‘The Proof’ With Frederick Schauer

·28 min·2 clips

A distinguished philosopher told Frederick Schauer 'you are joking' when he said he was teaching evidence.

Frederick Schauer, a law professor, introduces his book 'The Proof' and his 45-year engagement with teaching evidence. He begins by recounting how academic colleagues reacted with surprise or disbelief when he said he was teaching evidence, reflecting a common view that it's just a set of procedural rules for the bar exam. Schauer argues the field has become more intellectually interesting due to several developments. First, there is increased interest in statistical evidence, often discussed as the 'blue bus problem,' attracting philosophers and lawyers. Second, questions about expert testimony gained prominence, partly due to Supreme Court decisions like Daubert. He uses the historical example of phrenology to illustrate the difficulty of identifying true experts in an unfamiliar field. Third, forensic science faced reevaluation, with techniques like bite mark analysis being scrutinized for reliability. Schauer then shifts to how evidence applies outside the legal system. He cites the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings paternity question, where the Thomas Jefferson Foundation used Bayesian statistical analysis in its report. He mentions contemporary debates like vaccine efficacy, highlighting the problem of determining who counts as an expert. Art authentication provides another example, such as disputes over whether Leonardo da Vinci painted 'Salvador Mundi.' Schauer tells the story of forger Han van Meergeren, who painted 'Christ at Emmaus' and passed it off as a Vermeer, even fooling Hermann Goering; van Meergeren later confessed to avoid a treason charge. From these examples, Schauer draws lessons evidence law offers for everyday life. The first is 'compared to what?'—evaluating evidence against alternatives, as seen in lie detection technology versus human jury judgment. Research by former UVA professor Bella DePaulo shows people are barely better than random at detecting lies. The second lesson is that weak evidence is still evidence, and how much proof we need depends on the stakes. He applies this to university disciplinary proceedings for sexual misconduct, where the burden of proof (preponderance vs. clear and convincing evidence) is debated, echoing Blackstone's ratio about the trade-off between wrongful convictions and acquittals. Schauer concludes by emphasizing that evidentiary issues permeate public policy and daily decisions.

As heard by us

Frederick Schauer connects evidence, Bayesian reasoning and expert judgment across law, history, medicine and public policy.

Frederick Schauer turns evidence into a practical question: how people decide what to believe when certainty is not available. He moves from legal proof into vaccines, historical paternity, expert authority and public policy, drawing on about 45 years teaching evidence, three…

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Want to weigh evidence when certainty is out of reach? Start with Jefferson, vaccines, and a lifestyle expert.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from UVA Law