Lewis Ross

A question, long discussed by legal scholars, has recently provoked a considerable amount of philosophical attention: ‘Is it ever appropriate to base a legal verdict on statistical evidence alone?’ Many philosophers who have considered this question reject legal reliance on bare statistics, even when the odds of error are extremely low. This paper develops a puzzle for the dominant theories concerning why we should eschew bare statistics. Namely, there seem to be compelling scenarios in which there are multiple sources of incriminating statistical evidence. As we conjoin together different types of statistical evidence, it becomes increasingly incredible to suppose that a positive verdict would be impermissible. I suggest that none of the dominant views in the literature can easily accommodate such cases, and close by offering a diagnosis of my own.

Many widely discussed historical and contemporary views in epistemology rely on conditions requiring that evidence be causally related to the event that is the subject of belief. Such ‘causal conditions’ have also appeared both in normative debates about when belief is rational and in metaphysical debates about the relationship between belief and credence. Drawing on this literature, our paper formulates and then carefully scrutinises a range of plausible causal conditions on rational belief. A series of counterexamples leads us to rule out, in turn, distinct attempts to formulate such a condition. We then devise a condition that withstands our test cases. Ironically, though, this condition is ill-suited to play the roles for which causal conditions on rational belief have been theorised in the first place. Our result casts doubt on whether epistemologists should devote further attention to causal conditions, whether on rational belief or on other epistemic states.

Pessimistic empirical evidence about the reformatory and deterrent effects of punitive treatment poses a challenge for all justificatory theories of punishment. Yet, the dominant progressive view remains that punishment is required for the most serious crimes. This paper outlines an empirically sensitive prospectus for justifying punitive treatment through understanding the importance of reintegration. On this view, punishment can be viewed as a preferred alternative to the rigours of social ostracism, a common way of dealing with offenders in lieu of formal criminal justice. Adopting reintegration as a primary aim encourages taking a longer view which focuses on desistance from criminality rather than only on reform at the point of release from formal punishment. The view outlined in this paper enables a vindication of reintegrative punishment even when it is not the most immediately efficient means of reforming offenders. In making this argument, I develop the modern retributive platform in criminal justice theory, identify various overlooked yet key nuances in the relationship between reintegration and reform, and argue for greater theoretical and practical attention to how the state can make the communities they serve more receptive to reintegrating offenders.

Recent work takes both philosophical and scientific progress to consist in acquiring factive epistemic states such as knowledge. However, much of this work leaves unclear what entity is the subject of these epistemic states. Furthermore, by focusing only on states like knowledge, we overlook progress in intermediate cases between ignorance and knowledge - for example, many now celebrated theories were initially so controversial that they were not known. This paper develops an improved framework for thinking about intellectual progress. Firstly, I argue that we should think of progress relative to the epistemic position of an intellectual community rather than individual inquirers. Secondly, I show how focusing on the extended process of inquiry (rather than the mere presence or absence of states like knowledge) provides a better evaluation of different types of progress. This includes progress through formulating worthwhile questions, acquiring new evidence, and increasing credence on the right answers to these questions. I close by considering the ramifications for philosophical progress, suggesting that my account supports rejecting the most negative views while allowing us to articulate different varieties of optimism and pessimism.

Jury science is fraught with difficulty. Since legal and institutional hurdles render it all but impossible to study live criminal jury deliberation, researchers make use of various indirect methods to evaluate jury performance. However, each of these methods is open to methodological criticism and, strikingly, some of the highest-profile jury research programmes in recent years have reached opposing conclusions. Uncertainty about jury performance is an obstacle for legal reform; ongoing debate about the ‘justice gap’ for complainants of sexual offences has rendered these problems acute. This article proposes a way to advance the debate.

Should we use the same standard of proof to adjudicate guilt for murder and petty theft? Why not tailor the standard of proof to the crime? These relatively neglected questions cut to the heart of central issues in the philosophy of law. This paper scrutinises whether we ought to use the same standard for all criminal cases, in contrast with a flexible approach that uses different standards for different crimes. I reject consequentialist arguments for a radically flexible standard of proof, instead defending a modestly flexible approach on non-consequentialist grounds. The system I defend is one on which we should impose a higher standard of proof for crimes that attract more severe punishments. This proposal, although apparently revisionary, accords with a plausible theory concerning the epistemology of legal judgments and the role they play in society.

