• Home

  • Documents

  • Moving Beyond Law Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence
47
 Moving Beyond Law : Int erdisciplin arity and the Study o f Ev idence Page 1 of 46 PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Br itish Academy, 201 4. Al l Righ ts Reserved. Under the t erms of the licence agreement , an i ndi vid ual u s er may p ri nt out a PD F of a single chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for details see: htt p://britishaca demy.un iversityp ress s cholarship.com/pa ge/privacy-p olicy/pri vacy -p olicy-and-l egal-not ice ) . Subs cri be r: Po ntificia Universidad Catoli ca del Pe ru (PUCP); date: 30 April 20 15 University Press Scholarship Online British Academy Scholarship Online Evidenc e, Inference and Enqui ry P hilip Dawid, William Twin ing, and Mimi Vas ilaki Pr i nt pub l ic ati on date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264843 Pu bli shed to Br i tish Academy Sch olarship Onli ne: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264843.001.0001 Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence WILLIAM TWININ G DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264843.003.0004 Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines critically both the idea of ‘a multidisciplinary field’ or ‘an integrated science’ of evidence, and scepticism about and resistance to this idea from the standpoint of a jurist who has been involved with interdisciplinary work on evidence in law for many  years . Th e cha pter is orga ni z ed as follows. Part I pre sents an over view of the i ntel l ectual hi stor y of the academic stu dy of evi de nce in l aw i n the Angl o‐American traditi on and shows how important aspects of the field came to be recognised as inherently multi discip l i nary. P art II i dentifies some li mi tati ons of legal pers pecti ves on e vide nce, especially when the focus is on contested trials. It recounts the story of attempts to move beyond law in the direction of constructing a general field of evidence that formed part of the back grou nd of the U CL pro gramme. Part III examines some of th e r easons for suspicion of and resistance to the idea of ‘an integrated science of evidence’. Part IV r estates the case for r ecognit i on and i nstitutional i sati on of e vidence as a specia l f ocus of attention at the present time and puts forward a personal agenda of general questions

Moving Beyond Law Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Estudio interdisciplinario de la prueba

Citation preview

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 1 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    UniversityPressScholarshipOnlineBritishAcademyScholarshipOnline

    Evidence,InferenceandEnquiryPhilipDawid,WilliamTwining,andMimiVasilaki

    Printpublicationdate:2011PrintISBN-13:9780197264843PublishedtoBritishAcademyScholarshipOnline:January2013DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264843.001.0001

    MovingBeyondLaw:InterdisciplinarityandtheStudyofEvidenceWILLIAMTWINING

    DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264843.003.0004

    AbstractandKeywords

    Thischapterexaminescriticallyboththeideaofamultidisciplinaryfieldoranintegratedscienceofevidence,andscepticismaboutandresistancetothisideafromthestandpointofajuristwhohasbeeninvolvedwithinterdisciplinaryworkonevidenceinlawformanyyears.Thechapterisorganizedasfollows.PartIpresentsanoverviewoftheintellectualhistoryoftheacademicstudyofevidenceinlawintheAngloAmericantraditionandshowshowimportantaspectsofthefieldcametoberecognisedasinherentlymultidisciplinary.PartIIidentifiessomelimitationsoflegalperspectivesonevidence,especiallywhenthefocusisoncontestedtrials.ItrecountsthestoryofattemptstomovebeyondlawinthedirectionofconstructingageneralfieldofevidencethatformedpartofthebackgroundoftheUCLprogramme.PartIIIexaminessomeofthereasonsforsuspicionofandresistancetotheideaofanintegratedscienceofevidence.PartIVrestatesthecaseforrecognitionandinstitutionalisationofevidenceasaspecialfocusofattentionatthepresenttimeandputsforwardapersonalagendaofgeneralquestions

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 2 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    thatstillneedtobetackled.

    Keywords:multidisciplinaryfield,law,contestedtrials,scienceofevidence,evidence

    AbstractThepurposeofthispaperistoexaminecriticallyboththeideaofamulti-disciplinaryfieldoranintegratedscienceofevidenceandscepticismaboutandresistancetothisideafromthestandpointofajuristwhohasbeeninvolvedwithinterdisciplinaryworkonevidenceinlawformanyyears.PartIpresentsanoverviewoftheintellectualhistoryoftheacademicstudyofevidenceinlawintheAnglo-Americantraditionandshowshowimportantaspectsofthefieldcametoberecognisedasinherentlymultidisciplinary.1PartIIidentifiessomelimitationsoflegalperspectivesonevidence,especiallywhenthefocusisoncontestedtrials.Itrecountsthestoryofattemptstomovebeyondlawinthedirectionofconstructingageneralfieldofevidence,thatformedpartofthebackgroundoftheUCLprogramme.PartIIIexaminessomeofthereasonsforsuspicionofandresistancetotheideaofanintegratedscienceofevidence.PartIVrestatesthecaseforrecognitionandinstitutionalisationofevidenceasaspecialfocusofattentionatthepresenttimeandputsforwardapersonalagendaofgeneralquestionsthatstillneedtobetackled.2

    (p.74) PartI.ThestudyofEvidenceinLaw:anhistoricaloverviewofaninterdisciplinarytraditionLAWISALMOSTtheonlydisciplineinwhichEvidenceisestablishedasadistinctfieldwithcourses,treatises,conferences,journals,andscholarswhoclaimitastheirmainspecialism.3Thisinstitutionalisationhasonlyoccurredwithinthecommonlawtradition.Forexample,incivillawcountriesrulesofevidence,suchastheyare,arenormallyintegratedintoCivilProcedureandCriminalProcedure,whicharetwoquitedistinctareasofexpertise.Forensicscienceandcriminalisticsarealsogenerallyconceivedaslargelyseparatedisciplines.IncommonlawEvidenceasaspecialisedfieldwaslargelythecreationofeighteenth-andnineteenth-centurytreatisewriters,mostofwhomwerepractisinglawyersorjudges.Therawmaterialoftheearlytreatiseswasjudicialdecisions,butthesewerescatteredandunevenlyreported.Itwasthewriters(p.75)whodevelopedthestructure,conceptualapparatus,andattemptsattheorising.FormostofitshistorythestudyofevidenceinlawhasfocusedonthetechnicalrulesandtheunderlyingrationalesoftheLawofEvidence,viewedlargelyasapracticalsubjectforlawyersinvolvedinlitigation.However,therehavebeenperiodswhenevidencescholarshavedrawnheavilyonarangeofotherdisciplines.

    ThestorystartswithChiefBaronGilbertsTheLawofEvidence,writteninthe1720s,butpublishedposthumouslyin1754.Forthenext150yearsacentralconcernofthewriterswastoestablishtheLawofEvidenceonthebasisofasingleprinciple.Themainpioneeringeffortscanbeseenasaseriesofilluminatingmistakesuptothelatenineteenthcentury,whenJamesBradleyThayerofHarvardlaidthefoundationforthestructureofthemodernlaw.4GilberttriedtoestablishtheLawofEvidenceasa

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 3 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    coherentfieldonthebasisofanexplicitlyLockeanepistemologyandasingleorganisingprinciple,TheBestEvidenceRule:

    Thefirsttherefore,andmostsignalRule,inRelationtoEvidenceisthis,ThataManmusthavetheutmostEvidence,theNatureoftheFactiscapableof;fortheDesignoftheLawistocometorigidDemonstrationinMattersofRight,andtherecanbenoDemonstrationofaFactwithoutthebestEvidencethattheNatureoftheThingiscapableof.5

    GilbertsrigidinterpretationofwhatconstitutesthebestevidencetooktheformofahierarchyofrulesofweightonaScaleofProbability6withPublicRecordsatthetoptrumpingnon-officialdocumentsundersealdowntooraltestimonybycompetentwitnessesatthebottom.Gilbertsschemewasfollowedbyearlynineteenth-centurytreatisewriters,butisnowrecognisedthatasanaccountoftheEnglishLawofEvidenceitwasbasedontwofalsepremises:first,Gilbertfailedtodistinguishbetweenweightandadmissibilityand,second,hisschemepostulatedahierarchyofrulesofweight.7Thereare(p.76) noformalrulesofweightinthecommonlaw:therearenogeneralrulesthatprescribethatofficialevidenceshouldbegivenpriorityoverunofficialevidence;thatwrittenevidencehasmoreprobativeforcethanoraltestimony;nor,althoughthisisnotalwaysobservedbythemedia,thatcircumstantialevidenceisweakerthantestimony.8Asimilarerrorhasbeenrepeatedthroughouthistory,mostrecentlyinmoredoctrinaireversionsofevidence-basedmedicineandevidence-basedpolicythathavetriedtoformalisetheweighingofevidenceonthebasisofperemptoryrulesprescribinghierarchiesofweightandreliability.9

    OneofGilbertsachievementswastoprovideaclear,andquitesoft,targettoattack.JeremyBenthamdemolishedGilbertsFalseTheoryofEvidenceinaclassicpolemic,10beforegoingontodevelophisRationaleofJudicialEvidenceinfivevolumes.11Benthamdidnotrespectboundariesbetweendisciplines.HiswritingsonevidencecontainmanyimportantinsightsandoverthelasttwocenturiestheAnglo-AmericanLawofEvidencehasevolvedinpiecemeal,haltingfashioninthegeneraldirectionthathecharted.However,legalopinionhasalmostunanimouslyjudgedthathewenttoofarinadvocatingthetotalabolitionofallbindingrulesofevidence(andprocedure).12Hiscentralpreceptwasthenon-exclusionprinciple:

    Bethedisputewhatitmayseeeverythingthatistobeseen:heareverybodywhoislikelytoknowanythingaboutthematter:heareverybody,butmostattentivelyofall,andfirstofall,thosewhoarelikelytoknowmostaboutittheparties.13

    (p.77) Benthamsanti-nomianthesissoundsradicaltocommonlawyers,butinnearlyallotherspheresofpracticallifeweoperateunderasystemoffreeproof,thatisanabsenceofformalrulesinregardtoweight,credibility,orquantumaswellasadmissibility.14Benthamsreasonisinstructive:

    Tofindinfalliblerulesforevidence,ruleswhichinsureajustdecisionis,fromthe

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 4 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    natureofthings,absolutelyimpossible;butthehumanmindistooapttoestablishruleswhichonlyincreasetheprobabilitiesofabaddecision.Alltheservicethatanimpartialinvestigatorofthetruthcanperforminthisrespectis,toputthelegislatorsandjudgesontheirguardagainstsuchhastyrules.15

    Inanageofbureaucratisationandaudit,thiswarningshouldstillhaveresonance.Thepressurestosimplify,standardiseandcodifyaregreaterthanever.

    Throughmostofthenineteenth-centurytreatisesontheLawofEvidencestruggledtoconstructacoherentframeworkforexposition.Thereweresomeilluminatingfailures.Taxonomiesrelatingtosources(e.g.witnesstestimony,documentaryevidence,realevidence)ortotypesofdatafrequentlyusedasevidence(e.g.classesofdocuments,confessions,traces,laterfingerprintsandpolygraphs)orfieldsoflaw(evidenceintorts,property,contract)justdidnotworkasframeworksforexpositionofevidencedoctrine.Somelegaltreatiseswereorganisedaroundthetasksofprovingparticularkindsofmatterstobeproved(probanda)forexample,howtoprovedebt,arson,thecausesofrailwayaccidents,orparticularcrimes.16Allofthesetendedtodeteriorateintowhatcanbesatirisedasthelawofmilkchurnscategoriesthatweretooparticularandfragmented,lackingorganisingconceptsandgeneralprin-ciples.17Itwasonlywhenitwasrealisedthatstructuredargumentcould(p.78) provideageneralframework(whatWigmorecalledthelogicofproof)thatthefieldwasabletoachievesomecoherence.

