Mr. Dixon and All;

  I hate to come back again to you, but I just found this post from
Friday.  Do you suppose that the law does not, all unadmitted, use
probability in its processes?  What about any situation where
documents are destroyed, or an acknowledged witness cannot be
sworn and deposed (say, due to death)?  Is a court's ruling in those
cases totally "proved," in the sense of classical logic?  I do not
think so.
  A court generally must act.  It acts and reaches conclusions,
often using unacknowledge probability (another term would be
induction) because it has the power to do so and the bureaucratic
imperative to act.
  I don't think philosophers have even considered the epistemology
of the law, related to philosophy, history, economics, etc.  What
the truth status of a legal ruling, say in Baker v. Carr, would be of
interest to me.  Logicians within the discipline of philosophy have
done considerable work on the concept of proof.  They have
difficulty dealing with two very distinct situations:  the one in
history, where inevitably some of the evidence is lost;  and the one
in law, where inevitably one lawyer or another, moves to exclude
evidence from the court's deliberations, as part of a strategy for
victory.  Does anyone suppose that well educated counsel, paid to
produce a given result, have any interest in a fact-packed,
disinterested, open search for proof of anything relevant to a legal
proceeding?


Date sent:              Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:32:45 -0500 (EST)
From:                   "Richard E. Dixon" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: "high crimes and misdemeanors"
To:                     [log in to unmask]
Send reply to:          Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
        <[log in to unmask]>

> In a message dated 3/29/2002 9:23:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > We work, as Winthrop
> >  Jordan has noted in passing in the latest issue of the William &
> >  Mary Quarterly, using probability.
> Professor Forsythe
> That admission is honest. I hope that you convey to your students that you
> have come to your conclusion, as all such personal judgments must, from a
> perspective unique to you, that you don't have any evidence to "prove"
> anything, but you have to right to suppose what you will.
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Richard E. Dixon Attorney at Law 4122 Leonard Drive Fairfax, VA 22030
> 703-691-0770 fax 703-691-0978
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html


Harold S. Forsythe
Assistant Professor History
Director:  Black Studies
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT 06430-5195
(203) 254-4000  x2379

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html