There is now a considerable body of analytic work examining the norms of criminal conviction at trial, integrating contemporary legal theory, political philosophy and epistemology to consider when a judge or jury should doubt the guilt of an accused. This paper takes up a neglected adjacent issue: when can citizens doubt a conviction returned by a criminal court? This question, aside from being independently important for a general theory of criminal justice, also bears on the perceived legitimacy of punishment and the relationship between individual citizens and state power. I provide an account of the intellectual and moral norms governing such dissent and explain their sensitivity to contingent facts about the jurisdiction in question. One upshot is that even among well-functioning criminal justice systems, the norms for public dissent can vary considerably—and depend on the ‘nuts and bolts’ of criminal process often hidden from public view. Ultimately, few states have sufficiently effective criminal processes to undergird any moral prohibition on dissent against conviction, so long as the intellectual hurdle of responsible inquiry has been cleared.

Criminal juries make decisions of great importance. A key criticism of juries is that they are unreliable in a multitude of ways, from exhibiting racial or gendered biases, to misunderstanding their role, to engaging in impropriety such as internet research. Recently, some have even claimed that the use of juries creates injustice on a large scale, as a cause of low conviction rates for sexual criminality. Unfortunately, empirical research into jury deliberation is undermined by the fact that researchers are unable to study live juries. The indirect sources of evidence used by researchers suffer from various problems, the most important of which is dubious levels of ecological validity. Real jury research—studying live jury deliberation—is controversial. However, as I argue, the objections to it are unconvincing. There is in fact a moral imperative to facilitate real jury research.

Criminal courts make decisions that can remove the liberty and even life of those accused. Civil trials can cause the bankruptcy of companies employing thousands of people, asylum seekers being deported, or children being placed into state care. Selecting the right standards when deciding legal cases is of utmost importance in giving those affected a fair deal. This Element is an introduction to the philosophy of legal proof. It is organised around five questions. First, it introduces the standards of proof and considers what justifies them. Second, it discusses whether we should use different standards in different cases. Third, it asks whether trials should end only in binary outcomes or use more fine-grained or precise verdicts. Fourth, it considers whether proof is simply about probability, concentrating on the famous 'Proof Paradox'. Finally, it examines who should be trusted with deciding trials, focusing on the jury system.

Philosophy now resembles, in many ways, a mature scientific discipline. There is extensive division of increasingly specialised cognitive labour. Big philosophical questions are broken down into ever smaller research questions and addressed in growing thousands of publication units. But to what purpose? Philosophers are notoriously sceptical about deferring to each other’s published findings. Most publications seem to increase, rather than reduce, philosophical disagreement. There is a looming worry about absurdity in this activity. Great intellectual effort—and countless careers—are spent on things that seemingly do not settle core questions of the field. I explore a somewhat more optimistic perspective. Rather than viewing progress as something made by the philosophical community writ large, I suggest we might instead locate progress in the small research communities that populate it. This new perspective allows us to do several things. Firstly, it allows us to reject extreme pessimism about deference to philosophical testimony. Secondly, it provides some rationale for the division of labour found in contemporary philosophy. And thirdly, it suggests that there may be a sense in which many big philosophical questions have already been answered.

Philosophy now resembles, in many ways, a mature scientific discipline. There is extensive division of increasingly specialised cognitive labour. Big philosophical questions are broken down into ever smaller research questions and addressed in growing thousands of publication units. But to what purpose? Philosophers are notoriously sceptical about deferring to each other’s published findings. Most publications seem to increase, rather than reduce, philosophical disagreement. There is a looming worry about absurdity in this activity. Great intellectual effort—and countless careers—are spent on things that seemingly do not settle core questions of the field. I explore a somewhat more optimistic perspective. Rather than viewing progress as something made by the philosophical community writ large, I suggest we might instead locate progress in the small research communities that populate it. This new perspective allows us to do several things. Firstly, it allows us to reject extreme pessimism about deference to philosophical testimony. Secondly, it provides some rationale for the division of labour found in contemporary philosophy. And thirdly, it suggests that there may be a sense in which many big philosophical questions have already been answered.

