something is
the best way to make sure this happens. Statistical evidence often fails to generate a full …

Dissertation outline: I begin my dissertation by charting and assessing two competing
approaches to theorise about the nature of knowledge–modalism and explanationism …

El trabajo tiene como objetivo esclarecer el concepto de hechos notorios y explorar el rol
que cumplen en el razonamiento probatorio. Si bien es frecuente la utilización de la …