Module description
Some philosophy background is suggested, but is not required or expected
This module will focus on recent work in the rapidly growing areas of legal and political epistemology. Students will come to appreciate how key epistemological tools and concepts – such as knowledge and justification – bear on longstanding issues in the law and political philosophy. Topics of discussion may include: statistical evidence, legal proof, the presumption of innocence, the role of truth in politics, the epistemic value of political partisanship, voter ignorance and irrationality, the epistemology of political disagreement, and more.
Some specific questions we may address include:
- Should courts be allowed to convict on the basis of merely statistical evidence?
- Does legal proof require knowledge, or merely justified belief?
- Are slogans like “#BelieveWomen” compatible with the presumption of innocence?
- Should the existence of widespread disagreement in politics make us less confident in our own views?
- Are voters morally or epistemically obligated to vote responsibly?
- Is it rational for citizens to base their political views on group identity rather than reasoned arguments?
- Should we have beliefs about complex policy questions about which we are not experts?
- Is democracy the best form of government for getting at the truth?
Assessment details
Coursework (100%)
Educational aims & objectives
The module will provide students with the opportunity to critically engage with complex and important debates in legal and political epistemology. Students will develop the conceptual tools required to think critically about these issues.
The module will favour classroom dynamics that promote dialogue and foster a great degree of student input. These include general discussion, as well as small group work. The aim is to help students improve their communication skills as well as their capacity to work collaboratively as part of a team. Ultimately, the format of the module will hone students’ critical and self-critical abilities so that they can develop reasoned opinions and a critical stance on any question they are asked to address.
Teaching pattern
Weekly 2-hour seminars
Suggested reading list
Legal Epistemology
Proof Paradox & Belief vs. Credence
- Buchak, Lara 2014, “Belief, Credence, and Norms”
- Thomson, Judith Jarvis 1986, “Liability and Individualized Evidence”
- Ross, Lewis 2020, “Recent Work on the Proof Paradox”
Legal Proof, Sensitivity, and Incentives
- Enoch, Spectre, & Fisher 2012, “Statistical Evidence, Sensitivity, and the Legal Value of Knowledge”
- Ross, Lewis 2021, “Justice in Epistemic Gaps: the ‘Proof Paradox’ Revisited”
Legal Proof and Knowledge
- Moss, Sarah 2023, “Knowledge and Legal Proof”
- Lackey, Jennifer 2021, “Norms of Criminal Conviction”
Believe Women & the Presumption of Innocence
- Ferzan 2021, “#BelieveWomen and the Presumption of Innocence”
- Bolinger 2021, “#BelieveWomen and the Ethics of Belief”
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
- Gardiner, Georgi. 2017. “In Defence of Reasonable Doubt.”
- Laudan, Larry. 2011. “The Rules of Trial, Political Morality and the Costs of Error: Or, Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Doing More Harm Than Good?”
- Lee, Youngjae. 2015. “Reasonable Doubt and Moral Elements.”
Alternative Approaches to Legal Evidence and Proof
- Griffin, Lisa Kern. 2013. “Narrative, Truth, Trial.”
- Pardo, M.S. and Ronald J. Allen. 2008. “Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation.”
Punishment, Rationality, & Knowledge
- Fisher, Talia. 2012. “Conviction Without Conviction.”
- Lackey, Jennifer. Forthcoming. “Punishment and Transformation.”
- Littlejohn, Clayton. 2017. “Truth, Knowledge, and the Standard of Proof in Criminal Law.”
Political Epistemology
Truth and Politics
- Arendt, Hannah. 1967. “Truth and Politics.”
- Estlund, David. 2007. “Truth and Despotism.” In Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework
The Epistemology of Democracy
- Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme
- Landemore, Hélène and David Estlund. 2018. “The Epistemic Value of Democratic Deliberation.”
Democracy, Empathy, and Understanding
- Hannon, Michael. 2020. “Empathetic Understanding & Deliberative Democracy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
- Cassam, Quassim. 2023. “Sensemaking, Empathy, and Democracy.” In The Epistemology of Democracy
Political Disagreement
- Feldman, Richard. 2007. “Reasonable Religious Disagreements.”
- de Ridder, Jeroen. 2021. “Deep Disagreement and Political Polarization.”
Badmouthing, Populism, and Epistemic Bubbles
- Hannon, Michael. 2021. “Disagreement or Badmouthing? The Role of Expressive Discourse in Politics.”
- Anderson, Elizabeth. 2021. “Epistemic Bubbles and Authoritarian Politics.”
Voter Ignorance
- Somin, Ilya. 2021. Is Political Ignorance Rational?
- Brennan, Jason. 2009. Polluting the Polls: When Citizens Should Not Vote.
Political Deference and Partisanship
- Brinkmann, Matthias 2022, “In Defence of Non-Ideal Political Deference”
- Levy 2022, “Due Deference to Denialism”
Higher-Order Evidence and the Epistemic (Dis)Value of Partisanship
- Joshi, Rishi 2020, “What Are the Chances You’re Right About Everything?”
- Lepoutre, Maxine 2020, “Democratic Group Cognition”
Irrationality and Bias
- Brennan, Jason. 2016. Against Democracy, Chapters 1 & 2
- Huemer, Michael. 2016. Why People Are Irrational About Politics. In Philosophy, Politics, and Economics: An Anthology
Democracy, Social Media, and Fake News
- Rini, Regina. 2021. Weaponized Skepticism. In Political Epistemology
- Rini, Regina. 2017. Fake News and Partisan Epistemology. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
Epistocracy and Lottocracy
- Brennan, Jason. 2016. The Rule of the Knowers. In Against Democracy.
- Guerrero, Alexander. 2021. “The Epistemic Pathologies of Elections and the Virtues of Lottocracy.”