Philosophy now resembles, in many ways, a mature scientific discipline. There is extensive division of increasingly specialised cognitive labour. Big philosophical questions are broken down into ever smaller research questions and addressed in growing thousands of publication units. But to what purpose? Philosophers are notoriously sceptical about deferring to each other’s published findings. Most publications seem to increase, rather than reduce, philosophical disagreement. There is a looming worry about absurdity in this activity. Great intellectual effort—and countless careers—are spent on things that seemingly do not settle core questions of the field. I explore a somewhat more optimistic perspective. Rather than viewing progress as something made by the philosophical community writ large, I suggest we might instead locate progress in the small research communities that populate it. This new perspective allows us to do several things. Firstly, it allows us to reject extreme pessimism about deference to philosophical testimony. Secondly, it provides some rationale for the division of labour found in contemporary philosophy. And thirdly, it suggests that there may be a sense in which many big philosophical questions have already been answered.

There is now a considerable body of analytic work examining the norms of criminal conviction at trial, integrating contemporary legal theory, political philosophy and epistemology to consider when a judge or jury should doubt the guilt of an accused. This paper takes up a neglected adjacent issue: when can citizens doubt a conviction returned by a criminal court? This question, aside from being independently important for a general theory of criminal justice, also bears on the perceived legitimacy of punishment and the relationship between individual citizens and state power. I provide an account of the intellectual and moral norms governing such dissent and explain their sensitivity to contingent facts about the jurisdiction in question. One upshot is that even among well-functioning criminal justice systems, the norms for public dissent can vary considerably—and depend on the ‘nuts and bolts’ of criminal process often hidden from public view. Ultimately, few states have sufficiently effective criminal processes to undergird any moral prohibition on dissent against conviction, so long as the intellectual hurdle of responsible inquiry has been cleared.

Philosophy now resembles, in many ways, a mature scientific discipline—with large division of cognitive labour. Big philosophical questions are broken down into ever-smaller research questions and addressed in growing thousands of publication units. But to what purpose? Philosophers are notoriously sceptical about deferring to each other’s published findings. Most publications seem to increase, rather than reduce, philosophical disagreement. There is a looming worry about absurdity in this activity. Great intellectual effort—and countless careers—are spent on things that seemingly do not settle core questions of the field. I explore a somewhat more optimistic perspective. Rather than viewing progress as something made by the philosophical community writ large, I suggest we might instead locate progress in the small research communities that populate it. This new perspective allows us to do several things. Firstly, it allows us to reject extreme pessimism about deference to philosophical testimony. Secondly, it provides some rationale for the division of labour found in contemporary philosophy. And thirdly, it suggests that there may be a sense in which many big philosophical questions have already been answered.

There is now a considerable body of analytic work examining the norms of criminal conviction at trial, integrating contemporary legal theory, political philosophy and epistemology to consider when a judge or jury should doubt the guilt of an accused. This paper takes up a neglected adjacent issue: when can citizens doubt a conviction returned by a criminal court? This question, aside from being independently important for a general theory of criminal justice, also bears on the perceived legitimacy of punishment and the relationship between individual citizens and state power. I provide an account of the intellectual and moral norms governing such dissent and explain their sensitivity to contingent facts about the jurisdiction in question. One upshot is that even among well-functioning criminal justice systems, the norms for public dissent can vary considerably—and depend on the ‘nuts and bolts’ of criminal process often hidden from public view. Ultimately, few states have sufficiently effective criminal processes to undergird any moral prohibition on dissent against conviction, so long as the intellectual hurdle of responsible inquiry has been cleared.