    Duringthenineteenthcenturytheexclusionaryruleswerethinneddown,generallyinthedirectionindicatedbyBentham,butinapiecemealfashionthatwasquitecontrarytotheradicalspiritofhisproposals,andnotalwaysbecauseofhisinfluence.18However,someofBenthamsspecifictargetssurvived,includingtherighttosilence,theprivilegeagainstself-incrimination,lawyerclientprivilege,andsafeguardsfortheaccusedincriminalcases.Bythe1870spiecemealreformsandthedeclineoftheBestEvidenceRuletoanevidentiaryghostlefttheLawofEvidencelookinglikeacollectionoffragmentedtechnicalruleswithnocoherenceorform.19

    ThenextsignificantattempttorationalisethefieldwasbyJamesFitzjamesStephen,whoasarelativelyyoungmandraftedtheIndianEvidenceActof1872anddevelopedageneraltheoryofjudicialevidencebasedonrelevance.Stephenelegantlysimplifiedandstreamlinedtherulesofevidence,buthistheorywassoonrecognisedtobeasplendidmistake.20IftheLawofEvidenceismainlyconcernedwithexclusionofcertainkindsofrelevantevidence,thenrelevancecannotitselfprovidethebasisforexclusion.ThispavedthewayforJamesBradleyThayer(18311902)toperceivethattheLawofEvidenceprovidesforaseriesofdiverseexceptionstoageneralprincipleofadmittingallrelevantevidence.Thayerpronouncedtwoprincipleswhichtodayformthefoundationforthemodernlawofevidenceincommonlawsystems,includingtheinfluentialAmericanFederalRulesofEvidence:

    (1)Thatnothingistobereceivedwhichisnotlogicallyprobativeofsomematterrequiringtobeproved;(2)Thateverythingwhichisthusprobativeshouldcomein,unlessaclearground

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 5 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    ofpolicyoflawexcludesit.21

    ThayersawthattheAnglo-AmericanLawofEvidenceconsistsofaseriesofexceptionstoaprincipleoffreeproof(i.e.absenceofrules)andthatfreeproof,farfrommeaningthatanythinggoes,referstostructuredrationalargumentbasedonordinaryprinciplesofpracticalreasoning.ThebasisoftheLawofEvidenceisamatteroffactandlogic,guidedbyhistwoprinciples(excludeallirrelevantevidence;includeallrelevantevidence,unless).Relevancemeanstendstosupportortendstonegatewhatistobeproved(p.79) theultimateprobandumormaterialfactsinlegalparlance.Thetestofrelevanceisamatteroflogicandgeneralexperience,22notlaw.InhissplendidphraseThelawhasnomandamustothelogicalfaculty,meaningthatthelawcannottellyouhowtothink.23

    ThayersownwritingsconcentratedverylargelyontheLawofEvidence,whichheconceivedquitenarrowly,buthisbasicinsightswerebuiltonandgreatlyexpandedbyseveralofhisstudents,mostnotablyJohnHenryWigmore(18631943).

    FormostofthetwentiethcenturyWigmorewasthedominantfigureinthestudyofEvidenceintheUnitedStatesandbeyond.ForpractitionersandjudgeshismainworkwashisenormoustreatiseontheLawofEvidence,whichovertimeexpandedtofilltensubstantialvolumes.24However,wearehereconcernedwithotheraspectsofhisworkthathaverecentlybecomemoreprominent.BuildingonThayerswork,Wigmoredividedthestudyofevidenceinlawintotwoparts,whichhecalledtheTrialRulesandthePrinciplesofProof.25AlthoughhisreputationrestedmainlyonhisworkontheLawofEvidence,hearguedforcefullythatthePrinciplesofProofarepriorto,andmoreimportantthan,theLawofEvidence.ThetitleofhismainworkonthesubjectisThePrinciplesofProofasGivenbyLogic,PsychologyandGeneralExperienceandillustratedinJudicialTrials.26Althoughitfocusesmainlyoncontestedjurytrials,thisbookisamultidisciplinarytext,whichcontainsalmostnolaw.Itdealsextensivelywithwitnesspsychology,forensicscienceasitthenwas,andWigmoresownchartmethodofconstructingandrepresentingcomplexargumentsbasedonmixedmassesofevidence.Itisabout(p.80) structuringargumentsaboutquestionsoffactincontestedtrialskeyconcepts,includingrelevance,probativeforce,andcredibilityarenotgovernedbylegalrules.

    Thestructureisprovidedbyanapplicationofideasaboutpracticalreasoningingeneral;theideaofgeneralexperiencereferstoasocietysstockofknowledge(ormorecorrectlystockofbeliefs)widelyheldbeliefsheldataparticularmomentinhistory.Thelinkisthatinordinaryreasoningeveryinferentialstepiswarrantedbyageneralisationdrawnfromthisstockofbeliefs.27Thesemayrangefromacitizenscommonsensebeliefstoexperience-basedgeneralisationstomoreorlesswell-groundedpropositionsbasedonempiricalresearch,whichmayrangefromimpressionisticsurveystorigorousandrepeatedscientificstudies.Thusalmostanyformofknowledgeorbeliefcancomeintoanargumentaboutanissueoffactthroughsuchbackgroundgeneralisations.Ofcourse,itiseasytoshowthatmanycommonsensebeliefsarebasedonspeculation,

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 6 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    superstition,myth,orprejudiceandthatthecontentsofanyindividualsstockofbeliefsvarygreatlyinrespectofreliability.Moreovertheideaofcognitiveconsensusaboutcommonsenseneedstobetreatedwithcare,especiallyinamulticulturalsociety,28andthecognitivecompetenceofordinaryadultsissometimeschallenged.29Itisalsoeasilyshownthatwhatpassesforknowledgeatanytimemaylaterberejectedorproventobefalseandthatevenwell-foundedscientificgeneralisationsareopentorefinement,revisionorfalsification.Inreachingimportantdecisionsbyrationalmeansitissensibletorelyonthebestinformationavailable,butoftenthatisnomorethanfalliblegeneralexperience.Whatelsecanwerelyon?

    WigmoresPrinciplesofProofwascompiledinaperiodwhenforensicscience,witnesspsychologyandothercognatespecialismswererelativelyundeveloped.Thiswasbeforegenetics,databases,DNAprofilingandmatchingoftracestransformedmethodsofinvestigationandwhatisgenerallyknownasscientificevidence.Althoughbetweenthefirsteditionin1913andthelasteditionin1937,hetriedtokeepupwithscientificdevelopments,thebooknowappearsquaint,out-datedandpoorlyorganisedinitsbraveattempt(p.81) tosynthesiseknowledgeandassessthereliabilityofsuchmattersaspolygraphs,fingerprints,andthedemeanourofwitnesses.Butthecoreofhisbasicinsightsstillholdsgood:First,followingThayer,thefoundationofthesubjectofevidenceinlawisordinaryinformallogic.30Second,thereliabilityandprobativeforceofevidencecanonlyexceptionallybemadethesubjectofbindingrulesaboutclassesofevidence.Thirdthebasicconceptsofevidenceinlawarenotlegalconcepts.31Withonlyminorexceptions,relevance,credibility,probativeforceandotherkeyconceptsarenotdefinedbylaw;32and,fourth,thatevaluatingthecredibilityandweightofevidencedependsongeneralexperiencewhichincludesthewholegamutofspecialistdisciplines.

    Thusinanimportantsense,alargepartofthesubjectofevidenceinlawisbyitsnaturemultidisciplinary.Unfortunately,nearlyallofthescholarlylegalliteraturesinceWigmorehastendedtofocuslargelyonaspectsthatarepeculiartolegalcontexts:theexclusionaryrulesthatareexceptionstotheprincipleofadmittingallrelevantevidence,theinstitutionalandproceduralpeculiaritiesofjurytrials,issuesconcerningproductionandpresentationofevidenceincourt,appealsandsoon.Itisoddthat,whenasubjectisdefinedasaseriesofdiverseexceptionstoageneralprinciple,thefocusisalmostexclusivelyontheexceptions,evenwhentheyareofdiminishingimportance.33ThecrucialbridgebetweentheprinciplesofproofandtheLawofEvidenceisrelevance,whichisnotdefinedbylaw.34

    FromWigmoresfirsteditionofThePrinciplesofJudicialProofin1913untilthe1980stherewerespasmodiceffortsbylegalscholarstodeveloptheideasassociatedwiththeprinciplesofproof,butmostofthesedidnotflourish.35Thereasonsforthisarecomplex.Forensicscienceanditsproliferating(p.82) subdisciplinesdevelopedlargelyoutsidelawschools.Contactswithpsychologistsinterestedinlawwereattimesmorefrequent,36butmostpyschologicalstudiesofwitnesses,jurydecision-making,andotheraspectsoflegalprocesswerebasedmainlyinpsychologydepartments.SofaraslegaleducationwasconcernedWigmoresideaofThePrinciplesofProofwasperceivedtobeanon-

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 7 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    subject,perhapsbecauserule-orientedacademiclawyersbelievedthat,insofarastherearenorules,thereisnosubjectmatterforlawyerstostudy;37or,iffact-determinationisjustcommonsense,itcouldbepickedupwithoutformalinstruction.Thereisalsoanaturaltendencyforspecialiststoemphasisethedistinctiveaspectsoftheirsubject.

    Therewas,furthermore,afeelingthatinterdisciplinaryworkwasnotpractical.ThiswasthefateofthecollaborativeeffortsofJeromeMichael,abrilliantlegalproceduralist,andMortimerAdler,awell-knownphilosopher.Theiroutstandingbookwasonlyprivatelyprinted.38InhisElementsofLegalControversyMichaeleloquentlyexpressedtheinherentmultidisciplinarityoftheprinciplesofproof:

    sincelegalcontroversyisconductedbymeansofwords,youneedsomeknowledgeabouttheuseofwordsassymbols,thatis,somegrammaticalknowledge.Sinceissuesoffactareconstitutedofcontradictorypropositions,areformedbytheassertionanddenialofpropositions,andaretriedbytheproofanddisproofofpropositions,youneedsomeknowledgeofthenatureofpropositionsandoftherelationshipswhichcanobtainamongthem,andofthecharacterofissuesoffactandofproofanddisproof,thatis,somelogicalknowledge.Sincethepropositionswhicharematerialtolegalcontroversycanneverbeprovedtobetrueorfalsebutonlytobeprobabletosomedegreeandsinceissuesoffactareresolvedbythecalculationoftherelativeprobabilitiesofthecontradictorypropositionsofwhichtheyarecomposed,youneedsomeknowledgeofthedistinctionbetweentruthorfalsityandprobabilityandofthelogicofprobability.Sincepropositionsareactualorpotentialknowledge,sinceproofordisproofisanaffairofknowledge,since,iftheyaretruthful,thepartiestolegalcontroversyassert,andwitnessesreport,theirknowledge,andsinceknowledgeisofvarioussorts,youneedsomeknowledgeaboutknowledge,such,forinstance,asknowledgeofthedistinctionbetweendirectorperceptualandindirectorinferentialknowledge.Sincethereareintrinsicandessentialdifferencesbetweenlawandfact,betweenpropositions(p.83) aboutmattersoffactandstatementsaboutmattersoflaw,andbetweenissuesoffactandissuesoflawandthewaysinwhichtheyarerespectivelytriedandresolved,youneedsomeknowledgeaboutthesematters.Sincelitigantsandallthosewhoparticipateintheconductandresolutionoftheircontroversiesaremenandsincemanyoftheproceduralrulesarebaseduponpresuppositionsabouthumannatureandbehavior,youneedsomepsychologicalknowledge.Finally,ofcourse,youneedsuchknowledgeasisnecessarytoenableyoutounderstandthetangentialendswhichareservedbyprocedurallawandtocriticizetheruleswhicharedesignedtoservethem.39

    Michaelsvisionofthesubjectoflegalproofincludedtheclassictriviumoflogic,grammarandrhetoric;forensicpsychology;thedetailedexplorationofprobability;theinterconnectionsbetweenlawandfact;andthebasicconcepts,doctrines,andpoliciesofthelawofevidence.Recentlythatlisthasexpandedtoincludemoreemphasisonscientificevidence,narrative,discourseanalysis,andcomputerapplicationstomentionbutafew.Notsurprisingly,manylawyershavefoundsuchaconceptionofthesubjectdauntinga

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 8 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    mattertowhichIshallreturnbuttheimmediatepointisthattheseconnectionswithotherdisciplinescanbemappedwithinasingle,quiteflexibleframework.Fordespitethecomplexities,theAnglo-Americanlegaltraditionhashadaremarkablyhomogeneousmainstream.

