Justice in epistemic gaps: The ‘proof paradox’ revisited

Philosophical Issues 31 (1):315-333 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This paper defends the heretical view that, at least in some cases, we ought to assign legal liability based on purely statistical evidence. The argument draws on prominent civil law litigation concerning pharmaceutical negligence and asbestos-poisoning. The overall aim is to illustrate moral pitfalls that result from supposing that it is never appropriate to rely on bare statistics when settling a legal dispute.

Author's Profile

Lewis Ross
London School of Economics


Added to PP

694 (#23,087)

6 months
210 (#12,898)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?