Bryan Frances
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- October 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199282135
- eISBN:
- 9780191602917
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199282137.003.0013
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
The importance of what was argued in the book was evaluated, with comments on which elements are of lasting significance for epistemology as a discipline. Notions treated include epistemic deference, ...
More
The importance of what was argued in the book was evaluated, with comments on which elements are of lasting significance for epistemology as a discipline. Notions treated include epistemic deference, liveness of hypotheses, mere mortality with respect to a hypothesis, epistemic superiority, responsibility to one’s epistemic community, the epistemic significance of expert disagreement, epistemic externalism, and content externalism.Less
The importance of what was argued in the book was evaluated, with comments on which elements are of lasting significance for epistemology as a discipline. Notions treated include epistemic deference, liveness of hypotheses, mere mortality with respect to a hypothesis, epistemic superiority, responsibility to one’s epistemic community, the epistemic significance of expert disagreement, epistemic externalism, and content externalism.
Valentina Vadi
Lukasz Gruszczynski (ed.)
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- November 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780198716945
- eISBN:
- 9780191785627
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716945.003.0009
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law, Comparative Law
The chapter compares the standards of review applied by WTO panels and investment tribunals in assessing national measures that are based on prior complex factual determinations of a scientific ...
More
The chapter compares the standards of review applied by WTO panels and investment tribunals in assessing national measures that are based on prior complex factual determinations of a scientific character. It shows that the practices in both areas express many similarities. Although none of the systems has developed an abstract and general standard of deference, the analysis of the jurisprudence shows that a considerable degree of deference is granted to States in this specific context. This deference expresses itself in dispute settlement bodies’ focus on ‘reasonableness’ rather than ‘correctness’ of specific scientific claims, showing that these bodies are well aware of their epistemic limitations. On the other hand, the chapter recognizes certain differences existing between the two systems. Investment tribunals remain more concerned with the overall quality of the regulatory process, while WTO panels are more active in testing the internal (scientific) legitimacy of measures.Less
The chapter compares the standards of review applied by WTO panels and investment tribunals in assessing national measures that are based on prior complex factual determinations of a scientific character. It shows that the practices in both areas express many similarities. Although none of the systems has developed an abstract and general standard of deference, the analysis of the jurisprudence shows that a considerable degree of deference is granted to States in this specific context. This deference expresses itself in dispute settlement bodies’ focus on ‘reasonableness’ rather than ‘correctness’ of specific scientific claims, showing that these bodies are well aware of their epistemic limitations. On the other hand, the chapter recognizes certain differences existing between the two systems. Investment tribunals remain more concerned with the overall quality of the regulatory process, while WTO panels are more active in testing the internal (scientific) legitimacy of measures.