    TheRationalistTraditionThayerprovidedacoherentstructurefortheLawofEvidence;WigmoreexpandedthistoincludeboththePrinciplesofProofandtheLawofEvidenceinanintegratedconceptionofthestudyofEvidenceinadjudication.40Thesewerenotaprioriconstructions,butratherhistoricallyinformedsynthesesofthecentralideasinatraditionthatextendsfromGilberttothepresentday.ThisRationalistTraditionhasatitscoretheideaofthepursuitofcorrectdecisioninadjudicationbyrationalmeansthroughargumentationbasedonevidence.41Rationalityinthiscontextiscontrastedwithirrationalmeansofdisputeprocessingsuchastrialbybattle,compurgation,ordeal,appealsto(p.84) thesupernatural,ortossingacoin.42MostevidencescholarsadoptedorassumedaparticularviewofinductivelogicinthetraditionofFrancisBacon,JohnStuartMill,andmodernphilosophers,suchasJonathanCohenandStephenToulmin.However,theRationalistTraditioncanbeinterpretedbroadlytoincludealternativeconceptionsofrationality,includingvariousconceptionsofprobability.43

    ThecharacteristicassumptionsofdiscourseaboutevidencewithintheRationalistTraditioncanbesuccinctlyrestatedasfollows:epistemologyiscognitivistratherthansceptical;acorrespondencetheoryoftruthisgenerallypreferredtoacoherencetheory;44themodeofdecisionmakingisseenasrational,ascontrastedwithirrationalmodes;thecharacteristicmodeofreasoningisinduction;thepursuitoftruthasameanstojusticeunderthelawcommandsahigh,butnotnecessarilyanoverriding,priorityasasocialvalue.45

    Despitethisbroadconsensus,legalevidencescholarshiphashaditsshareofdebatesanddisagreements.Fromanearlystagetherewasacontinuinguneasinessaboutwhethertherewereorshouldbeanyformalrulesofevidence,whatpreciselymightbethestatusofsuchrules(and,inparticular,ofjudicialrulingsonpointsofevidence)andaboutthescopeofEvidenceasasubject.Therehasbeenrepeated,almostcyclicalpoliticalcontroversyaboutbalancingefficientenforcementofcriminallawwithdueprocessandprotectinginnocentaccusedfromconviction.Somedebatesarequitespecialisedforexample,aboutpresumptions,hearsayandthebestevidencerule.Othersrepresentparticularapplicationsofstandardlegalorjuristiccontroversies,suchasdebatesabouttheprosandconsofthejuryortheadversarysystemorjudge-madelaworcodification.Some,suchasdisagreementsbetweenutilitarians(p.85) anddeontologists,betweencivillibertariansandproponentsoflawandorder,betweenPascaliansandBaconians,andbetweenatomistsandholists,reflectwiderdifferences.Butthesedisagreementshavebyandlargetakenplacewithinasharedframeworkofassumptionsandconcepts.46

    AfterWigmoreBetweentheFirstWorldWarandabout1980,thestudyofEvidencewasinthe

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 9 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    doldrums,partlybecausethefieldwasovershadowedbyWigmore,whodominatedthesubjectandwasnotinhibitedaboutseeingoffrivals.47Then,stimulatedfromseveraldirections,therearosethevariegatedmovementtowardsbroadeningthefieldthatcametobeknownastheNewEvidenceScholarship.48Thestimulusforthiscamefromseveraldirections.Perhapsthemainoneswere:(a)movestoreformtheLawofEvidence,oreventocodifyit,gatheredmomentumaftertheSecondWordWar,culminatingintheFederalRulesofEvidence(enacted1975)andrathermorepiecemealreforminEnglandandelsewhere;(b)themovementtodeveloplinksbetweenlawandthesocialsciences,representedbytheLawandSocietyMovementintheUnitedStatesandsocio-legalstudiesintheUnitedKingdom.HerethemainactivitiesrelevanttoEvidenceinvolvedtheinterfacebetweenLawandPsychology,whereinterestinwitnesspsychology(especiallyidentificationevidence)revived,butwentbeyondthistoincludesuchmattersasjuryresearch,discourseanalysis,andinteractioninthecourtroom.49(c)ForensicSciencecontinuedtodeveloplargelyindependentlyoflaw,butitsconnectionswereobviousanditreceivedanenormousstimulusfromDNAanalysisandITapplications;(d)BenthamstudiesalsobecameestablishedduringthisperiodanditisworthrememberingthatBenthamisstilltheleadingtheoristofevidence,thathiswritingsonevidencerepresentasubstantialproportionofhislargelyforgottenworks,andthathewasneveronetorespectdisciplinaryboundaries.And,finally(e)therewasadramaticriseininterestinthe(p.86) relationshipbetweenstatisticsandlegalproof,largelystimulatedbythemisuseofstatisticsintheCaliforniacaseofPeoplev.Collins.50

    Thislastdevelopmentinvolvedanumberofdifferentconcerns.Thefirstcommentatorsstressedthepotentialofstatisticalanalysisinevaluatingevidence,providedthatitwasproperlyused,51butinafamous1971paperProfessorLaurenceTribeofHarvardarguedthatevenifallreasoningaboutdisputedquestionsoffactisinprinciplemathematical,itwouldbebothinappropriateanddangerousasamatterofpolicytoencourageorallowexplicitquantificationofsuchmattersasthecriminalstandardofprooforthelikelihoodofguiltinidentificationcases.52ThedebatemovedtoaquitedifferentplanewiththeinterventionofJonathanCohen,aphilosopherfromOxford,whochallengedtheassumptionthatallargumentsaboutprobabilitiesareinprinciplemathematicalor,ashetermedit,Pascalian.53Law,hesuggested,providesoneofthestandardexamplesofnon-Pascalianinductivist(Baconian)reasoning.54Cohenstimulatedcontroversiesinseveraldisciplines,notablylaw,medicaldiagnosis,andpsychology.55CohensthesisprovokedsharpattacksfromjuristsinEngland,Australia,andespeciallytheUnitedStates,butgainedagooddealofsupportfrommanyevidencescholarswhoweredeeplyscepticalofthemathematicisationofargumentsaboutevidenceincourt.56Theselargelytheoreticalprobabilitiesdebateshaverumbledon,some-what(p.87) obscuringthefactthattheuseofstatisticsinprovingspecificmatterssuchaspaternity,discrimination,andoffenderprofilinghasgrownsignificantlyinimportanceovertheyears.57Theuseofprobabilitytheoryasageneralmodelforevidentialreasoningisonething;therelevanceofstatisticaldataasevidenceinsomecasesisquiteanother.

    Undoubtedly,theliteratureontheFederalRulesanddebatesaboutprobabilitiesareimportantexamplesofawidespreadrevivalofacademicinterestinEvidenceinlaw.But

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 10 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    theserepresentonlytwopartsofamuchmorevariedpicture.Sincethe1980stherehavebeenmanymultidisciplinaryconferencesandseminarsexclusivelydevotedtoEvidenceinlaw.58Theseillustratedthelivelinessinthefieldandtheextentoftheinvolvementofnon-lawyers,buttheyhadonemajorlimitation:thefocuswasalmostentirelyonlitigation.

    PartIII.LimitationsoflawManynon-lawyersinterestedininferentialreasoningandargumentationhaverecognisedthatlawprovidesarichsourceofconcrete,real-life,casesthatillustratefacetsofevidence,inferenceandproof.Toulmin(philosopher),Perelman(rhetoric),Gaskins(philosopher),theAmsterdamSchoolofArgumentationandaboveallSchum(psychologyandstatistics)aresomemodernexamples.59Schumevengoessofarastosuggestthatlegalscholarshiponevidenceforms(p.88) themajorsourceofinspirationforanyoneinterestedinageneralstudyofthegeneralpropertiesandusesofevidence.60

    AsIamanenthusiastformysubject,IamusuallydelightedwhenIfindmyterritoryisthoughttobeinterestingbycolleaguesfromotherdisciplines.However,itisimportanttorecognisethelimitationsofstandardlegalexamples.Inconsideringproblemsofevidenceandinferencethreedistinctionsarecrucial:thedifferencebetweenpast-directedandfuture-directedinquiries;thedistinctionbetweenparticularandgeneralinquiries;andthedistinctionbetweenhypothesisformationandhypothesistesting.Forvariousreasons,includingthetendencytoequateEvidenceinlawwiththeLawofEvidence,thecontestedtrialiswidelyperceivedtobethemainarenainwhichevidentiaryissuesarise.Adjudicationofissuesoffactincontestedtrialsistypicallypast-directed,particular,andhypothesistestingitonlyexceptionallydealswithpredictingthefuture,provinggeneralempiricalpropositions,orhypothesisformation.Thesecharacteristicsofstandardlegalexamplesmaylimittheirsignificanceinmanyothercontexts.

    Ofcourse,theprototypeofthecontestedtrial,especiallyincommonlawadversarialproceedings,hascertainfeaturesthatdoindeedmakeitarichsourceofmaterialforstudy:typicallytheproceedingsarepublic,theconflictisovert,theissuesaresharplydefined,evidenceispresented,questionedandarguedabout,andthelegalrecordmakesforneatpackagingofcomplexmaterial.Oftentherecordcontainsagreatdealofdetail,thedataandargumentsarecomplex,andthereisamixedmassofevidenceofdifferentkinds.Aboveall,trialsdealwithreallifeproblemsratherthanhypotheticalorfictitiousexamples.Forthoseinterestedininferencetheremaybenoisefactorsthathavetobefilteredoutsuchastechnicalitiesofprocedure,lawyerstactics,artificialrulesofevidence,andblurredlinesbetweenrationalargumentandeffectivepersuasion.Buttrialrecords,officialinquiriesandlikedocumentscanprovideawealthofexamples,notonlyforlawyers,thatillustratedifferentattributesandcredentialsofevidence,thestructureofcomplexarguments,problemsofcombiningmixedmassesofevidence,andcommonfallaciesinreasoningfromevidence.

    Disputedtrialsaretypicallyconcernedwithinquiriesintoparticularpasteventsinwhichthehypothesesaredefinedinadvancebylawwhatlawyerscallmateriality.Moreoverrecordsofcasesareartificiallyconstructedunitsextractedfrommorecomplexand

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 11 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    diffusecontexts.Forexample,acriminaltrialmaybejustoneeventinalong-drawnoutfeudorotherconflict.These(p.89) elementsparticularity,pastness,materiality,andindividuationofcasesdifferentiatethiskindoflegalmaterialfrommanyotherinquiriesinwhichreasoningfromevidenceisinvolved.

