Skip to content

Law

: 3

Legal reasoning must be grounded in a sound epistemology of reality. If legal principles systematically contradict well-justified epistemological frameworks (e.g., empirical evidence, logical coherence), they should be revised to align with those frameworks.

….

QA:

  • Why the meta-principle “You are guilty (G) only if we find conclusive evidence (E)” must be improved?
  • …

QA

Why the meta-principle “You are guilty (G) only if we find conclusive evidence (E)” must be improved?

Goal: Presumption of Innocence.

Standard: Evidence beyound any resonable doubt.

No evidence is not evidence of no.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Classic, Carl Sagan-style phrasing)

"The limits of proof are not proof of limits." (Reversed structure for emphasis)

"The unseen is not the nonexistent." (Poetic, metaphysical)

  • Confuses Epistemic justification (what we can prove) and Ontological reality (what is true); You can be guilty; without we having discover the evidence.
    • A Better phrase - If we have evidence + there is not justification for the actions → guilty.
    • The lack of evidence if not prove of anything.

References

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law