Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party.
Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
Wildy's will be closed on Monday 29th May and will re-open on Tuesday 30th May.
Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.
As usual Credit Cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.
Any non-UK eBook orders placed after 5pm on the Friday 26th May will not be processed until Tuesday 30th May. UK eBook orders will be processed as normal.
In recent years coherence theories of law and adjudication have been extremely influential in legal scholarship. These theories significantly advance the case for coherentism in law. Nonetheless, in the field of coherence theory in law a number of problems remain.
This ambitious new work makes the first concerted attempt to develop a coherence-based theory of legal reasoning, and in so doing addresses, or at least mitigates these problems.
The book is organized in three parts. The first part provides a critical analysis of the main coherentist approaches to both normative and factual reasoning in law. The second part investigates coherence theory in a number of fields that are relevant to law: coherence theories of epistemic justification, coherentist approaches to belief revision and theory-choice, coherence theories of practical and moral reasoning, and coherence-based approaches to discourse interpretation.
Taking this interdisciplinary analysis as a starting point, the third part develops a coherence-based model of legal reasoning. While this model builds upon the standard theory of legal reasoning, it also leads to rethinking some of the basic assumptions that characterize this theory, and suggests some lines along which it may be further developed.
Thus, ultimately, the book not only improves upon the current state of coherence theory in law, but also contributes to the larger debate about how to articulate a theory of legal reasoning that results in better decision-making.