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