Trying to Understand Ontology and Epistemology: Philosophy Forums

Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat

Members Calendar New Posts Chat Help

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Trying to Understand Ontology and Epistemology » Trying to Understand Ontology and Epistemology

Trying to Understand Ontology and Epistemology
Confused about terminology

print

Print

Page: 1 2 3 4

Trying to Understand Ontology and Epistemology

BobLanders
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 29

Posted 06/26/06 - 08:05 AM: Subject: Trying to Understand Ontology and Epistemology	#1
Can anyone give a good example that relates ontology and epistemology to legal theory/jurisprudence? Thanks BL Edited by BobLanders on 06/27/06 - 01:05 AM

Moving Finger
none

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2004
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/27/06 - 04:53 AM:	#2
BobLanders wrote: Can anyone give a good example that relates ontology and epistemology to legal theory/jurisprudence? Thanks BL Ontic = what "is" Epistemic = what we know or can know Legal theory etc is way outside my area of interest, but I guess the "facts of the crime" are ontic, whereas the "evidence we have from witnesses" is epistemic, and what we try to do in the courtroom is to get as close to the ontic as we can based on the epistemic? Best Regards

JB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 389

Posted 06/27/06 - 06:40 AM:	#3
BobLanders wrote: Can anyone give a good example that relates ontology and epistemology to legal theory/jurisprudence? Hilary Putnam suggests that our thought might be better guided by a different metaphor-a metaphor from the law, instead of a metaphor from science-the metaphor of adjudication. This may not be exactly what you had in mind but you can read his How Not to Solve Ethical Problems here. One can take it as applying to epistemology inasmuch as Putnam doesn't buy the supposed fact-value dichotomy. Hope this helps.
Vuja De I've never been here before and I don't remember being any place like this either. Why go ad hominem when ad absurdum will do?

JB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 389

Posted 06/27/06 - 06:54 AM:	#4
An afterthought. Another aspect of jurisprudence involves rules of evidence and such. There is the groundwork laid by the investigators that we must consider and contextualize. I am thinking of Peirce's abduction and what Eco and others have made of it as discussed here, for instance. Our inference to the best explanation can be contrasted with our inference to the only explanation (a little tug of war between the traditional and pragmatic fallibilists?). You may wish to scroll down to the discussion of Peirce et al using the edit/find facility in your browser. Best.
Vuja De I've never been here before and I don't remember being any place like this either. Why go ad hominem when ad absurdum will do?

BobLanders
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 29

Posted 06/27/06 - 03:38 PM:	#5
Moving Finger, Are concepts or ideals like justice properly characterised as ontic? What about legal institutions. Say you have a body of persons purporting to pass laws but you challenge its ability to do so because the assembly does not constitute a legitimate legislature (say, for example, because the people comprising the assembly were never voted in). Is this challenge an ontological one (in the sense of denying the existence of a legislature)? JB, Hilary Putnam's article does not provide the clarification I am seeking, but it was interesting nonetheless. BL

JB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 389

Posted 06/28/06 - 01:25 PM:	#6
BobLanders wrote: JB, Hilary Putnam's article does not provide the clarification I am seeking, but it was interesting nonetheless. Yes, I see your interest is more re: proper word usage. I think I recall your asking the same questions in a gender-related context in another post? I found that interesting. I didn't know the answer to your question but I do remember thinking that even if the situation you set forth wasn't addressing a strictly ontic/epistemic question, then it at least seemed analogous to one. For me, it seemed like your word usage was okay, but that terminology gets tricky and I wasn't really sure. As for Putnam, Peirce, Eco et al, I suppose I was trying to suggest that some folks actually bypass such distinctions and use a different approach, which is semiotic. They are still realists, but semantic realists. Ontic or not, your query is definitely semiotic.
Vuja De I've never been here before and I don't remember being any place like this either. Why go ad hominem when ad absurdum will do?

BobLanders
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 29

Posted 06/28/06 - 03:11 PM:	#7
JB, I view one's proper use of terminology as a sign of understanding. So whilst my query is definitely related to proper word usage, it's also about trying to confirm that I am understanding the underlying concepts themselves. Since I am not really familiar with philosophy, I am finding it a little difficult to put my finger on precisely what it is that I don't understand about ontology and epistemology. Broadly speaking, I do understand that ontology is generally about whether things or entities actually exist as part of one's world view and that epistemology is generally about knowledge and what can be known etc. However, when I try identify for myself the ontological and epistemological assumptions/bases of various strands of legal theory I am finding myself unable to do so. I'm not sure precisely why this is so, but I am hoping that some examples of how these concepts would be used to describe legal institutions/concepts will help me isolate whatever it is that is causing me difficulty. Moving Finger's comments above are somewhat instructive in this regard. When you say that my query is semiotic, am I correct in understanding you to mean that my query is about how people communicate? (This seems to match your comment about my query being related to proper word usage.) My philosophy dictionary defines semiotics it terms that suggest that it is linked to the study of human communication (linguistics) and the study of sign and symbol systems generally (semiology). In any event, could you possibly explain to me in what sense Putnam's article was semiotic? I don't have the article in front of me, but I do recall that he seemed to disparage a division between the objective and subjective which he says is exhibited in ontological and epistemological discussions. As for the gender-related post you mention, it was actually this post. I noticed that several people had already looked at my post but I hadn't received any responses. I thought that perhaps my post was a little too confused, or asking for too much. So I decided to pare it down a bit. BL

