Proof and Truth: Antagonism or Difficulty?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(35)2024.ic-01Keywords:
Proof; True; Veracity, Evidentiary Valuation, Likelihood; Experience Maximums; Degrees of Proof; Probationary Standards; Relative PlausibilityAbstract
Regarding the duality between proof and truth, it is important to know whether the search for truth, the susceptibility of achieving the veracity of facts is possible. Therefore, in addition to the distribution of the burden of proof and the assessment of evidence, it is important to pay attention to the available methodologies. Namely the judgment of likelihood, the maxims of experience, as a mechanism linked to hypothetical judgments, the degrees of proof or evidentiary standards, corresponding to levels of probability. In fact, regarding standards, they can be rigid or flexible and assume a quantitative orientation of probabilities that allows a level of evidentiary conviction. On the other hand, the mechanism of probabilistic methods has generated criticism and the preference for explanationism or relative plausibility.
References
AITKEN, Colin, Franco Taroni, Silvia Bozza, “Evidence, Probability and Relative Plausibility” in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, nº 4, Vol. 26, 2022, pp. 309-324.
ALLEN, Ronald, “The Nature of Juridical Proof: Probability as a Tool in Plausible Reasoning” in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, nº 21, 2017, pp. 133-142.
ALLEN, Ronald, Michael Pardo, “Relative Plausibility and its Critics” in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, nº 1, Vol. 23, 2019, pp. 134-140.
ALLEN, Ronald, Michael Pardo, “Evidence Probability, and Relative Plausibility: A Response to Aitken, Taroni and Bozza” in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, nº 2, Vol. 27, 2023, pp. 126-142.
BARBERIO, Sergio, “Cargas Probatorias Dinamicas” in Cargas Probatórias Dinamicas, Buenos Aires, 2008, pp. 99-107.
BELTRÁN, Jordi, La Valoración Racional de la Prueba, Madrid, 2007.
BELTRÁN, Jordi, “La Carga Dinâmica de la Prueba: Entre la Confusión e lo Innecessario” in Contra la Carga de la Prueba, Madrid, 2019, pp. 53-88.
BELTRÁN, Jordi, Prueba sin Convicción: Estandares de Prueba y Debido Proceso, Madrid, 2021.
CALAMANDREI, Piero, “Veritá e Verosimiglianza nel Processo Civile” in Opere Giuridiche, Nápoles, 1972, pp. 614-648.
CARRATA, Antonio, “Prova e Convincimento del Giudice nel Processo Civile” in Rivista di Diritto Processuale, Ano 43, nº 1, 2003, pp. 27-64.
CHIOVENDA, Giuseppe, Principii di Diritto Processuale Civile, Nápoles, 1925.
FENOLL, Jordi, “La Carga de la Prueba: Una Reliquia Historica que Debiera ser Abolida” in Contra la Carga de la Prueba, Madrid, 2019, pp. 23-52.
GRAZIOSI, Andrea, “Usi e Abusi di Prove Illecite e Prove Atipiche nel Processo Civile” in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, Ano 65, nº 3, 2011, pp. 693-726.
HAACK, Susan, “Defending Science: Within Reason” in Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology, Vol III, nº 2, 1999, pp. 187-212.
HAACK, Susan , “Epistemology Legalized: Or, Truth, Justice, and the American Way” in American Journal of Jurisprudence, nº 49, 2004, pp. 43-61.
HAACK, Susan, “On Legal Pragmatism: Where Does “The Path of the Law” Lead Us?” in American Journal of Jurisprudence, nº 50, 2005, pp. 71-105.
HAACK, Susan, “The Growth of Meaning and the Limits of Formalism: In Science, in Law” in Análisis Filosófico, vol 29, nº 1, 2009, pp. 5-29.
HAACK, Susan, “Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage and Science and Law, in Law and Contemporary Problems, nº 72, 2009, pp. 1-23.
HAACK, Susan, Evidence Matters: Science, Proof and Truth in the Law, Cambridge, 2014.
