How do we know what we think we know? The answer is evidence, but evidence is no simple thing. What counts as evidence in a scientific context or private dispute may not stand up in court. Frederick Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and philosophy to assess the nature of evidence in the era of “fake news.”
Suitable for law students and upper-level undergraduates, this title covers rules, precedent, authority, analogical reasoning, the common law, statutory interpretation, legal realism, judicial opinions, legal facts, and burden of proof.
When the law makes decisions about groups based on averages, the public benefit can be enormous. On the other hand, profiling and stereotyping may lead to injustice. As Schauer argues, there is good profiling and bad profiling. If we can effectively determine which is which, we stand to gain, not lose, a measure of justice.