JB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 389

Posted 06/28/06 - 04:15 PM:	#8
BobLanders wrote: However, when I try identify for myself the ontological and epistemological assumptions/bases of various strands of legal theory I am finding myself unable to do so. I'm not sure precisely why this is so, but I am hoping that some examples of how these concepts would be used to describe legal institutions/concepts will help me isolate whatever it is that is causing me difficulty. I'm neither a lawyer nor a philosopher, but (unfortunately or not) I have been around courtrooms more than I ever found desirable ... What follows is my down and dirty oversimplification. When one speaks of "legal theory" it has always seemed to me to deal mostly with epistemological issues. It includes theory regarding the epistemological aspect of our experience of the law, our justification of the law, normative issues and such. So, the epistemic aspects would include all processes involving decision making, case assessment, stipulations, arguments, explanations, adjudication, rules of evidence and stuff like that. The law has an ontology to be sure, but it is sort of already out there in the sense that I've never gotten the sense that quite as much time has ever been devoted to theorizing about the ontic structures of the law as has been devoted to the epistemic approaches. What might comprise the ontology of the law? We're dealing with questions like Is this a natural person or a juridical person, like a corporation? nonprofit or for profit? Is it some other type of organization? We're also dealing with ontic distinctions like who is the victim? defendant? plaintiff? witness? expert witness? juror? Did this come from the justic department or the police department? Does this involve the general public, district attorney, public defender, private lawyers, trial lawyers, civil lawyers, criminal lawyers, the attorney general, police, fbi, judge or jury? It would include the status of criminal and civil laws vs statutes vs regulations. It would categorize evidence as physical vs spatial-temporal vs happenings and events and hearsay testimony. It would categorize behaviors as criminal and civil actions. I suppose one could devise a chart of these ontic structures and then label the epistemic capacities that pertain to them and get a graphic representation of legal epistemology and ontology. I guess one could do the same for politics and other human endeavors. BobLanders wrote: When you say that my query is semiotic, am I correct in understanding you to mean that my query is about how people communicate? (edit by jb)In any event, could you possibly explain to me in what sense Putnam's article was semiotic? I don't have the article in front of me, but I do recall that he seemed to disparage a division between the objective and subjective which he says is exhibited in ontological and epistemological discussions. Well, let's see if we want to come back to this aspect after you read my response above. I could too easily digress way off your chosen focus of concern. I do think I have figured out what you have been asking. At least, I hope so. I think you can see how your gender-related issue could be similarly modeled following the example above. Good luck! jb Edited by JB on 06/28/06 - 04:41 PM
Vuja De I've never been here before and I don't remember being any place like this either. Why go ad hominem when ad absurdum will do?

JB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 389

Posted 06/28/06 - 04:36 PM:	#9
BobLanders wrote: Say you have a body of persons purporting to pass laws but you challenge its ability to do so because the assembly does not constitute a legitimate legislature (say, for example, because the people comprising the assembly were never voted in). Is this challenge an ontological one (in the sense of denying the existence of a legislature)? Yes. So would a challenge regarding whether one indeed has an actionable cause, or a probable cause, for example. So, too, regarding whether a certain fact was dispositive of a case. Then, the actual arguing for and against actionability, probability and dispositivity would involve an epistemic exercise, as would bitching about the judge's case holding. And I guess an appeal based on a procedural error would be ontic while one based on whether or not the glove fit would be epistemic.
Vuja De I've never been here before and I don't remember being any place like this either. Why go ad hominem when ad absurdum will do?

BobLanders
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 29

Posted 06/28/06 - 07:23 PM:	#10
Thanks for your explanations JB. They're very helpful. At this stage, I am now coming to the understanding that ontology is referrable to any discussion or inquiry about whether or not a set of given facts satisfies a particular legal pidgeon-hole, or definition. This would mean, for example, that I would be engaging in an ontological debate if I were to challenge the tax-man's attempt to extract tax from me on the basis that the money I have received is "capital" as opposed to "income", both of which characterisations have distinct meanings and distinct consequences. Is this correct? I'm a little less certain when it comes to epistemology. I believe I can see the linkages between evidence and epistemology fairly clearly, since the question of what witnesses know, how they claim to know it, by what rules will their knowledge be admitted into evidence and why those rules are accepted by the legal system as effective in ensuring the reliability of evidence are all related to knowledge. But how are issues like justification of the law and normative issues similarly linked to knowledge? Could you expand on this a little? Given that these issues are the primarly focus of much of legal theory, I believe this is where I am experiencing my main difficulty. At this stage, my thinking is that the link rests in the apparent fact that any asserted justification of law or any normative claim is, at bottom, a claim to know that one particular justification is better than another or that one course of action is better than another which, naturally, forces us to ask how the claimant knows his or her claim is true. Is this anywhere near the mark? By the way, your first comment resonates with something I have read in relation to the field of artificial intelligence and law, which said that legal theory is more concerned with epistemology than ontology. Given your comments, I can almost see the basis for this comment. Almost, but not quite. Thanks for your help so far. BL PS how do I create quotes when posting?

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

26 total queries
This page was created in 0.66 seconds
Memory used: 10941216 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 11 days, 2:32, load average: 0.11, 0.31, 0.34