HAACK, Susan, Post “Post-Truth”: Are We There Yet?” in Theoria, nº 85, 2019, pp. 258-275.
LESSONA, Carlo, Trattato delle Prove in Materie Civile, Vol. I, Florença, 1922.
LILLQUIST, Erik, “Recasting Reasonable Doubt: Decision Theory and the Virtues of Variability” in Social Science Research Network, 2003, pp. 85-179.
MARTINS, João Marques, Prova por Presunções Judiciais na Responsabilidade Civil Aquiliana, Cascais, 2017.
MENDES, João Castro, Do Conceito de Prova em Processo Civil, Lisboa, 1961.
MENDES, João Castro e Miguel Teixeira de Sousa, Manual de Processo Civil, Vol. I, Lisboa, 2022.
MONTESANO, Luigi, “Le Prove Atipiche nelle Presunzioni e negli Argomenti del Giudice Civile” in Rivista di Diritto Processuale, nº 35, nº 1, 1980, pp. 233-251.
PARDO, Michael, “The Gettier Problem and Legal Proof” in Legal Theory, vol. 16, 2010, pp. 37-57.
RAMOS, JL Bonifácio, “O Sistema Misto de Valoração da Prova” in O Direito, Ano 146, III, 2014, pp. 555-582.
RICCI, Gian, “Le Prove Illecite nel Processo Civile” in Rivista Trimestralle di Diritto e Procedura Civile, nº 41,1987, pp. 34-87.
PINTORE, Anna, Law Without Truth, Liverpool, 2000.
SCHWARTZ, David, Elliot Sober, “What is Relative Plausibility?” in Legal Studies Research Paper Series nº 1475, 2020, in www.https://ssrn.com, pp. 1-8
SOUSA, Miguel Teixeira de, A Prova em Processo Civil. Ensaio sobre o Raciocínio Probatório, São Paulo, 2020.
STEIN, Friedrich, Das private Wisen des Richters, Leipzig, 1893.
STRECK, Lênio, O Que é Isto: Decido Conforme Minha Consciência? Porto Alegre, 2010.
STRECK, Lênio , “O Artigo 371” in Comentários ao Código de Processo Civil, São Paulo, 2016, pp. 551-557.
TARUFFO, Michele, “Prove Atipiche e Convincimento del Giudice” in Rivista di Diritto Processuale, nº 28, 1973, pp. 389-434.
TARUFFO, Michele, La Prova dei Fatti Giuridice, Milão, 1992.
TARUFFO, Michele , “Considerazioni sulle Massime d’ Esperienza” in Rivista Trimestralle di Diritto e Procedura Civile, Ano 63, nº 2, 2009, pp. 551-570.
TARUFFO, Michele, La Semplice Verità: Il Giudice e la Costruzione dei Fatti, Bari, 2009.
TARUFFO, Michele, “La Verità nel Processo” in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, ano 66, nº 2, 2012, pp. 1117-1135.
TARUFFO, Michele, “Fatti e Prove” in La Prova nel Processo Civile, Milão, 2012, pp. 3-77.
TARUFFO, Michele, La Valutazione delle Prove” in La Prova nel Processo Civile, Milão, 2012, pp. 207-272.
TARUFFO, Michele, Verso la Decisione Justa, Milão, 2019.
VÁSQUEZ, Carmen, “Less Probabilism and More About Explanationism” in The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, vol. 23, nº 1, 2019, pp. 68-74.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Jurídica Portucalense
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who published in the journal agree to the following terms:
- The Authors grant the Journal the right of first publication, and other non-exclusive publishing rights, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of work with recognition of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this journal (ex .: publish in an institutional repository or as a chapter in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post and distribute their work online (eg .: in institutional repositories or on their website) at any point before or during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and the citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
RJP does not apply submission, publication or any other fees of any nature. Its articles are open access, with the goal of disseminating scientific knowledge and the debate of legal topics in the area of Legal Sciences.
