“critical empiricism” in american legal studies: paradox, program, or pandora's box?
Clicks: 12
ID: 249370
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
3.3
/100
12 views
9 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #26 of 26 articles by views in journal of environmental chemical engineering
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In this article, David Trubek and John Esser analyze the proposal of “critical empiricism” suggested by scholars of the Amherst Seminar in the United States. Based on the review of the scholarship produced by the Amherst group, the authors identify their epistemological assumptions and the similarities and differences with the Law and Society literature. Finally, they suggest that there is a paradox between the criteria of objectivity of the empirical methods and the radical critical approach.
| Reference Key |
trubek2014braziliancritical
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;David Max Trubek;John Esser |
| Journal | journal of environmental chemical engineering |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.19092/reed.v1i1.14
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.