    Inadjudicationthereisafurtherfactor,thedutyoftheadjudicatortocometoafirmdecision.Judgesdetermine,historiansandscientistsconclude(orsitonthefence).Thispressurefordecisionhasledthelawtodevelopimportantideasaboutpresumptions,burdensofproofandstandardsofproofasaidstodecision.Thesecanbequitesuggestiveinotherdecisioncontexts.61

    Thushistorianssharewithlawyersaconcernwithparticularpastevents,buthistorianslacktheconceptofmaterialitythatidentifiesinadvancethehypothesestobeprovedordisprovedandthathelpstoformulateandanchordisputedissuesoffactinadvancewithprecisionandspecificity.Historiansareofteninvolvednotonlyinestablishingwhathappenedbutalsoexplainingwhyithappenedtypicallyamoredifficultandmoreinterestingproblem.62Furthermore,historiansareofteninterestedinquestionsthatgobeyondestablishingandexplainingaparticularevent.Forexample,agreatdealofthevastliteratureabouttheSacco-Vanzetticaseassumestheirinnocenceinordertoexplorewiderangingquestionsaboutthepolitical,socialandlegalcontextofthetime.63

    Detectives,likeadjudicators,aretypicallyalsoconcernedwithparticularpasteventsespeciallywhodunitkindsofquestionsandtheirinquiriesmaybeguidedbylegalcategoriessuchasmurder,manslaughterandaccident.Butlikehistorians,scientists,andmanyotherinquirers,theyhavetoconstructhypothesesaswellastestthem.Thetypicaldecidedcaseisnotagoodvehicleforlearningaboutordevelopingskillinabductionandimaginativereasoningaspartoftheprocessofinvestigation.64

    Intelligenceanalysts,nowmuchinthenews,areofteninvolvedwithpredictingfuturepossibilitiesandprobabilitiesinachangingcontextwiththecontinuingprospectoffurtherinformation.Sometimestheyareaskedtomakespecificpredictionsforexample,whatisthelikelihoodofanattackonaparticulartargetinaparticulartimeperiod?buttheyarealsooftenconcernedwithmoreopen-endedpossibilitiesbasedonjudgementsaboutcapabilities(p.90) andintentions.Moreover,theyarealsoconcernedwithbuildingupgeneralintelligencepicturesofnetworks,scenarios,andplots.Asthepost-11Septemberpost-mortemshavemadeclear,itisusuallymucheasierafteraneventtoidentifybitsofinformationthatwouldhavebeenusefulhadtheybeenspottedandselectedassignificant.65

    Theprototypicalinquiryinthephysicalsciencesisconcernedwiththeformulationandtestingofgeneralhypotheses,whichinteraliaformasolidbasisforprediction.Theclassicproblemofinductionconcernsthedifficultyofjustifyinganinferentialstepfromparticularpremisestoageneralconclusion.Inthiscontext,theestablishmentandinterpretationofparticularsisoftentreatedasunproblematic.66Ontheotherhand,theparadigmaticadjudicativeinquiryisconcernedwithestablishingparticularsoftenthemoststraightforwardpartofageneralscientificinquiry.Ofcourse,whereapplicationof

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 12 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    generalscientificprinciplestoparticularinstancesisinvolved,forexampleinmedicaldiagnosisorforensicpathology,theanalogytofact-findinginadjudicationissomewhatcloser.

    Itwould,ofcourse,berashtosaythatlawyershaveiteasyinrespectofevidenceandinference,justbecauseparticularinquiriesmayoftenbeeasierthangeneralones,andbecauseofaidstodecisionsuchasmateriality,burdensofproof,andpresumptions.Disputedtrialsareoftendisputedbecausetheevidenceisespeciallyproblematicotherwisetherewouldbeaguiltypleaorasettlement.Causesclbresareoftencelebratedbecausethereisanunsolvedmystery.Moreimportant,evidencescholarshavebecomemoresensitivetotheobviousfactthatthecontestedtrialisonlyonelegalcontextamongmany.Problemsofevidenceandinferenceariseinmanyotherlegalcontextsincludinginvestigation,negotiation,mediation,anticipatingfuturecontingencies(asindraftingcontracts),andlaw-making,wheresomeoftheelementsofmateriality,predictability,pastness,andindividuationofcasesareabsent.

    Thisoverviewofthedevelopmentofthestudyofevidenceinlawasamultidisciplinaryenterprise,hassomeimplicationsfortheideaofageneralfieldofevidence.Iwouldemphasisefourinparticular:

    (p.91) 1.Foratleast250yearsEvidencehasbeenaspecialisedfocusofattentioninlegalscholarshipaswellaslegalpractice.Ithasarichliteratureofprimaryandsecondarysources.Thereareconcepts,rules,devicesandcontroversiesthatarepeculiartolaw,butitisgenerallyrecognisedthatthestudyofevidenceinlawisamultidisciplinaryfield,involvingborrowingsbylawyers,inputsbynon-lawyers,interdisciplinarycollaborationandongoingcontroversiesnotconfinedtolaw.672.Someoftheproblems,debates,anddisagreementscentringonlegalprocessasanarenahaveechoesinothercontexts:forexample,Baconiansv.Pascaliansinrespectofprobabilitiesandproof;utilitarianismv.deontology;holismandatomism;narrativeandargument;cognitivismv.scepticism;andempiricismv.anti-foundationalism.3.Someoftheconceptsanddevicesdevelopedinlegalcontextshavebeenpickeduporarepotentiallysuggestiveinothercontexts.Forexample,thedangersoftryingtoestablishformalrulesorhierarchiesaboutweightinrespectofevidence;conceptssuchaspresumptions,burdensofproof,standardsofproof(orstandardsforotherdecisions);assessingthecredibilityofwitnessesanddocuments;theroleofbackgroundgeneralisationsaswarrantsininferentialreasoning;andmethodsofmarshallinglargebodiesofevidenceandstructuringcomplexargumentsbasedonsuchevidence.4.Contestedtrialshaveattractedagreatdealofattention.Inthatcontextthefocusisoninquiriesaboutparticularpasteventsinrespectofsharplyposedissuesdefinedinadvancebylawandgovernedbyformalrulesofprocedureandexclusionofevidence.Thisisonlyonetypeofinquiryinvolvedinlegalprocesses.WithinageneralfieldofEvidencedistinctionsneedtobemadeanddeveloped

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 13 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    betweenpast-directedandfuture-directedinquiries,hypothesisformationandhypothesistesting,concernwithestablishingthetruthaboutparticulareventsandaboutgeneralpropositions,preciselyformulatedandmoreopen-endedinquiries,andrule-governedandinformalinquiries.Eveninlawthecontestedlegaltrialtypicallyinvolvesonlyonetypeofinquiryamongmanykindsthatinvolveinferentialreasoningfromevidence.Agenuinelymultidisciplinaryfieldofevidencewouldneedtodifferentiatebetweendifferentkindsandcontextsofinquiries.

    (p.92) PartIII.Movingbeyondlaw

    (a)FromcontestedtrialstototallegalprocessesWehaveseenthattheclassicalwritersonevidenceinlaw,includingThayerandWigmore,talkedofjudicialevidenceandtreatedthecontestedjurytrialasthestandardcase.However,sincetheSecondWorldWarithasincreasinglybeenrecognisedthatthisfocusisunrealistic:contestedjurytrialsareasmallproportionofalltrialsand,moreimportantly,onlyasmallproportionofformallegalproceedingseverreachthestageofacontestedtrial:mostcivilcasesgetsettledoutofcourtorareabandoned;mostcriminalcasesendwithaguiltypleaorchargesbeingdropped;andmanydisputesaredirectedtoadministrativetribunalsorarbitrationorareresolvedbyalternativemeans,suchasmediationandconciliation.68Bothcivilandcriminallitigationarenowwidelyconceivedintermsofatotalprocessmodel,whichstartswithsomeevent,claim,ordispute,proceedsthroughvariouspre-trialstagesand,ifacaseeverarrivesincourt,issucceededbyfurtherpost-trialdecisions,suchassanctioning,appeals,paroledecisions,andsoon.Suchprocessesarenotnecessarilyunilinear.Theyinvolvecomplexsequencesofdecisionsandeventsallofwhichareworthyofattention.Informationthatisconventionallytalkedofasevidenceisrelevanttomostoftheimportantdecisions,butinvariedways.Thus,aplaintiffdecidingwhethertopursueaclaim,oraprosecutordecidingwhetherornottoprosecute,oraparoleboardorsimilarbodydecidingonwhetheraprisonerconstitutesacontinuingthreattosocietyallhavetoweighevidenceandpotentialevidencefromdifferentstandpointsinvariedcontexts.ThustheLawofEvidencedoesnotonlyaffectcontestedtrials;itcastsalongshadowoverpre-trialandpost-trialdecisionsandoverawidevarietyofadjudicativetribunalsandquasi-judicialbodies.

    Thisextensionoffocusnaturallyassociatesarangeofotherprofessionalsmostobviouslydetectivesandotherinvestigators,butalsoprobationofficersandsocialworkers(forexampleinlookingoutforsexualabuse).ThustheLawofEvidenceandthePrinciplesofProofareanimportantconcernofmanyparticipantsinadditiontolawyersinawidevarietyofcontexts.Thisraisesimportantquestionsaboutthegeneralityandtransferabilityofconcepts,methods,andmodesofreasoningaboutevidencethatdevelopedwithinarelativelynarrowlegalframework.

    (p.93) (b)DavidSchumAmajormoveinthedirectionofconstructingEvidenceasanintegratedfieldorfocusofattentionwasthepublicationofDavidSchumsEvidentialFoundationsofProbabilistic

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 14 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    Reasoningin1994.69Schum,whowastrainedinpsychologyandstatistics,haddoneimportantworkinintelligenceanalysisforthesecurityservices,buthistwovolumeworkonEvidenceandInferencefortheIntelligenceAnalysthadreceivedalmostnorecognition,perhapsbecauseofitsformidablesizeanderudition.70InEvidentialFoundationsSchumsetouttosynthesisebasicinsightsandideasaboutevidenceandinferenceacrossseveraldisciplines,includinglaw,philosophy,logic,probabilitytheory,semiotics,artificialintelligence,psychology,andhistory.Thecentralthemeisthatsimilarproblemsariseinmanypracticalandacademiccontextsinsituationswhereconclusionsanddecisionsarereachedonthebasisofincompleteinformation.Responsestotheseproblemshavevariedbetweendisciplinesandtheexperienceandattemptedsolutionsinonedisciplinemaybeilluminatingforothers.Hearguedthatthecomplexityofinferentialtaskshasoftenbeenunderestimatedinsomedisciplines,butinthecrucibleoflitigationlawyershaveroutinelyhadtowrestlewithmanyofthesecomplexities.SchumwasparticularlyimpressedwithWigmore,andadaptedhischartmethodforapplicationinanumberofothercontexts,especiallyintelligenceanalysisandpoliceinvestigation.HearguesthatWigmoreanticipatedbymanyyearsmoderndevelopmentsinsuchareasasBayesnets,butmoreimportantlyprovidedanunrivalledapproachtomarshallingandanalysingcomplexmassesofevidence.71