I argue that traditional views on which beliefs are subject only to purely epistemic assessment can reject demographic profiling, even when based on seemingly robust evidence. This is because the moral failures involved in demographic profiling can be located in the decision not to suspend judgment, rather than supposing that beliefs themselves are a locus of moral evaluation. A key moral reason to suspend judgment when faced with adverse demographic evidence is to promote social equality—this explains why positive profiling is dubious, along with more familiar cases of negative profiling, and why profiling is suspect even when no particular action is at stake. My suspension-based view, while compatible with revisionary normative positions, does not presuppose them. Philosophers of all stripes can reject demographic profiling both in thought and deed.

This paper defends the heretical view that sometimes we ought to assign legal liability based on statistical evidence alone. Recent literature focuses on potential unfairness to the defending party if we rely on bare statistics. Here, I show that capitulating in response to ‘epistemic gaps’—cases where there is a group of potential harmers but an absence of individuating evidence—can amount to a serious injustice against the party who has been harmed. Drawing on prominent civil law litigation involving pharmaceutical and industrial negligence, the overall aim is to illustrate moral pitfalls stemming from the popular idea that it is never appropriate to rely on bare statistics when settling a legal dispute.

Criminal juries make decisions of great importance. A key criticism of juries is that they are unreliable in a multitude of ways, from exhibiting racial or gendered biases, to misunderstanding their role, to engaging in impropriety such as internet research. Recently, some have even claimed that the use of juries creates injustice on a large scale, as a cause of low conviction rates for sexual criminality. Unfortunately, empirical research into jury deliberation is undermined by the fact that researchers are unable to study live juries. The indirect sources of evidence used by researchers suffer from various problems, the most important of which is dubious levels of ecological validity. Real jury research—studying live jury deliberation—is controversial. However, as I argue, the objections to it are unconvincing. There is in fact a moral imperative to facilitate real jury research.

Pessimistic empirical evidence about the reformatory and deterrent effects of punitive treatment poses a challenge for all justificatory theories of punishment. Yet, the dominant progressive view remains that punishment is required for the most serious crimes. This paper outlines an empirically sensitive prospectus for justifying punitive treatment through understanding the importance of reintegration. On this view, punishment can be viewed as a preferred alternative to the rigours of social ostracism, a common way of dealing with offenders in lieu of formal criminal justice. Adopting reintegration as a primary aim encourages taking a longer view which focuses on desistance from criminality rather than only on reform at the point of release from formal punishment. The view outlined in this paper enables a vindication of reintegrative punishment even when it is not the most immediately efficient means of reforming offenders. In making this argument, I develop the modern retributive platform in criminal justice theory, identify various overlooked yet key nuances in the relationship between reintegration and reform, and argue for greater theoretical and practical attention to how the state can make the communities they serve more receptive to reintegrating offenders.

A question, long discussed by legal scholars, has recently provoked a considerable amount of philosophical attention: ‘Is it ever appropriate to base a legal verdict on statistical evidence alone?’ Many philosophers who have considered this question reject legal reliance on bare statistics, even when the odds of error are extremely low. This paper develops a puzzle for the dominant theories concerning why we should eschew bare statistics. Namely, there seem to be compelling scenarios in which there are multiple sources of incriminating statistical evidence. As we conjoin together different types of statistical evidence, it becomes increasingly incredible to suppose that a positive verdict would be impermissible. I suggest that none of the dominant views in the literature can easily accommodate such cases, and close by offering a diagnosis of my own.

Jury science is fraught with difficulty. Since legal and institutional hurdles render it all but impossible to study live criminal jury deliberation, researchers make use of various indirect methods to evaluate jury performance. However, each of these methods is open to methodological criticism and, strikingly, some of the highest-profile jury research programmes in recent years have reached opposing conclusions. Uncertainty about jury performance is an obstacle for legal reform; ongoing debate about the ‘justice gap’ for complainants of sexual offences has rendered these problems acute. This article proposes a way to advance the debate.

