Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 November 2019
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Legal MindA New Introduction to Legal Epistemology, pp. 167 - 176Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Alexander, L. & Sherwin, E., 2008. Demystifying Legal Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alexy, R. 2005. Arthur Kaufmanns Theorie der Rechtsgewinnung. In: Neumann, U., Hassemer, W., & Schroth, U., eds. Verantwortetes Recht: Die Rechtsphilosophie Arthur Kaufmanns. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
Angelelli, I., 2004. Adventures of abstraction. Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 82, pp. 11–35.Google Scholar
Antognazza, M., 2009. Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Audi, R., 1988. Foundationalism, coherentism, and epistemological dogmatism. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, pp. 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J., 2017. Before You Know It: The Unconscious Reasons We Do What We Do. New York: Atria.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. & Morsella, E., 2008. The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, pp. 73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrow, J. D., 1991. Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L., 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, pp. 577–660.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. 2009. Situating concepts. In: Robbins, P. & Aydede, M., eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 236–263.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. 2010. Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, pp. 716–724.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. & Wiemer-Hastings, K., 2005. Situating abstract concepts. In: Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R., eds. Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartha, P., 2013. Analogy and analogical reasoning. In: Zalta, E., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/reasoning-analogy/.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1977. A Comment on the Commentaries and a Fragment on Government. In: Burns, J. H. & Hart, H. L. A., eds. The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., 2012. Louder Than Words: The Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. 2016. Embodiment, simulation and meaning. In: Riemer, N., ed. The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge, pp. 142–157.Google Scholar
Blackstone, W., 1830. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol. 3, 17th ed. London: Richard Taylor.Google Scholar
Bonjour, L., 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Borghi, A., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., & Tummolini, L., 2017. The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143, pp. 263–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghi, A. & Binkofsky, F., 2014. Words as Social Tools: An Embodied View on Abstract Concepts. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Borowski, M., Paulson, S., & Sieckmann, J.-R., eds., 2017. Rechtsphilosophie und Grundrechtheorie: Rober Alexys System. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Brewer, S., 1996. Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics, and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review, 109, pp. 923–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brożek, B. 2011. Beyond interpretation. In: Stelmach, J. & Schmidt, R., eds. Krakauer-Augsburger Rechtsstudien: Die Grenzen der rechtsdogmatischen Interpretation. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 19–28.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. 2013a. Philosophy and neuroscience: Three modes of interaction. In: Stelmach, J., Brożek, B. & Kurek, Ł., eds. Philosophy in Neuroscience. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, pp. 16–57.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. 2013b. Rule-Following: From Imitation to the Normative Mind. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. 2014b. The emotional foundations of law: On Petrażycki’s legal theory. Rivista di filosofia del diritto, 2, pp. 279–288.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. 2016a. Explanation and understanding. In: Brożek, B., Heller, M., & Hohol, M., eds. The Concept of Explanation. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. 2017a. The troublesome person. In: Kurki, V. & Pietrzykowski, T., eds. Legal Personhood: Animals, Artificial Intelligence, and the Unborn. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brożek, B. 2017b. Two faces of legal reasoning: Rule-based and case-based. In: Krimphove, D. & Lentner, G., eds. Law and Logic: Contemporary Issues. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 67–79.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. 2018. Analogical arguments. In: Bongiovani, G., ed. Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 365–386.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. & Jakubiec, M., 2017. On the legal responsibility of autonomous machines. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, pp. 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brożek, B. & Janik, B., 2019. Can artificial intelligences be moral agents? New Ideas in Psychology, 54, pp. 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brożek, B. & Kurek, Ł., 2018. Folk psychology and explanation. In: Brożek, B., Stelmach, J. & Kwiatek, Ł., eds. Explaining the Mind. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, pp. 149–170.Google Scholar
Burns, J., 2005. Happiness and utility: Jeremy Bentham’s equation. Utilitas, 17, pp. 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, R., 1988. The early evolution of creative thinking: Evidence from monkeys and apes. In: Mithen, S., ed. Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory. London: Routledge, pp. 110–124.Google Scholar
Cairns, J. & Plessis, P. D., eds., 2010. The Creation of the Ius Commune: From Casus to Regula. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P., 2012. Plato’s Camera: How the Physical Brain Captures a Landscape of Abstract Universals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A., 2005. Word, niche, and super-niche: How language makes minds matter more. Theoria, 54, pp. 255–268.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2006. Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, pp. 370–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, D., 1997. Philosophy’s Second Revolution. Early and Recent Analytic Philosophy. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R., 2006. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R., Everitt, B. J., & Bishop, D., 1996. The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 351, pp. 1413–1420.Google ScholarPubMed
Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H., 1991. Somatic markers and the guidance of behaviour: Theory and preliminary testing. In: Levin, H., Eisenberg, H., & Benton, A., eds. Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–229.Google Scholar
Danziger, K., 1990. Constructing the Subject. Historical Origins of Psychological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D., 2013. Intuition Pumps: And Other Tools for Thinking. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Dorfman, J., Shames, V., & Kihlstrom, J., 1996. Intuition, incubation, and insight. Implicit cognition in problem solving. In: Underwood, G., ed. Implicit Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–296.Google Scholar