    Schumsworkwasonestarting-pointfortheUCLprogrammeandforanunusualprojectthatprecededit.72In1994TerryAndersonandIwerepartofagroupoflawyersstudyingforensicexpertiseattheNetherlandsInstituteforAdvancedStudy(NIAS),theDutchequivalentoftheStanfordCenterforAdvancedStudyintheBehavioralSciences(CASBS).AsFellowsoftheNIASwewereexpectedtointeractwithourcolleaguesinotherspecialistthemegroups.Theotherprojectswere:(a)historyofDutchpoliticalconcepts;(b)theatreiconographythatistheuseofworksofartasevidenceintheatre(p.94) history;(c)magicandreligioninancientAssyria;(d)socialdilemmas.Inaddition,therewereseveralFellowsworkingonindividualprojects.Atfirstsightthesetopicsseemedratheresotericanddiverse.ButonreflectionitseemedtousthatmostoftheFellowsofNIASinthatyearcouldfairlybesaidtohavesharedmethodologicalproblemsaboutevidenceandinference.SoAndersonandIdecidedtothrowdownachallengetoourcolleaguestorunajointseminarontheseproblems.Thestarting-pointwaswhatcametobeknownasTwiningshypothesis:

    Notwithstandingdifferencesin(i)theobjectivesofourparticularinquiries;(ii)thenatureandextentoftheavailablesourcematerial;(iii)thecultureofourrespectivedisciplines(includingitshistory,conventions,stateofdevelopmentetc.);(iv)nationalbackgrounds;(v)othercontextualfactors,allofourprojectsinvolve,aspartoftheenterprise,drawinginferencesfromevidencetotesthypothesesandjustifyconclusionsandthatthelogicofthiskindofinquiryisgovernedbythesameprinciples.73

    ThiswasframedindeliberatelyprovocativetermsandIexpectedittobechallenged,subverted,ormodifiedandrefinedinthecourseofdiscussion.However,ratherthanproducingageneralanalysisofmethodologicalissues,theseminarresultedinaseriesof

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 15 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    casestudiesdealingwithasomewhatbizarrerangeoftopics:alawyerandanAssyriologistanalysedtheevidencerelatingtothedateofthedeathoftheSumerianlanguage;aShakespearescholarandajuristexploredthedifferencesintheirapproachestoabodyoflovelettersthatwerethemainevidenceinacauseclbre;apoliticaltheorist,aneconomichistorian,atheatreiconographer,andamusicologistcontributedindividualcasestudiesintheirparticularfieldsinlightofourdiscussions.DavidSchumthencontributedageneralintroductiontothevolumethatresulted,drawingoutsomecommonthemes.74

    Noattemptwasmadetobuildagrandtheoryofevidenceandinferenceindeedtheorientationofthisgroupwasstrikinglyparticularistic.75Thisexercise(p.95) wasverymuchanexperimentalfirststepintreatingEvidenceasamultidisciplinarysubjectinitsownright.DavidSchumdevelopedhissubstanceblindapproachfurtherinthecontextofthisproject.Thisformedonestarting-pointoftheUCLprogrammeseveralyearslater,butasweshallseethisapproachranintoacertainamountofoppositionatthatstage.

    (c)Evidence,generalculture,andpublicaffairs:asubjectwhosetimehascome?Quiteindependentlyoftheseacademicactivitiesduringthepastdecadeorso,evidencehasrecentlybecomeamuchmoresustainedfocusofattentionbothinthenewsmediaandwhatmightbecalledgeneralculture.Ofcourse,historicalpuzzlesandunsolvedmysterieshavebeenastapleofpopularculture;thedetectivestoryhashelditsplacesinceVictoriantimes;andSherlockHolmesisstillthesecularpatronsaintofevidencers.WhatisnewisthatevidentiaryissuesareattainingahighprofilebecauseoftheconvergenceofanumberofdevelopmentssuchasresearchonDNAprofiling,otheradvancesinpoliceinvestigation,thesearchforweaponsofmassdestructioninIraq,post9/11intelligenceanalysis,evidence-basedpolicy,evidence-basedmedicineandsoon.Tocitejustafewexamples:perhapsbecauseofadvancesinourunderstandingofDNA,forensicscientistshavestartedtorivallawyersandspiesascharactersinworksoffiction(e.g.thrillersbyPatriciaCornwellandtheforensicanthropologist,KathyReichs)andintelevisiondramas,soapoperas,anddocumentaries.EvidentiaryissueshavebeencentraltonewsaboutIraq:theeffortsoftheweaponsinspectors,ColinPowellsaddresstotheSecurityCouncil,controversiesaboutthereliabilityoftheintelligencereliedonbyBushandBlair,andtheHutton,Butler,andChilcotinquiriesinEnglandhaveallcapturedheadlines.76Dopetestingofathletes,TruthCommissions,andproblemsofprovinggenocideareinthenews.Insomecountries,therehavebeendebatesaboutevidence-basedpolicyandevidence-basedmedicine.In2009theDarwinCentenarysparkedanewroundofpubliccontroversyabouttheimplicationsofevolutionarytheoryforCreationism,theoriginsoftheuniverse,andreligiouseducation.Andin2009debatesaboutthescientificevidenceforglobalwarmingheatedup.

    (p.96) Perhapsthemostobviousexampleofthecentralityofevidentiaryissuesincontemporarylifehasbeenthepost-mortemsontheeventsof11September2001:onestandardlinegoesthattheintelligenceserviceshadenoughinformationtopredicttheevent,butlackedtheskillstoanalyseit.Theydidnothavethecapacitytojointhedotsormethodsforidentifyingassignificantafewtriflesfromthemassesofdatathatflow

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 16 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    intodifferentagenciesfromavarietyofsources.77

    AnarticleinTheNewYorkerinFebruary2003reportedinterviewswithleadingfiguresintheCIAandthePentagonwhowereconcernedwithimprovingintelligenceanalysisintheaftermathof11September2001,78includingDonaldRumsfeld,GeorgeTenet,andRobertGates.Thestarting-pointofthearticlewasajudgementthatAmericanintelligenceagenciesdidnotpossesstheanalyticdepthortherightmethodsofanalysisaccuratelytoassess[possiblethreats].79Thediagnosisandtheprescriptionswereexpressedlargelyintermsthatarefamiliartostudentsofevidenceandinference:thedangersofhypothesis-driveninquiries;theneedtodistinguishbetweenconstructingahypothesisandtestingitagainsttheavailabledataandbetweengatheringandinterpretingdata;thedifferentproblemsthatarisefromasurfeitofinformationandabsenceofevidence;thedifferencebetweenambiguityandincompleteness;thevalueofalternativeinterpretationsofambiguousevidence;thedangersofmirrorimaging,thatisprojectingofAmericanvaluesandbeliefsontoAmericasadversariesandrivals;atendencytoconfusetheunfamiliarwiththeimprobable;therelationshipbetweencalculusofriskandthresholdsofcredibility;thelikelihoodofpoliticalbiasenteringintojudgementswherethesituationisuncertain.Thoughthevocabularyissometimesdifferent,alloftheseideasshouldbefamiliartostudentsofevidenceandinference;mostofthemhavebeenexploredinthewritingsofWigmoreandSchum.

    ResistanceandscepticismThisisonejuristspersonalinterpretationofthebackgroundtotheUCLEvidenceProgramme.Whenitstarted,Ihadassumedthatthemainfocuswouldbeonexploringtheextenttowhichthereareconcepts,principlesandmethodsrelatingtoevidenceandinferencethatcouldbedevelopedandappliedbroadlyacrossmanydisciplines.Iexpectedthatscholarswithdifferent(p.97) specialismscouldbothcontributetoandlearnfromsuchanenterprise.DavidSchumssubstanceblindapproachtoevidenceassetoutinEvidentialFoundationsofProbabilisticReasoningseemedonepromisingstarting-point,butnottheonlyone.80Inshort,Ihadassumedthatthiswouldbeamulti-disciplinaryenterprisebringingtogethertheperspectives,concepts,insights,knowledgeandexperienceofindividualsfrommanydifferentbackgroundstoexchangeexperiencesandtoexplorequestionsaboutevidenceatafairlygenerallevel.

    IwasnotsurprisedthattheproposedtitleTowardsanIntegratedScienceofEvidenceprovokedsomeresistance.Ihadmyselfopposedtheuseofscienceinthiscontextandthoughtthephrasingwastoostrong,forreasonssetoutbelow.ButIwassurprisedatthehostilityexpressedtotheideaofasubstanceblindapproachandtotheveryideaofacommonenterprise.ThepurposeofthissectionistotrytoidentifysomeofthemainreasonsforresistanceandhostilitytotheenterpriseasIhadconceivedit.

    JasonDaviessanalysisofinterdisciplinarityishelpfulinidentifyingsomeofthedifferentexpectationsandagendasthatsomeparticipantsmayhavebroughttotheprogramme,apartfromtheobviousfactthatsubstantialfundswereavailable.81Somenodoubtjoinedinthehopeoflearningaboutconcepts,methodsorinsightsthatmighthelptoilluminate

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 17 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    specificintractableproblemsintheirownfield;somehadconcernsaboutparticularconceptsorissues(e.g.causation)thatmightbeilluminatedbyinterdisciplinaryexchangesatalessgenerallevelthantheconstructionofascienceorfield;somewereattractedbytheopportunitytoexplorequestionsaboutevidencewithintheirowndisciplineorareaofspecialisation;thetermevidencemayhavehadquitedifferentassociationsforsomefromtheconceptionsharedbytheinstigatorsoftheprogramme(seebelow);somecamewiththeirownindividualagendasorwithnoveryclearideasaboutwhattoexpect.Theoutcomewasthatalooselyknitevidencecommunitywasestablishedwitharichvarietyofinteractions.Someinterestingspecificprojectswerepursued,butitismyimpressionthatthegeneraltendenciesweremorecentrifugalthancentripetal.82Inshortthemainbenefitswerewhatparticipantstookbacktotheirown(p.98) specialismsratherthansignificantadvancesinacommonenterprise.Mypersonalexpectationsweredisappointed,butasDaviesmakesclear,thisisfarfromsayingthattheprogrammewasafailure;butthecriteriaofsuccessareelusive.83

    IstillthinkthatEvidencedeservessustainedattentionasamultidiscipli-naryfieldorsubject,ifnotascience,andIwanttoexploresomepossibleintellectualreasonsforresistancetotheidea.Anyonewhohasbeeninvolvedinsustainedinterdisciplinaryworkislikelytoencounteroneormoreobstaclestocommunicationandcooperation.Someareintellectual,butothers,realenoughpsychologically,arenotintellectuallyinteresting.Forexample,onescounterpartsfromotherdisciplinesmaybedauntedbytheprospectofenteringintoanewfieldorreadingalotofunfamiliarliterature;theymaybedefensiveabouttheirownterritoryorchallengestotheirexpertiseorauthority;ortheymayassumethattheyaretheretoteachandhavenothingtolearnfromthenatives;ortheymayjustfinditdifficulttothinkoutsidetheirindividualboxes.Theethnographyofknowledgeisrepletewithstoriesoftheterritorialbehaviourofdifferentacademictribes.84Theseattitudesillustratesomeofthepracticalobstaclestosustainedinterdisciplinarywork.HereIammoreconcernedwithintellectualresistancetotheideaofamultidisciplinaryfieldofEvidence.

    Thereareotherformsofresistancethatcanbeputaside.Someonemayjustnotbeinterestedinthesubjectofevidenceasthetermisusedhere;ortheymaybescepticalaboutthevalue,orrelevancetotheirconcerns,ofageneralfieldofEvidence;ortheymaythinkthattheconceptoruseofevidenceintheirspecialismisunproblematic.Sometimes,suchattitudesarequitelegitimateandpresentachallengetoproponentsofascienceorfieldofEvidencetoshowthatitismoreinterestingorrelevantorproblematicthanitmayappeartobetotheresister.

