The Content of Legal Evidence

The boundary between old evidence and new evidence depends on how the content of evidence should be individuated. The paper explores conflicting pressures on the standard of individuation. Computational considerations and Frege cases of unknown co-reference both favour fine-grained individuation. T...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Timothy Williamson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura Jurídica 2025-06-01
Series:Quaestio Facti
Subjects:
Online Access:https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23125
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850101428370014208
author Timothy Williamson
author_facet Timothy Williamson
author_sort Timothy Williamson
collection DOAJ
description The boundary between old evidence and new evidence depends on how the content of evidence should be individuated. The paper explores conflicting pressures on the standard of individuation. Computational considerations and Frege cases of unknown co-reference both favour fine-grained individuation. The mathematical structure of probability theory, intensional and direct reference semantics, differences in format between verbal and perceptual evidence, the need for evidence to be transmitted from one context to another in memory and testimony, and the publicity of legal evidence all favour coarse-grained individuation. The paper argues that coarse-grained individuation is theoretically better motivated, and that pressures towards fine-grained individuation can be understood as resulting from our reliance on efficient but fallible disquotational heuristics for the ascription of agents’ relations to propositions on the basis of their interactions with sentences expressing those propositions. Coarse-grained models can still be adapted ad hoc to understand more fine-grained phenomena.
format Article
id doaj-art-6a5909e2283b4821bb85f99dde5e16f0
institution DOAJ
issn 2660-4515
2604-6202
language English
publishDate 2025-06-01
publisher Universitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura Jurídica
record_format Article
series Quaestio Facti
spelling doaj-art-6a5909e2283b4821bb85f99dde5e16f02025-08-20T02:40:02ZengUniversitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura JurídicaQuaestio Facti2660-45152604-62022025-06-01910.33115/udg_bib/qf.i9.23125The Content of Legal EvidenceTimothy Williamson0University of Oxford The boundary between old evidence and new evidence depends on how the content of evidence should be individuated. The paper explores conflicting pressures on the standard of individuation. Computational considerations and Frege cases of unknown co-reference both favour fine-grained individuation. The mathematical structure of probability theory, intensional and direct reference semantics, differences in format between verbal and perceptual evidence, the need for evidence to be transmitted from one context to another in memory and testimony, and the publicity of legal evidence all favour coarse-grained individuation. The paper argues that coarse-grained individuation is theoretically better motivated, and that pressures towards fine-grained individuation can be understood as resulting from our reliance on efficient but fallible disquotational heuristics for the ascription of agents’ relations to propositions on the basis of their interactions with sentences expressing those propositions. Coarse-grained models can still be adapted ad hoc to understand more fine-grained phenomena. https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23125EvidenceProbabilityFormContentIntensionalism
spellingShingle Timothy Williamson
The Content of Legal Evidence
Quaestio Facti
Evidence
Probability
Form
Content
Intensionalism
title The Content of Legal Evidence
title_full The Content of Legal Evidence
title_fullStr The Content of Legal Evidence
title_full_unstemmed The Content of Legal Evidence
title_short The Content of Legal Evidence
title_sort content of legal evidence
topic Evidence
Probability
Form
Content
Intensionalism
url https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23125
work_keys_str_mv AT timothywilliamson thecontentoflegalevidence
AT timothywilliamson contentoflegalevidence