Dove, G., 2011. On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242.Google Scholar
Dove, G. 2014. Thinking in words: Language as an embodied medium of thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, pp. 371–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dove, G. 2015. Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, pp. 1109–1121.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., 1968. Is law a system of rules? In: Summers, R., ed. Essays in Legal Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 25–60.Google Scholar
Enough, B. & Mussweiler, T., 2001. Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, pp. 1535–1551.Google Scholar
Eskridge, W., 1987. Dynamic statutory interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 135, pp. 1479–1555.Google Scholar
Farelly, C. & Solum, L., eds., 2007. Virtue Jurisprudence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Feynman, R., 1965. New textbooks for the ‘new’ mathematics. Engineering and Science, 28(6), pp. 9–15.Google Scholar
Fine, C., 2006. Is the emotional dog wagging its rational tail, or chasing it? Unleashing reason in Haidt’s social intuitionist model of moral judgment. Philosophical Explorations, 9, pp. 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, J. & Ravizza, M., 2000. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. & Graesser, A., 1997. Is it an agent, or just a program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In: Muller, J., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N., eds. Intelligent Agents III: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages. Berlin: Springer, pp. 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M., 1974. Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71, pp. 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, L., 1958. Positivism and fidelity to law: A reply to Professor Hart. Harvard Law Review, 71, pp. 661–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G., 2007. Text and interpretation. In: Palmer, R. E., ed. The Gadamer Reader. Evanston, IL: North Western University Press, pp. 156–191.Google Scholar
Galili, I., 2009. Thought experiments. Determining their meaning. Science & Education, 18, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., 2001. The adaptive toolbox. In: Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R., eds. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2004. Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In: Koehler, D. & Harvey, N., eds. Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 62–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2007. Gut Feelings. The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W., 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, pp. 51–82.Google Scholar
Gilmore, G., 1951. Book review: The Bramble Bush. Yale Law Journal, 60, pp. 1251–1253.Google Scholar
Gladstone, W., 2010. Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Kaschak, M. P., 2002. Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, pp. 558–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, P., 2003. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A., 1988. Strong and weak justification. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, pp. 51–69.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., 2000. Explanation as orgasm and the drive for causal understanding. In: Keil, F. & Wilson, R., eds. Cognition and Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 299–324.Google Scholar
Grabowski, A., 2013. Juristic Concept of the Validity of Statutory Law. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Grnatella, M., 2015. Imaginative universals and human cognition in the new science of Giambattista Vico. Culture and Psychology, 21, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J., & Wistrich, A., 2000. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, pp. 777–830.Google Scholar
Hacking, I., 1975. Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hadfield, G., 2006. The quality of law in civil code and common law regimes: Judicial incentives, legal human capital and the evolution of law. American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings, 40, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Hage, J., 2013. Three kinds of coherentism. In: Araszkiewicz, M. & Savelka, J., eds. Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Hage, J. 2017. Theoretical foundations for the responsibility of autonomous agents. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, pp. 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psychological Review, 108, pp. 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. 2003. The moral emotions. In: Davidson, I., Scherer, K., & Goldsmith, H., eds. Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 852–870.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., 1949. The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 49, pp. 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1958. Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review, 71, pp. 593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, A. & Fumerton, R., 2018. Foundationalist theories of epistemic justification. In: Zalta, E., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/justep-foundational/.Google Scholar
Hastie, R., Schkade, D.A., & Payne, J., 1999. Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff’s requests and plaintiff’s identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, pp. 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M., 2008. Przeciw fundacjonizmowi. In: Filozofia i wszechświat. Kraków: Universitas, pp. 82–103.Google Scholar
Heller, M. 2013. Philosophy of Chance: A Cosmic Fugue with a Prelude and a Coda. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.Google Scholar
Höffe, O., 1989. Kant’s principle of justice as categorical imperative of law. In: Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hossenfelder, S., 2018. Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P., 1987. Context of discovery and context of justification. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 18, pp. 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, M., Dennett, D., & Adams, R., 2011. Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcheson, J., 1929. The judgment intuitive: The role of the “hunch” in judicial decision. Cornell Law Review, 14, pp. 274–288.Google Scholar
Hutchison, A., 2014. The Whanganui River as a legal person. Alternative Law Journal, 39, pp. 179–182.Google Scholar