Many widely discussed historical and contemporary views in epistemology rely on conditions requiring that evidence be causally related to the event that is the subject of belief. Such ‘causal conditions’ have also appeared both in normative debates about when belief is rational and in metaphysical debates about the relationship between belief and credence. Drawing on this literature, our paper formulates and then carefully scrutinises a range of plausible causal conditions on rational belief. A series of counterexamples leads us to rule out, in turn, distinct attempts to formulate such a condition. We then devise a condition that withstands our test cases. Ironically, though, this condition is ill-suited to play the roles for which causal conditions on rational belief have been theorised in the first place. Our result casts doubt on whether epistemologists should devote further attention to causal conditions, whether on rational belief or on other epistemic states.

Should we use the same standard of proof to adjudicate guilt for murder and petty theft? Why not tailor the standard of proof to the crime? These relatively neglected questions cut to the heart of central issues in the philosophy of law. This paper scrutinises whether we ought to use the same standard for all criminal cases, in contrast with a flexible approach that uses different standards for different crimes. I reject consequentialist arguments for a radically flexible standard of proof, instead defending a modestly flexible approach on non-consequentialist grounds. The system I defend is one on which we should impose a higher standard of proof for crimes that attract more severe punishments. This proposal, although apparently revisionary, accords with a plausible theory concerning the epistemology of legal judgments and the role they play in society.

Recent work takes both philosophical and scientific progress to consist in acquiring factive epistemic states such as knowledge. However, much of this work leaves unclear what entity is the subject of these epistemic states. Furthermore, by focusing only on states like knowledge, we overlook progress in intermediate cases between ignorance and knowledge - for example, many now celebrated theories were initially so controversial that they were not known. This paper develops an improved framework for thinking about intellectual progress. Firstly, I argue that we should think of progress relative to the epistemic position of an intellectual community rather than individual inquirers. Secondly, I show how focusing on the extended process of inquiry (rather than the mere presence or absence of states like knowledge) provides a better evaluation of different types of progress. This includes progress through formulating worthwhile questions, acquiring new evidence, and increasing credence on the right answers to these questions. I close by considering the ramifications for philosophical progress, suggesting that my account supports rejecting the most negative views while allowing us to articulate different varieties of optimism and pessimism.

The notion of understanding occupies an increasingly prominent place in contemporary epistemology, philosophy of science, and moral theory. A central and ongoing debate about the nature of understanding is how it relates to the truth. In a series of influential contributions, Catherine Elgin has used a variety of familiar motivations for antirealism in philosophy of science to defend a non-factive theory of understanding. Key to her position are: (1) the fact that false theories can contribute to the upwards trajectory of scientific understanding, and (2) the essential role of inaccurate idealisations in scientific research. Using Elgin’s arguments as a foil, I show that a strictly factive theory of understanding has resources with which to offer a unified response to both the problem of idealisations and the role of false theories in the upwards trajectory of scientific understanding. Hence, strictly factive theories of understanding are viable notwithstanding these forceful criticisms.

Imre Lakatos was one of the most significant philosophers of science and math-ematics of the twentieth century, and his ideas remain important and relevant today. As the entry on Lakatos in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy attests “Lakatos’s influence, particularly in the philosophy of science, has been immense”. November 2022 saw the centenary of Lakatos’s birth, and the event was marked by an international conference held at the LSE—where Lakatos made his career after he had emigrated from Hungary to England—the conference focussing on the continuing influence and relevance of his work. With the exception of two papers, this volume consists of a selection of papers that were presented at the conference.

Many widely discussed historical and contemporary views in epistemology rely on conditions requiring that evidence be causally related to the event that is the subject of belief. Such ‘causal conditions’ have also appeared both in normative debates about when belief is rational and in metaphysical debates about the relationship between belief and credence. Drawing on this literature, our paper formulates and then carefully scrutinises a range of plausible causal conditions on rational belief. A series of counterexamples leads us to rule out, in turn, distinct attempts to formulate such a condition. We then devise a condition that withstands our test cases. Ironically, though, this condition is ill-suited to play the roles for which causal conditions on rational belief have been theorised in the first place. Our result casts doubt on whether epistemologists should devote further attention to causal conditions, whether on rational belief or on other epistemic states.