Sound criticism, interpretation and unacceptable generalizations

Abstract

In this work, I explore how the interpretation of the evidentiary concept of «sound criticism» guides the execution of the judicial epistemic enterprise. Starting from the distinction between rules and standards as regulatory models—applied to systems of evidentiary assessment— I argue that sound criticism is a general clause that must be interpreted systematically. One of the implications of this argument is the exclusion of unacceptable generalizations due to their contradiction with legal principles. To illustrate, I apply the argument to family law proceedings based on the best interests of the child and adolescent. I conclude that assessing evidence according to sound criticism consists of evaluating the contribution of the evidence to a hypothesis within a normative framework interpreted systematically.