
handle: 11565/4053185
This contribution discusses two theses on juridical evidence: the ostension thesis and the inference thesis. According to the first, the process of juridical proof typically requires some ostensive act. In this sense the evidence consists in some element susceptible of being shown, or exhibited, or indicated to someone in a given context. According to the second thesis, the process of juridical proof requires necessarily some inference. In this process juridical evidence becomes the content of one or more inferences performed by the parties or by the fact-finders (judges or jurors). It can be the content of a premise which, together with other premises, leads to a conclusion about the disputed facts; or the content of a conclusion the premises lead to. The two theses concern the process of juridical proof, but also the evidence involved in the process, for some characters of the process affect its content. Evidence is ostensively shown and inferentially processed.
OSTENSION, EVIDENTIAL REASONING, INFERENCE
OSTENSION, EVIDENTIAL REASONING, INFERENCE
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
