What is the correct theory of knowledge in the domain of law? In other words, under what conditions can we say that we legally know something?
jurisprudence meets epistemology: facilitating legal understanding ...
www.ler.edu.au/vOL%2018%20pdf/Forrest.pdfCached
by HANN FORREST
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Dear Kirk MacGregor,
1.
Your question(s) cannot be answered,
because you did not state / set,
what is meant by "appropriate" or "correct".
To be able to decide, whether an answer
fulfils the "expectations", we need a criterion.
2.
There is no "theory of knowledge" yet. There are
many attempts, talkings about, ...
But as long as we do not know how to create knowledge,
we are not able to create knowledge about knowledge.creating.
Do you see the problem?
3.
Humankind has not yet realised the most basic givens.
Some Essentials:
Living requires acting. Acting means decision.making.
Decision.making needs knowledge about the taking.place.
All taking.place, knowledge.creating as well as acting, proceeds
according to the most straightforward principle, we can think of.
This principle conjoins regularity and arbitrariness so
that existence and evolution became and become possible.
In the course of evolution the "chance of arbitrariness" has
brought us humans 'capabilities of decision.making':
freedom of choice - rational sense
intuition - creativity - consciousness
As we did not yet become aware, that we -have to- make decisions
and that we therefore have to -set- objectives,
we did not do any research
neither on the principle of all becoming
nor on how we can use our 'capabilities of decision.making'.
A treatise on the basics of
the becoming, knowledge.creating and decision.making can be
found on the internet: http://werden-und.wissenschaffen.org/
---
You will find much more at the given address.
We are able to use four functional different abilities and
therefore we are able to produce four functional different brainwares.
Knowledge is one, which concerns what is taking.place.
Laws, habits, ... are functionally different brainware.
We do not only create knowledge, but answers to the question
"How do we deal with each other?".
And this answers cannot be found (nothing can be found!)
we have to set / agree on them.
For millions of years humans hoped to -find- answers
for non-existings. As this is not possible and as we are
nevertheless forced by nature to have a WHATFOR (for the criterion)
we have to take the burden of decision.making, setting WHATFORs
(objectives, functions, goals, ...) or others will do it for us,
which is still usually the case.
First things first! You will find a treatise on
http://werden-und.wissenschaffen.org/ which will help humankind
to a conscious-controlled turn of era.
Hans-Josef Heck - Wissenschaffen und Handeln
I would answer by asking a question. Let's think of theories of law that we all know.They do have a supporting epistemology of law behind them (positivism, realism, interpretivism, etc.) be it explicit or implicit. Thus, the question is: would you separate those theories from that epistemology? Would you choose among different theories and reject the epistemology behind them? Are the two things disconnected?
I think the best episthemology I ever knew is the Lakatos Research Program Methodology which is very simple to understand. Children and scientist as well use the same episthemology to justify and validate what they deeply believe. Small Children believe in Santa Claus and XIXth century scientist in Newton's laws of motion. They both will spent a big part of they lifes making additional hypothesis in order to maintain they beliefs - or hard core as Lakatos called them.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy