2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
takayuki-kira -
Category
Documents
-
view
232 -
download
1
description
Transcript of 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence
![Page 1: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Concurrent Evidence and Polarizationsome comments for Justice Mclellan’s presentation from a legal philosophical point of view
KIRA, Takayuki (吉良 貴之)
Philosophy of law, Tokiwa [email protected]
International Symposium "How can ambiguity of "scientific evidences" treated in courts and policy contexts? : Focusing on coproduction processes of scientists and legal/policy experts," 25 Aug. 2012, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo
![Page 2: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Purpose � Some comments from a legal philosophical
point of view� Not only the legal decision-making process in
court, but also wider applicability in social contexts will be taken considered.
� In particular, I’d like to compare concurrent evidence with deliberation in collective decision-making.
2
![Page 3: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
On “Concurrent Evidence”� Unlike adversary system, experts can discuss
scientific or other highly technical issues. � Their mutual examination is expected to raise
quality of evidence, free from lawyers’unproductive interference.
� It seems good in “scientific” sense.� But I think it depends on types of issues. I’d
like to classify the types, by referring to professor Stirling’s former discussion, too.
3
![Page 4: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
On a scientific issue – “uncertainty”� On a scientific issue (“uncertainty”), concurrent
evidence by number of experts will be very effective
� Because experts’ mutual examination of their evidence will correct careless mistakes.
� Their view will converge by degrees. � In this process, there is not disagreement
about values, or how to frame the issue.
4
![Page 5: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Disagreement about values or framing – “ambiguity”� If they disagree about values or framing, it is
in state of “ambiguity” in Stirling’s classification.� Convergence of their view will not be
guaranteed.� The conflicts will often become more serious,
and divide into two extremely opposite and adversary sides.
� This phenomenon is called “polarization,” in political theory of deliberative democracy.
5
![Page 6: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Polarization (1)� On highly controversial problems connected
to political values, as more people participate in discussion, this divergence often occurs.
� It is because people who have extreme opinions are liable to lead the discussion, and pull in other people who have middle opinions to their side with group pressure.
6
![Page 7: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Polarization (2) examples� Discussion of green-house effect and backlash
to it is typical. � In Japan, recent “Deliberative Poll” about
nuclear plants or discussion of low level radiation effects may show the tendency.
� Though this depends on default framings, recent positivist political science studies show the general tendency in deliberation.
7
![Page 8: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Institutional safe guards for the polarization problem� In concurrent evidence, such polarization may be rare. � The purpose of concurrent evidence is not argumentations, but, at first, to manifest each standpoint, and then to co-operate to find the truth with positivist attitude. � This process should be evidence-based, and also should be adequately led by judge. � Therefore, concurrent evidence has institutional safe guards for the polarization problem.
8
![Page 9: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Does possibility of polarization limit concurrent evidence ?
� But that does not mean “zero-risk”. � In spite of all such efforts, serious value
conflicts or polarization may occur. � The risk is a limit of concurrent evidence,
and at the same time, the most significant characteristics of it.
� Exceptions often “open up” the essence.
9
![Page 10: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Is a decision “beyond science”“unscientific” ?
� In the case that polarization occurs and experts’ opinions seriously diverge, judge must make a decision beyond science, perhaps, existentially.
� But it does not mean just an unscientific or irrational determination.
10
![Page 11: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
visualization and differentiation� In the process, visualizations and differentiations are made, such as scientific and unscientific, or certain and uncertain issues. � Judges or other decision-makers no longer can pretend to make value-free, neutral, or scientific decisions. � Polarization after adequate concurrent evidence process or deliberation indicates that there were conflicts of values, framing, or at least condition setting from the beginning.
11
![Page 12: 2012.08.25 On Concurrent Evidence](https://reader037.fdocuments.net/reader037/viewer/2022100603/55959cf01a28ab76748b4770/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Not in convergence, but in divergence
� Clear polarization and bare value conflicts are rare in concurrent evidence, but they can exist everywhere in subtler version.
� By being sensitive to it, we can refrain from both excessive relativism and scientism.
� Essence of concurrent evidence exists in divergence rather than convergence.
12