    Ishalladdressthemoreintellectualformsofresistanceunderthefollowingheads:

    (a)Suspicionsofscientismandempiricism;(b)Varietiesofscepticism;(c)Differentconceptionsofevidence.(d)Strongviewsontheautonomyofdisciplines.

    (p.99) (a)Suspicionsofscientismandempiricism

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 18 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    Aswasnotedabove,thesuggestionthattheUCLprogrammeshouldbecalledTowardsanIntegratedScienceofEvidenceprovokedquitewidespreadhostility.Althoughitwasemphasisedthatsciencewasbeingusedinthiscontexttomeannothingmorethansystematicstudy,suspicionremained.Thisisunderstandable:insomequarterssciencehasacquiredstrongnegativeassociations,whicharebroadlyexpressedbythepejorativetermscientism.85Forexample,itissometimesassumedthatinquiriesinthehumanitiesandsocialsciencesshouldbemodelledonthenaturalsciences;thatonlymeasurablequantitativedataaremeaningful;thatpoliciesandproblemsinvolvingvaluechoicescanberesolvedempirically;86thatevidence-basedmedicinehadbecomeadogmawhichsometimeswentfarbeyondthesensibleclaimthatdoctorsshouldtrytorelyonthebestinformationavailable;87thatthelabelscientificisoftenusedtogivespuriousauthorityorapoliticaladvantagetobogusclaimsthatsatisfynoneofthestandardsofwell-groundedempiricalsciences.SusanHaacksumsupthedangersofhonorificuseoftheterm:

    Scientifichasbecomeanall-purposetermofepistemicpraisemeaningstrong,reliable,goodInviewoftheimpressivesuccessesofthenaturalsciences,thishonorificusageisunderstandableenough.Butitisthoroughlyunfortunate.Itobscurestheotherwiseobviousfactthatnotallandnotonlypractitionersof(p.100) disciplinesclassifiedassciencesarehonest,thorough,successfulinquirers;whenplentyofscientistsarelazy,incompetent,unimaginative,unluckyordishonest,whileplentyofhistorians,journalists,detectivesetc.aregoodinquirers.Ittemptsusintoafruitlesspreoccupationwiththeproblemofdemarcatingrealsciencefrompretenders.Itencouragestoothoughtlesslyuncriticalanattitudetothedisciplinesclassifiedassciences,whichinturnprovokesenvyofthosedisciplines,andencouragesakindofscientisminappropriatemimicry,bypractitionersofotherdisciplines,ofthemanner,thetechnicalterminology,themathematics,etc.,ofthenaturalsciences.Anditprovokesresentmentofthedisciplinessoclassified,whichencouragesanti-scientificattitudes.88

    ThewordingofthetitleoftheUCLprojectcreatedfurtherdifficulty.Towardssuggestedtosomeaspecificgoaltobeachieved.Scienceraisedthehacklesofthosewhoaresuspiciousofscientism.Butitwasalsoambiguous:didanintegratedsciencemeananewdisciplineorsomethinglessambitiouslikeafocusofattentionoraflexibleframeworkormapforindicatingconnectionsbetweendifferentlinesofinquiry?Ordiditmeanageneraltheoryofevidence?Ifthelatter,whatkindofquestionswoulditaddress?

    ItispossiblethattheuseofthetermintegratedandSchumssubstanceblindapproachtoevidencewereperceivedtobeanattempttoimposeamonolithicgeneraltheoryofevidenceforalldisciplines.Inmyview,thesefearswerenotrealised:Schumsgoalsweremoremodestthanthisandtheoperationoftheprogrammewasflexibleandopen-ended.Infactwhentheoriesofevidencearediscussedonefindsawiderangeofviewsabouttheagendasofquestionsthatsuchatheoryshouldaddress.89

    Anotherpossiblesourceofresistancewassuspicionofempiricism,notleastinrelation

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 19 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    tothesocialsciences.Questionsabouttheepistemologicalfoundationsofanyinquiry,whetherempiricalinquiriescanbevaluefree,the(p.101) relationshipbetweenconceptualanalysisandsocialfacts,andtheextenttowhichallknowledgeisconstructedareroutinelycontestedinmanydifferentdisciplinarycontexts.ThelatePeterLiptonneatlysurveyedthebattleground:

    Therearealmostasmanyempiricismsasthereareempiricists,butwhattheseviewsorapproacheshaveincommonisanemphasisontheimportanceofexperiencetotheformationofconceptsandtotheacquisitionofknowledge.Thefoiltoempiricismisrationalism,whichemphasizesinsteadtheimportanceofthoughtandknowledgeofmaterialthatisinsomesenseindependentofexperience.Therangeofempiricistpositionsisvast,fromtheshockingviewthatallwecanthinkorknowaboutareoursensationstothemundaneclaimsthatexperienceplayssomeroleintheformationofsomeofourconceptsandinthejustificationofsomeofourbeliefs.Empiricismofsomeformmayseembothobviouslycorrectandobviouslythecorrectphilosophyforscienceonthegroundsthatitisclearthatonecanonlyfindoutabouttheworldbyobservingit;butthisinnocuouslookingthoughthasbeendisputed,andinanycasemanyformsofempiricismgobeyonditintheirclaims.Itisalsounclearwhetherempiricismultimatelysupportsorunderminesclaimstoscientificknowledge.90

    Hereitshouldsufficetomaketwosimplepoints:First,thestudyofevidenceisconcernedwithempiricalinquiriesandisempiricistinthatloosesense.Buttobeinterestedinthesubjectinvolvesnocommitmenttoanyparticularversionofempiricismortoanyversionatall.MostparticipantsintheUCLprogrammeprobablysubscribetoatleastthemundaneclaimsreferredtobyLipton,somemaygofurtherinthedirectionoftheshockingview.Second,afieldorsubjectorsciencewithevidenceasitsfocalpointcannotbutinvolveengagementwithphilosophicalissuessurroundingempiricismandepistemology.Inshort,evidenceasasubjectispotentiallyanarenaofprofoundphilosophicalcontestation.ThisisonereasonforbeingwaryofanyaspirationstoasingleoverarchingGrandTheoryofEvidence.

    (b)Varietiesofscepticism91Closelyrelatedtosuspicionofempiricismarestrongversionsofepistemologicalscepticismthatcanbeinterpretedaschallengingtheveryideaofevidenceasasubjectworthstudying.92Asimpleversiongoesasfollows:theconceptofevidenceasinterpretedhereassumesacognitivistepistemologyacceptanceofsomeempiricalconceptionoftruthandtheideathattruthcan(p.102) bepursuedbyrationalmeans.Ifeitheroftheseassumptionsisrejected,thentheveryideaofascienceofevidenceisadelusion.Thatisprobablycorrect.Mostdiscourseaboutevidenceproceedsonthebasisofsomecognitivistassumptions.Fundamentalproblemsofepistemologyariseinrelationtoevidenceasasubject,notonlyinrelationtoconfrontingvariousformsofscepticism,butalsoinclarifyingwhichversionofcognitivismorempiricismisassumedbyagivenaccountofevidence.Ofcourse,formanypracticalpurposes,somecommonsenseformofempiricismmaysuffice,93butageneralfieldofevidenceneedstoaddressits

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 20 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    epistemologicalfoundations.However,toarguethatevidenceisaworthwhilefocusofattentionasafieldorsubjectinvolvesnocommitmenttoaparticulartheoryofevidenceanymorethantreatingepistemologyasasubjectinvolvescommitmenttoaparticulartheoryofknowledge.

    Aspecialchallengeispresentedbysomevarietiesofpostmodernismthatarecurrentlyinfashion.WithintheUCLprogrammesomeoftheparticipantswereattractedbyoneormoreoftheseversionsormoregenerallybythepostmodernmood.Someofourscientificallymindedcolleaguesdismissedpostmodernismoutofhandasafashionableanddangerousdelusion.94Otherswereambivalent.Especiallyinterestingweresomeindividualswhoseemedtobereactingagainstexcessesofscientismintheirownacademicsubcultures.

    Postmodernismmeansmanythingsinamultiplicityofcontexts.Theissuesaretoocomplextopursuehere,butitmayhelptodrawattentiontoadistinctionthatIhavefoundusefulinprobingmyownambivalencesaboutpostmodernisminlegalcontexts:postmodernismasaformofepistemologicalscepticismorstrongrelativism(irrationalistpostmodernism)andimaginativepostmodernismasaperspectivethatemphasisescomplexity,multipleperspectives,difficultiesofdescription,andtheroleofimaginationininquirywithoutabandoningabasiccognitivism.ThefirstisexemplifiedbyRichardRorty;thesecondbyItaloCalvinosMrPalomarandMarcoPoloinhiswonderfulfictionalevocationsoftheelusivenessofreality.95

    InRortysanti-foundationalism,truthisamatterofconsensusorsolidaritywithinaparticularepistemiccommunity:Thereisnothingtobesaidabouteithertruthorrationalityapartfromdescriptionsofthefamiliarprocedures(p.103) ofjustificationwhichagivensocietyoursuses.96Ifcorrect,thiswouldclearlyunderminetheveryideaofanempiricalscienceorfieldofevidence,asinterpretedhere.97Calvino,ontheotherhand,acceptsthatthatthereisaworldindependentofoursenses,butemphasisesthecomplexitiesofthatworldandtheimmensedifficultiesofdescribingandunderstandingit.98Thatisquitecompatiblewithacognitivistpositionandinquiriesthatseektodeveloptrueconclusionsbasedonevidence.

    IamattractedbyCalvinosemphasisontheelusivenessofreality,butIstronglydisagreewithRortysscepticalepistemologyasinterpretedhere.Ialsodisagreewithcolleagueswhosweepinglydismissallpostmodernismasdiscredited,99butIacceptacognitivistepistemology(muchinfluencedbymycolleagueSusanHaack).100ForthenotinsignificantnumberofcolleagueswhoareattractedbyRortythestudyofevidencepresentsachallenge:IsitpossibletoreconcileRortyianscepticismwithtakingthestudyofevidenceseriously?

    (c)DifferentconceptionsofevidenceSofarIhaveassumedaparticularusageofthetermevidenceinthecontextofempiricalinquiries.Inthisusageevidenceisawordofrelationusedinthecontextofargument(AisevidenceofB).Inthatcontextinformationhasa(p.104) potentialroleasrelevantevidenceifittendstosupportortendstonegate,directlyorindirectly,ahypothesisor

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 21 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    probandumorotherpropositionoffact.101Onedrawsinferencesfromevidenceinordertoproveordisproveapropositionoffact.Theframeworkisargument,theprocessisproof,theengineisinferentialreasoningfrominformation.102

    Ofcourse,thetermevidencehasanumberofotherassociations,dependingoncontext.Hereitisusefultodistinguishbetweenwhatcountsasinformationinthecontextofinferentialreasoning,particularusagesthatarebroaderandnarrowerthanthatoutlinedabove,andideas,suchasmodels,thatarecloselyassociatedwithevidence,butwhichpresupposeacoreideaofevidenceyetbecomelooselyconflatedwithit.

    Letmefirstdisposeofsomenotveryinterestingexamplesofdeviantusage.Inlaw,itissometimessaidthathearsayisnotevidence;thisismerelyshorthandfortherule(subjecttomanyexceptions)thathearsaymaynotbeusedoradmittedasevidenceundertheLawofEvidence.103Somethingsimilaristobefoundinsomeversionsofevidence-basedmedicine,whensomekindsofinformationnotbasedonrandomclinicaltrialsisbarredordiscouragedfrombeingusedindiagnosis:thepatientsowndiagnosis,thedoctorsimpressionisticexperiencesofsimilarcases,andintuitionarenottobetreatedasevidence.

