In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established.
In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shameless...
In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established.
In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence. Preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence.
Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decision making—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth.
Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules.
Frederick Schauer is the David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia and the author of Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry; Playing by the Rules; Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes; Thinking Like a Lawyer; and The Force of Law. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, was the Frank St...
Frederick Schauer is the David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia and the author of Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry; Playing by the Rules; Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes; Thinking Like a Lawyer; and The Force of Law. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, was the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard University for twenty years, and was a founding editor of the journal Legal Theory.
目录
· · · · · ·
Preface
1. As a Matter of Fact
2. Zebras, Horses, and the Nature of Inference
3. The Burden of Proof
4. How to Tell the Truth with Statistics
5. Testimony, and Not Only in Court
· · · · · ·
(更多)
Preface
1. As a Matter of Fact
2. Zebras, Horses, and the Nature of Inference
3. The Burden of Proof
4. How to Tell the Truth with Statistics
5. Testimony, and Not Only in Court
6. Testing Testimony
7. Of Lies and Liars
8. Can We Believe Our Eyes and Ears?
9. Of Experts and Expertise
10. The Science of Crime
11. The Ever-Expanding Domain of Expertise
12. The Relevance of the Past to the Present
13. Seeing What We Want to See
Notes
Index
· · · · · · (收起)
书名 本书原名为The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else。个人认为,The Proof按照法律术语翻译成“证据”比较妥当,或者凸显其通俗性或通识的性质,翻译为“铁证”亦可。“实锤”并无太大问题,也照顾到了proof的“证明”之意。但是本书大部分时...
(展开)
2 有用 法妹儿 2023-02-24 14:50:30 美国
有关证据和证明的基础知识,主要讨论法律和法庭中的事实认定与责任归属,但不局限于此,比较注重日常生活事例与法律案件的对比衔接。大概是一部通俗作品,不是系统的理论研究。
1 有用 后视镜里的世界 2025-02-18 02:37:41 上海
完全的新知识,核心是:所有的证据都是从可能性的意义上去探讨的。当我们问某件事是否是某个结论的证据时,我们所做的只是看某件事是否增加了该结论的事实性概率。所以,(1)利用群体性特征、个体的过往去推断个体行为,从可能性意义上看就变得合理;必须强调,这并不意味着“处在某个群体中”与个体事件之间有必然的【因果联系】;而且这种泛化的推断虽然作为证据没有缺陷,但它们可能反映或强化了过去的不公正。(2)当我们讨... 完全的新知识,核心是:所有的证据都是从可能性的意义上去探讨的。当我们问某件事是否是某个结论的证据时,我们所做的只是看某件事是否增加了该结论的事实性概率。所以,(1)利用群体性特征、个体的过往去推断个体行为,从可能性意义上看就变得合理;必须强调,这并不意味着“处在某个群体中”与个体事件之间有必然的【因果联系】;而且这种泛化的推断虽然作为证据没有缺陷,但它们可能反映或强化了过去的不公正。(2)当我们讨论证据“是否足够”时,必须将讨论重点放在“举证责任”上。不厘清每个事件不同的举证责任,持有不同观点的各方只会针对证据陷入无谓的争吵。最后,政治和证据必须区分开。拥有足够的正面证据支持某个科学决策,并不意味着政治家必须听从科学家的意见:政治需要考虑更多因素。 (展开)
1 有用 项平 2025-02-28 19:00:00 广西
points拎出来很漂亮,但絮叨成十三章,即使是通俗书,还是有点像原本织毛衣的丝线拿来做拖把。整理一下:1)在推理时,许多人都会强烈偏好individualized evidence而非statistical的,但这种普遍而系统的区分本质上是种错觉,换个场景接受度就会变很多(ch4,法庭与日常);2)为什么这种错觉有意无意在许多场景下被坚持呢?因为各有动机。“证据的好坏取决于它是否足够好,而它是否... points拎出来很漂亮,但絮叨成十三章,即使是通俗书,还是有点像原本织毛衣的丝线拿来做拖把。整理一下:1)在推理时,许多人都会强烈偏好individualized evidence而非statistical的,但这种普遍而系统的区分本质上是种错觉,换个场景接受度就会变很多(ch4,法庭与日常);2)为什么这种错觉有意无意在许多场景下被坚持呢?因为各有动机。“证据的好坏取决于它是否足够好,而它是否足够好,又取决于它被用来做什么”(ch10)。比如证据法会拒绝“本性难移”,将有前科者过去的行为排除在证据之外(ch12)。有趣的是怎么根据上述思路讨论burden of proof(ch3)和expert evidence(ch11),但作者这两点写得有点太糊,本来可以更精彩。 (展开)