|
Conclusion Of Fact
In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles and can be applied to many situations rather than be dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a ''conclusion of law''. In several civil law jurisdictions, the highest courts deem questions of fact as having been settled by the lower courts and will only consider questions of law. They thus may refer a case back to a lower court to re-apply the law and answer any fact-based evaluations based on their answer on the application of the law. International courts such as ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Evidence (law)
The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay, authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence, standards sh ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
A Priori And A Posteriori
("from the earlier") and ("from the later") are Latin phrases used in philosophy to distinguish types of knowledge, justification, or argument by their reliance on empirical evidence or experience. knowledge is independent from current experience (e.g., as part of a new study). Examples include mathematics,Some associationist philosophers have contended that mathematics comes from experience and is not a form of any a priori knowledge () tautologies, and deduction from pure reason.Galen Strawson has stated that an argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." () knowledge depends on empirical evidence. Examples include most fields of science and aspects of personal knowledge. The terms originate from the analytic methods found in ''Organon'', a collection of works by Aristotle. Prior analytic ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Problem Of Induction
First formulated by David Hume, the problem of induction questions our reasons for believing that the future will resemble the past, or more broadly it questions predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations. This inference from the observed to the unobserved is known as "inductive inferences", and Hume, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify them, thereby undermining one of the Enlightenment pillars of rationality. While David Hume is credited with raising the issue in Western analytic philosophy in the 18th century, the Pyrrhonist school of Hellenistic philosophy and the Cārvāka school of ancient Indian philosophy had expressed skepticism about inductive justification long prior to that. The traditional inductivist view is that all claimed empirical laws, either in everyday life or through the scientific method, can be justified through some form of reasoning. The p ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Lord Advocate's Reference
A Lord Advocate's Reference is a procedure by which the Lord Advocate can refer a point of law that has arisen during the course of solemn proceedings to the High Court of Justiciary sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal, for a determination. The Lord Advocate is the senior law officer of the Scottish Government, chief public prosecutor and head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland. Lord Advocate's References used to be particularly important because, prior to the coming into force of sections 73–76 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, a trial judge sitting alone in solemn proceedings and bound by appeal court precedent had to rule on points of law without a Crown right of appeal. This resulted in several controversial verdicts of acquittal, especially in relation to submissions tendered under section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Statutory provisions The opinions expressed by the court in response to t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Is–ought Problem
The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ''ought'' to be that are based solely on statements about what ''is''. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive or positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.Cohon, Rachel, "Hume's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/hume-moral/.> A similar view is defended by G. E. Moore's open-question argument, intended to refute any ident ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Falsifiability
Falsifiability is a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses that was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'' (1934). He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be ''logically'' contradicted by an empirical test that can potentially be executed with existing technologies. Popper insisted that, as a logical criterion, it is distinct from the related concept "capacity to be proven wrong" discussed in Lakatos' falsificationism. Even being a logical criterion, its purpose is to make the theory predictive and testable, thus useful in practice. Popper opposed falsifiability to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability. Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would theoretically require observing all swans, which in actuality, is not possible. In contrast, obs ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fact–value Distinction
The fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction described between: #'Statements of fact' ( 'positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method. #'Statements of value' ( 'normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology. This barrier between 'fact' and 'value' implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments, or to defend the former using the latter. The fact–value distinction is closely related to, and derived from, the is–ought problem in moral philosophy, characterized by David Hume. The terms are often used interchangeably, though philosophical discourse concerning the is–ought problem does not usually encompass aesthetics. David Hume's skepticism In '' A Treatise of Human Nature'' (1739), David Hume discusses the problems in grounding normative statements in positive statem ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Epistemology
Epistemology (; ), or the theory of knowledge, is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemology is considered a major subfield of philosophy, along with other major subfields such as ethics, logic, and metaphysics. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Debates in epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas: # The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification # Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony # The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs # Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibili ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Demarcation Problem
In philosophy of science and epistemology, the demarcation problem is the question of how to distinguish between science and non-science. It examines the boundaries between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs.. Alternative source/ref> The debate continues after over two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields. The debate has consequences for what can be called "scientific" in fields such as education and public policy. The ancient world An early attempt at demarcation can be seen in the efforts of Greek natural philosophers and medical practitioners to distinguish their methods and their accounts of nature from the mythological or mystical accounts of their predecessors and contemporaries. G. E. R. Lloyd noted that there was a sense in which the groups engaged in various forms of inquiry into nature set out to "legitimate their own positions", laying "claim to a new kind ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Case Brief
A brief (Old French from Latin "''brevis''", short) is a written legal document used in various legal adversarial systems that is presented to a court arguing why one party to a particular case should prevail. In England and Wales (and other Commonwealth countries, e.g., Australia) the phrase refers to the papers given to a barrister when they are instructed. Language :Pre-Trial briefs are exchanged between parties at a date set during the pre-trial conference to argue matters under consideration before trial.Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(C)(2) :Trial briefs are presented at trial to resolve a disputed point of evidence. :Legal briefs are used as part of arguing a pre-trial motion in a case or proceeding. :: Merit briefs (or briefs on the merits) refers to briefs on the inherent rights and wrongs of a case, absent any emotional or technical biases :: Amicus briefs refer to briefs filed by persons not directly party to the case. These are often groups that have a direct inte ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Analytic–synthetic Distinction
The analytic–synthetic distinction is a semantic distinction, used primarily in philosophy to distinguish between propositions (in particular, statements that are affirmative subject–predicate judgments) that are of two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their meaning, whereas synthetic propositions' truth, if any, derives from how their meaning relates to the world. While the distinction was first proposed by Immanuel Kant, it was revised considerably over time, and different philosophers have used the terms in very different ways. Furthermore, some philosophers (starting with W.V.O. Quine) have questioned whether there is even a clear distinction to be made between propositions which are analytically true and propositions which are synthetically true. Debates regarding the nature and usefulness of the distinction continue to this day in contemporary philosophy of language. Kant Conceptual ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Edwards Wildman Palmer
Edwards Wildman was an AmLaw 100 law firm. It was formed from the 2011 merger of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge and Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon. Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge had been formed by the 2005 merger of Edwards & Angell LLP and Palmer & Dodge LLP. In 2008, Boston-based Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge also merged with London-based Kendall Freeman, a 40-attorney firm with specialties in dispute resolution, litigation, and both contentious and regulatory insurance and reinsurance. Edwards Wildman had 15 offices in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. On January 10, 2015, the merger between Locke Lord and Edwards Wildman Palmer went live, and is now known as Locke Lord LLP. Leadership Prior to the merger, Alan Levin was the chairman of Edwards Wildman. Practice areas Edwards Wildman attorneys practiced in the areas of antitrust/competition, business law, cross border, debt finance and capital markets, environmental, insurance and reinsurance, intellectual property, labor and emplo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.jpg "Click for more on -> Analytic–synthetic Distinction")