TY - JOUR
T1 - Sensitivity, safety, and the law
T2 - A reply to pardo
AU - Enoch, David
AU - Spectre, Levi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Cambridge University Press 2019
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - In a recent paper, Michael Pardo argues that the epistemic property that is legally relevant is the one called Safety, rather than Sensitivity. In the process, he argues against our Sensitivity-related account of statistical evidence. Here we revisit these issues, partly in order to respond to Pardo, and partly in order to make general claims about legal epistemology. We clarify our account, we show how it adequately deals with counterexamples and other worries, we raise suspicions about Safety’s value here, and we revisit our general skepticism about the role that epistemological considerations should play in determining legal policy.
AB - In a recent paper, Michael Pardo argues that the epistemic property that is legally relevant is the one called Safety, rather than Sensitivity. In the process, he argues against our Sensitivity-related account of statistical evidence. Here we revisit these issues, partly in order to respond to Pardo, and partly in order to make general claims about legal epistemology. We clarify our account, we show how it adequately deals with counterexamples and other worries, we raise suspicions about Safety’s value here, and we revisit our general skepticism about the role that epistemological considerations should play in determining legal policy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076713109&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S1352325219000120
DO - 10.1017/S1352325219000120
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:85076713109
SN - 1352-3252
VL - 25
SP - 178
EP - 199
JO - Legal Theory
JF - Legal Theory
IS - 3
ER -