    Somepeopleareinterestedinthepropertiesandcharacteristicsofparticularmaterialsorthingsthatcanbeusedasevidence,suchasfingerprints,officialrecords,orhumanbonesorDNA.Here,thephrasetypesofevidenceispotentiallymisleading:documents,fingerprints,andDNAareusedasevidence.TosayDNAisatypeofevidenceismisleadingoutsidethecontextofitsuseinevidentiaryreasoning.Ofcourse,somescholarsareespeciallypuzzledorinterestedinmethodologicaldifficultiesofconstructinginferentialargumentsfromespeciallyelusiveorfragmentarymaterialforexample,anarchaeologisttryingtoreconstructawholebuildingfromafewfragments104oratheatrehistorianpuzzlingoverwhetherandhowapaintingdepictingaperformanceoftheCommediadelArtecanbeusedasevidenceofcostume(p.105) orgestureorotheraspectsofanactualperformance.105Theseareinterestingquestions,buttheyarenotpuzzlesabouttheconceptofevidence.

    Wecanalsoputononesidelooseextensionsofthetermevidence.WetalkofsomeonegivingevidencebeforeaCommitteeoftheHouseofCommonsoroftheUSSenate.Oftensuchpresentationsonaparticularissueortopicinvolveamixtureoffacts,valuejudgements,opinionsandargumentstoadvanceapositionorview;whereasevidenceinitsprimaryusageisconfinedtofacts.Onemayusefactualinformation,amongotherthings,aspartofanargumentinsupportofapositionorproposaloronemaybedoinglittlemorethanassertinganopinion.

    Economicforecastsandassessmentsofthelikelihoodsofparticulareventsoftenusemodelsthatarebasedinpartondata,butgobeyondthem.Theyareakintohypothesesthatareplausibleaccordingtoavailableevidence,inthesenseusedhere,andoftenserveasasubstituteforevidenceinargumentsthatcannotbesettledbytheavailabledata.106Theuseofmodelsineconomicsandinothercontextsdebatesaboutglobalwarming,forexample107deservetobetakenveryseriouslyinamultidisciplinaryfield

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 22 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    ofevidence.

    Oneofthemostinterestingusesofevidencerelatestothemuch-debatedtopicofmiracles.InCatholicdoctrinemiracles(miracula,cf.Greekterata,dynameis,semeia)arewonderfulthingswondersperformedbyasupernaturalpowerassignsofsomespecialmissionorgiftandexplicitlyascribedtoGodAmiracleissaidtobesupernaturalbecauseitseffectisbeyondtheproductivepowerofnatureandimpliessupernaturalagency.108Catholicdoctrinedistinguishessharplybetweenmiraclesasevidence,andwhatconstitutesevidenceoftheexistenceoroccurrenceofamiracle.ThemainsignificanceofmiraclesistoattestandconfirmthetruthofaDivinemissionorofadoctrinefaith,moralsortruesanctity.Miraclesareasign109However,the(p.106)existenceofmiraclesisaquestionoffactbasedonordinaryprinciplesofinferentialreasoningfromobservation:

    Amiracle,likeanynaturalevent,isknownfrompersonalobservationorfromthetestimonyofothers.Inthemiraclewehavethefactitselfasanexternaloccurrenceanditsmiraculouscharacter.Themiraculouscharacterofthefactconsistsinthis:thatitsnatureandthesurroundingcircumstancesareofsuchkindthatweareforcedtoadmitnaturalforcesalonecouldnothaveproducedit,andtheonlyrationalexplanationistobehadintheinterferenceofDivineagency.Theperceptionofitsmiraculouscharacterisarationalactofthemind,andissimplytheapplicationoftheprincipleofcausalitywiththemethodsofinduction.Thegeneralrulesgoverningacceptanceoftestimonyapplytomiracles.110

    Onthisinterpretation,whenapersonclaimstohaveobservedamiraclewecansubjectthetestimonytostandardtestsofwitnesscredibility:veracity(doesthewitnesssincerelybelievewhatshereports?);observationalcapacity(werethewitnesssvantagepointandsensoryabilitiessuchthatthewitnesswascapableofobservingtheeventwithhersenses?),andbias(wasthewitnesssperceptionormemorypredisposedorinfluencedtobelievethatsheobservedtheevent?).Afourthtestiswhetherthehearerbelievesthatwhatthewitnessclaimstohaveexperiencedisimpossibleorhighlyimprobable(judgedbygeneralexperienceortheknownlawsofnature).111Somescepticsaboutmiraclesrelysolelyonthefourthtest,othersonacombinationoftwoormoresuchtests.112TheCatholicpositionseemstobethatthereisoverwhelmingobservationalevidencethatmiraclesoccurandthatthisisinturnevidenceofthesupernatural.

    Thisisnottheplacetoexploretheclaimsofreligiousexperienceindepth.113Sufficetonoteherethatsomesuchclaimscanbesubjectedtostandardtestsofwitnesscredibilityandaccordinglycanbeevaluatedasevidenceofthetruth,falsityorlikelihoodofsuchclaims.Butothers,suchasclaimsbasedonsupposedextrasensoryperceptionorintuitionorrevelationfalloutsidetheempiricalconceptionofevidenceasbeingbaseddirectlyorindirectlyonobservationbyoneofthefivesenses.Similarly,itisusefultodistinguish(p.107) betweenbeliefsbasedonauthority(e.g.areligioustext,thesayingsofaprophet)oronfaith(acceptanceorcommitmentnotbasedonevidence)andbeliefsbasedonempiricalevidence.Here,Ishalluseevidenceinthenarrowempiricalsense,

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 23 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    butnotethatmanyclaimsaboutwhattheworldislikearebasedonothergroundsforbelief.

    OneofthemoststrikingextensionsofthetermevidencerelatestooursisterprojectattheLondonSchoolofEconomics.114TheUCLprogrammeisrepresentedinthisvolumeandnearlyallofthecontributionsbearadirectrelationshiptotheideaofevidence.TheLSEprogrammeisentitledHowWellDoFactsTravel?.Itsdifferentgoalsandemphasisweresummarisedasfollows:

    Itisoftenassumedthatafactisafactisafact,yetthosewhoworkacrossdisciplinaryboundariesarewellawarethatthelifeofafactisnotsosimple.Eveneverydayexperiencesuggeststhat,likegossip,factsthattravelrarelyremainstable.Ourresearchprogrammeproposestoexplorethenatureofevidencebyadoptingaconsistentresearchdesigntoanalysehowwellevidencetravelsbetweenandwithindisciplinesandtoexaminewhyevidenceconsideredacceptableinonecontextretainsorlosesitsstatusasevidenceinanother.Weaimtoestablishabodyofcaseworkonthisquestionofhowwellfactstravelandtodevelop,formoregeneraluse,theconceptualframeworksappropriatetoansweringthisquestion.115

    ThemainfocusoftheLSEprojectwasonhowdatageneratedinonecontextarereceived,interpretedandusedindifferentcontexts.Theprogrammeanditsconstituentelementsexcitedinterestandadmiration,butsomeofusintheUCLprogrammewonderedwhatithadtodowithevidence.Tobesuredatageneratedinonecontextissometimesexplicitlyorimplicitlyusedasevidencetosupportsomefactualthesisorconclusion,butthisisonlyoneofmanyusesthatcanbemadeofsuchinformation.Thefocuswasonwhathappenstosupposedfactsintheprocessoftravellingratherthanonthenatureofevidenceanditsroleininferentialreasoning.Initially,Isharedsomecolleaguesdoubtsastowhetherthiswasreallyaboutevidence,butIhavechangedmy(p.108) mind,becausethepublicationsresultingfromtheLSEprogrammecanclearlybeinterpretedasasignificantcontributiontothesubjectofevidenceasIhaveinterpretedit.116Indeed,becausetheLSEprogrammewasmorecloselyintegratedthantheoneatUCL,itpromisestomakeacontributiontothissubjectatamoregenerallevelthanthemoredisparateUCLprojects:

    Weexpectthesecomponentprojectstogeneratecasestudiesthatwillteachusnotjustabouthowthenatureofevidenceanditsevaluationdiffersbetweendisciplinarysites,butalsotogeneratesomegeneralsuggestionsaboutthereceiptoffacts.Arefactsinanewsitepositivelyreceivedandintegrated?Oraretheyreinterpretedtofit?Perhapstheyareinconsistentwiththenewsiteinformation,and,ifso,howisthedisputeresolved?Ordothenewfactsprovedestructive?Thesearethesensesinwhichwewillseektoassesshowwellfactstravel,thatis,understandthedifferentkindsofreceptionandstrategiesforintegrationoffacts.Tohelpusanalysethesereceptionissuesinourcases,andsotoprovidemoregeneralanswerstotheoverallquestionHowwelldofactstravel?,weadoptanumberoftheoreticalandconceptualstartingpointsfromtheexistingliteratures

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 24 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    onknowledgetransfer.117

    (d)Interdisciplinarity:terminologyandassumptionsabouttherelativeautonomyofdisciplinesBeforetheUCLEvidenceprogramme,Ihadtendedtouseinterdisciplinarytorefertointeractionsbetweenmembersoftwodifferentdisciplinesandmultidisciplinarytorefertointeractionswheremorethantwodisciplineswereinvolved.JasonDaviespointsoutthattheseandrelatedtermsareusedlooselyandwithoutconsistency.118Hehasarguedthatthereisaneedforamorerefinedterminologytodistinguishbetweendifferentkindsofinteractionincluding:(a)scholarsdrawingoninsightsandmethodsfromoneormoreotherdisciplinesinlookingforsolutionstointractableproblemswithintheirowndiscipline;(b)scholarsfromtwoormoredisciplinesexploringissues,conceptsandmethodsforthesakeofincreasedunderstandingforavarietypurposes,withthemainpay-offbeingilluminationforeachwithintheirowndiscipline;(c)teamsofspecialistsfromseveraldisciplineslookingforasolutiontoanextradisciplinaryproblem(e.g.buildingapowerstation,(p.109) devisingresponsestoglobalwarming)withmembersoftheteamtypicallyexportingexpertisewithoutnecessarilyimportinginsightsbackintotheirowndiscipline.119

    Iamnotfamiliarwiththeacademicliteratureaboutinterdisciplinarity,120butIhavehadextensivefirst-handexperienceoftherewardsandfrustrationsofcross-disciplinaryinteractions.IhavefoundthecommentarybyStephenRowlandandJasonDaviesontheUCLprogrammeandinterdisciplinaryrelationsgenerallyilluminating,butIhaveonemajorreservationabouttheirperspective.121Lurkingbehindmuchofwhattheysayseemstobeapictureofdisciplinesassolid,largelyhomogeneous,boundedentities,likefortresscommunities,fromwhichindividualscholarssallyforthonshortexpeditionsasimporters,exporters,orexplorersonlytoreturnhomehavinggarnerednewmaterialorhavingmadesomespecialisedcontribution(inthelattercasetypicallytoapractical,extradisciplinaryproblem).Itisveryriskytolingeroutside.Thisfortressimagefitssomeacademicculturesbetterthanothers.Itstrengthensideasofdistinctdomainsofknowledgeandevenautonomousdisciplines.Suchfortressescannodoubtaccommodatewithintheirwallssomedissentanddisagreement,somesubdisciplinesandotherspecialisms,andpowerstruggleswithinandbetweendisciplines.Itcontainsacoreoftruthabouttheidentityofspecialistsandthedangersofdilettanteism.122Butitdoesnotfitalldisciplinaryculturesand,moreimportantly,itcanbeepistemicallymisleading.

    Ihappentocomefromanacademicculturewhichistowardsoneendofthespectrumofboundedandunboundedsubjects.ApartfromthesubjectofEvidenceinlaw,whichIhopetohaveshownisinherentlymultidisciplinary,mymainsubjectisJurisprudence.ItissometimessaidthatLawisaparasitic(p.110) subjectandJurisprudenceisthelawyersextraversion,i.e.themainlocusoflawsinterfacewithotherdisciplines.123AswithothertheoreticalenterprisesmanyofthecentralquestionsofJurisprudencearesharedwithotherdisciplines.Forexample,thequestion:Whatisjustice?doesnotbelongexclusivelytoethicsoranalyticalphilosophyorpoliticaltheoryoreconomicsorlegaltheoryoranyotherdiscipline.124Similarly,differingconceptionsoflawhavebeenamajorbattleground

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 25 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    inlegaltheory,butthesecontroversiesaretoalargeextentsharedwithanalyticalphilosophers,socialscientists,andothersinterestedinlegalphenomena.Lawasaconceptdoesnotbelongtojurists.MyconceptionofEvidenceasamultidisciplinaryfieldisratherlikethat:thereareepistemological,logical,probabilistic,conceptual,andmanyothertypesofquestionsthatarisewithinthefield,butmanyofthesequestionsdonotbelongtoanyonedisciplineinthesenseofdependingfortheirmoregeneralanswersonspecialisedmethodsandknowledgethataretheexclusivedomainofonekindofspecialism.125Moreover,notonlydoquestionsofandaboutevidenceandinferenceariseinmanyacademicdisciplinesandspheresofpractice,butourrepresentativedemocracyandtheroleofjuriesandlaymagistratesinoursystemofadministrationofjusticearepremisedonnotionsofcognitivecompetence,thatistheassumptionthatnormaladultcitizenshavetheabilitytodrawontheirsocietysgeneralstockofknowledge(general(p.111) experience)tomakesoundjudgementsbasedonordinarypracticalreasoning.Inshort,thecasecanbemadeforsayingthatconcernsaboutevidenceareapartofgeneralculture.126Ofcourse,amultidisciplinaryfieldofevidencerequiresspecialisedinputs.Butitismisleadingtoseeitintermsofinteractionsbetweenspecialistsfromsharplyseparateddomains,whohavelittleornocommonground.

    PartIV.ConclusionInanswertothequestion:whydoyouthinkevidencehasspecialclaimstobeagoodfocusofattention,myargumentislargelypragmatic.Alldisciplinesthathavesignificantempiricalelementsareconnectedtoasharedfamilyofproblemsaboutevidenceandinference.Apartfromitstheoreticalinterest(asacontributiontounderstanding),evidenceisofgreatpracticalimportanceinmanyspheresofdecision-makingandriskmanagement.Inparticularmulti-disciplinarystudyofevidenceshouldfocusattentiononsuchgeneralquestionsas:(i)Whatfeaturesofevidencearecommonacrossdisciplinesandwhatfeaturesarespecial?(ii)Whatconcepts,methodsandinsightsdevelopedinonedisciplinearetransferabletoothers?127(iii)Whatconceptsarenottransferable?Why?(iv)Canwedevelopgeneralconcepts,methods,andinsightsthatapplytoevidenceinallornearlyallcontexts?

    Inmyview,theUCLprogrammeachievedmuchatparticularlevels,butdidnotmakemuchprogressinaddressingmoregeneralandmiddleorderquestions.Nearlyalloftheactivitiesandinteractionstookplaceatlowerlevelsofabstraction.Thereweremanyinterestingspecificactivitiesandproducts,buttheideaofasharedenterprisethatalsofocusedonsomesharedgeneralquestionswaslostsightof.Mypersonalhopeswerenotrealised.Thedevelopmentofanewsubjectisamajorundertaking.Fromtheoutsetitwasmyjudgementthatthreetofouryearswasmuchtooshortandasingleprogrammemuchtoomodesttoachievethebasicaspiration.TheUCLprogrammesucceededinconstitutinganevidencecommunitywithaconsiderablesharingofideasandexperienceamongitsvariousmembers.Thiswouldhavebeenanexcellentstarting-pointforafurther,moreintegratedphase,butunfortunately(p.112) therewasinsufficientinterestinmovingtoamoregenerallevelandnoonewasavailableandwillingtotakeovertheleadershipfromPhilipDawid,whohaddoneafinejobinkeepingtheprogramme

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 26 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    togetherdespitethediversityoftheinterestsofmembersofthegroup.

    So,inmyview,thereisstillaneedforareasonablyintegratedmulti-disciplinaryefforttocarrythisenterpriseforward.Thiswouldprobablyinvolvetheacceptanceofsomebroadcognitivistandempiricistworkingassumptionswiththemainfocusonmiddleorderquestions.Inthisview,thecentraltheoreticalquestionshouldbe:givensuchassumptions,howfarcanwegeneraliseaboutevidenceandinferentialreasoningacrossdisciplines,decisioncontexts,andtypesofinquiry?

    Inrelationtothismorespecificquestionsneedtobeaddressed,suchas:

    1.Arethereprinciplesofreasoningfromevidencethattranscendallormostscholarlydisciplines?2.Whatcountsasevidencehasvariedacrosstime,language,cultures,practicalcontexts,andacademicdisciplines.Isitpossibletoconstructananalyticconceptorframeworkofconceptsthattranscendsthesevariouscontexts?3.Arethereconcepts,methodsofreasoning,ortypesofevidencethatareuniqueorspecialinoneormoredisciplines?4.Inwhatsenseisanygiventypeofinquiryordecisioncontext-specificinrelationtoevidence?Canasubstance-blindapproachtoevidence(Schum)alsobecontext-blind?5.Arethereconceptssuchasrelevance,probability,probativeforce,andcredibility,cognitivecompetence,ancillaryevidencethatcanusefullybegivenmeaningsthattranscendall,mostorsomescholarlydisciplines?6.AreSchumscredibilityindicatorsapplicabletoquestionsabouttestimonyordocumentaryevidenceindifferentcontexts?7.Aretheregeneraltestsofauthenticityapplicabletodocumentsandphysicalobjectsthatareusedasevidence?8.Whatistherelationshipbetweennarrativeandreasoninginthecontextofargumentation?Towhatextentdoesthatrelationshipvaryaccordingtodisciplinaryandpracticalcontexts?Whatexactlyismeantbytheclaimthatstorieshelpustomakesenseoftheworld?Whatcanlegitimatelybeclaimedcanbedonebynarrativethatcannotbedonebyreasoning?9.Towhatextentandinwhatrespectscanconceptsandmethodsconcerningevidencedevelopedinonedisciplineorpracticalenvironmentbeapplied,withorwithoutmodification,tootherdisciplinesandcontexts?(p.113) 10.Whataretheuses,limitations,anddangersofformalrepresentationsofinferentialarguments(Bayessnets,Wigmorechartsetc.)?11.Whataretheusesandlimitationsofevidence-basedapproachestomedicine,policy,orotheractivities?12.Whatcanreasonablybeexpectedofcomputersandartificialintelligenceasaidstomarshallingandreasoningfromevidence?13.Whatgenerallessonscanbelearnedfromrecentdevelopmentsinhandlingevidenceinpoliceinvestigation,intelligenceanalysis,forensicscience,forensicanthropology,andotherpracticaloperations?

  • Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence

    Page 27 of 46

    PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

    14.Towhatextentshouldstudyofevidencebedrivenbyquestionsabouthowpeopleactuallydealwithevidenceratherthanhowtheyshouldthinkandactinrelationtoit?

    AnsweringsuchquestionsdoesnotinvolvetryingtosetupamonolithicGrandTheoryofEvidence.Toomanyperspectivesareinvolved,thequestionsaretoovaried,andthepossibilitiesforhonestdisagreementtooextensiveforthattobeappropriate.Evenifasetofanswerscouldbeweldedintoasinglecoherenttheory,itislikelytobetooabstracttobeofmuchassistanceindealingwithparticularandpracticalquestionsthatcouldbenefitfromthedevelopmentofamultidisciplinaryfieldalocusformanykindsofinteractionand,sometimes,anarenaofcontestation.Heretheinstinctsofsomeresistersseemtometobesound.

    Nor,inmyview,wouldthebestapproachbelargelytopdown.Tobesuretherealreadyexistintheliteraturegeneralconcepts,principlesandhypothesesthatarereleva


Moving Beyond Written Reinforcement

Moving Beyond Written Reinforcement

Documents
Moving beyond email

Moving beyond email

Business
Document: Moving Beyond Medicaid

Document: Moving Beyond Medicaid

Documents
Moving Beyond Research

Moving Beyond Research

Documents
Moving Beyond Marketing

Moving Beyond Marketing

Documents
Moving Beyond OER: USNH

Moving Beyond OER: USNH

Education
Moving beyond borders

Moving beyond borders

Education
Moving Beyond Degrees

Moving Beyond Degrees

Education
For a Relational Musicology: Music and Interdisciplinarity ... · For a Relational Musicology: Music and Interdisciplinarity, Beyond the Practice Turn The 2007 Dent Medal Address

For a Relational Musicology: Music and Interdisciplinarity ... · For a Relational Musicology: Music and Interdisciplinarity, Beyond the Practice Turn The 2007 Dent Medal Address

Documents
Moving beyond Vulnerability Testing

Moving beyond Vulnerability Testing

Technology
Moving beyond sponsorship

Moving beyond sponsorship

Documents
Moving Beyond Performance Management

Moving Beyond Performance Management

Documents
Moving beyond numbers

Moving beyond numbers

Data & Analytics
Moving beyond the paradox: Searching for the key factors in research commercializationdimetic.dime-eu.org/dimetic_files/Moving beyond the... · 2010-11-25 · Moving beyond the paradox:

Moving beyond the paradox: Searching for the key factors in research commercializationdimetic.dime-eu.org/dimetic_files/Moving beyond the... · 2010-11-25 · Moving beyond the paradox:

Documents
For a Relational Musicology: Music and Interdisciplinarity, Beyond

For a Relational Musicology: Music and Interdisciplinarity, Beyond

Documents
Moving Beyond Simple Payback

Moving Beyond Simple Payback

Technology
Relocationship Relationship Beyond Moving

Relocationship Relationship Beyond Moving

Services
Moving Beyond Ebooks

Moving Beyond Ebooks

Documents
Moving beyond facebook

Moving beyond facebook

Business
Moving beyond the hypervisor

Moving beyond the hypervisor

Technology
Moving Beyond the Textbook

Moving Beyond the Textbook

Education
Moving beyond estrus detection

Moving beyond estrus detection

Science
Moving mHealth beyond the handset

Moving mHealth beyond the handset

Health & Medicine
Moving Beyond Critique

Moving Beyond Critique

Documents
Strategy moving beyond ambitions tni

Strategy moving beyond ambitions tni

Data & Analytics
Moving LBS Beyond Mobile

Moving LBS Beyond Mobile

Technology
Ephesians - Moving Beyond Mediocrity

Ephesians - Moving Beyond Mediocrity

Spiritual
Moving Beyond The Vanilla

Moving Beyond The Vanilla

Education
NFC – Moving Beyond Payments

NFC – Moving Beyond Payments

Technology
Moving Beyond Mobility

Moving Beyond Mobility

Documents