Jamrozik, A., McQuire, M., Cardillo, E., & Chatterjee, A., 2016. Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, pp. 1080–1089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, A., Coleman-Norton, P., & Bourne, F., 1961. Ancient Roman Statutes. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J., Kounios, J., 2004. Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), e97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. & Klein, G., 2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise. American Psychologist, 64, pp. 515–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A., 1972. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, pp. 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I., 1909. Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2002. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Karremans, J., Stroebe, W., & Claus, J., 2006. Beyond Vicary’s fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, pp. 792–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, A., 1986. Vorüberlegungen zu einer juristischen Logik und Ontologie der Relationen: Grundlegung einer personalen Rechtstheorie. Rechtstheorie, 17, pp. 257–276.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Kempton, W., 1984. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86, pp. 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. & Regier, T., 2006. Language, thought and color: Recent developments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, pp. 51–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kensinger, E., 2009. Remembering the details: Effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 1, pp. 99–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kessler, F., 1975. Some thoughts on the evolution of the German Law of Contracts: Part I. UCLA Law Review, 22, pp. 1066–1072.Google Scholar
Khanna, V., 1996. Corporate criminal liability: What purpose does it serve? Harvard Law Review, 109, pp. 1477–1534.Google Scholar
Kossowska, M., 2005. Umysł niezmienny. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
Kossowska, M. & Hiel, A. V., 2003. The relationship between need for closure and conservative beliefs in Western and Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 24, pp. 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kounios, J. & Beeman, M., 2014. The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Kozhevnikov, M., 2007. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, pp. 464–481.Google Scholar
Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S., & Shephard, J., 2005. Spatial versus object visualizers: A new characterization of visual cognitive style. Memory & Cognition, 33, pp. 710–726.Google Scholar
Kragh, H., 2015. Higher Speculations. Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions in Physics and Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A., 1989. The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, pp. 395–409.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kulesza, J., 2007. O pojmowaniu zaniechania w polskiej nauce prawa karnego. Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych, 11(2), pp. 19–52.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I., 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landriscina, F., 2009. Simulation and learning: The role of mental models. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 5(2), pp. 23–32.Google Scholar
Langevoort, D., 1998. Behavioral theories of judgment and decision-making in legal scholarship: A literature review. Vanderbilt Law Review, 51, pp. 1499–1529.Google Scholar
Laudan, L., 1981. A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, pp. 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G., 1989. Dissertation on the art of combinations. In: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 73–84.Google Scholar
Levinas, E., 1973. The Theory of Intuition in Husserl’s Phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Lillard, A., 1998. Ethnopsychologies: Cultural variations in theories of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 123, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. N., 2012. The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study. New Orleans: Quid Pro.Google Scholar
Makdisi, G., 1974. The scholastic method in medieval education: An inquiry into its origins in law and theology. Speculum, 49, pp. 640–661.Google Scholar
Mali, J., 1992. The Rehabiitation of Myth: Vico’s ‘New Science’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mark, V., 2016. The consumer in European regulatory private law: A functional perspective on responsibility, protection and empowerment. In: Leczykiewicz, D. & Weatherill, S., eds. The Image(s) of the Consumer in EU Law: Legislation, Free Movement and Competition Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 381–400.Google Scholar
Maryniarczyk, A., ed., 2009. Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Lublin: Polskie Towarzystwo Tomasza z Akwinu.Google Scholar
McCaffery, E., Kahneman, D., & Spitzer, M., 1995. Framing the jury: Cognitive perspectives on pain and suffering awards. Virginia Law Review, 81, pp. 1341–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrea, S., 2010. Intuition, insight, and the right hemisphere: Emergence of higher sociocognitive functions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 3, pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
McNammara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W., 1996. Are good texts always better? Interaction of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, pp. 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mednick, S., 1962. The associative bases of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, pp. 220–232.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D., 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, M. & Peng, K., 1994. Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, pp. 949–971.Google Scholar
Newell, B. & Shanks, D. R., 2014. Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Nørretranders, T., 1999. The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Olsson, E., 2017. Coherentist theories of epistemic justification. In: Zalta, E., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/justep-coherence/.Google Scholar
Paivio, A., 2013. Mind and Its Evolution: A Dual Coding Theoretical Approach. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. & Patterson, D., 2013. Minds, Brains, and Law: The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pavlakos, G., ed., 2007. Law, Rights, and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Peer, E. & Gamliel, E., 2013. Heuristics and biases in judicial decisions. Court Review, 49, pp. 114–118.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., 1982. The Realm of Rhetoric. Norte Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Petrażycki, L. 2002. O pobudkach postępowania i o istocie moralności i prawa. Warsaw: Oficyna Naukowa.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., 2003. Language as an adaptation to the cognitive niche. Studies in the Evolution of Language, 3, pp. 16–37.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 2010. The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. PNAS, 107, pp. 8993–8999.Google Scholar
Pizarro, D. & Bloom, P., 2003. The intelligence of the moral intuitions: A reply to Haidt. Psychological Review, 110, pp. 193–196.Google Scholar
Popper, K., 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1996. Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In Defence of Interaction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Posner, R., 1976. Blackstone and Bentham. Journal of Law & Economics, 19, pp. 569–606.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Garagnani, M., & Wennekers, T., 2014. Thinking in circuits: Toward neurobiological explanation in cognitive neuroscience. Biological Cybernetics, 108, pp. 573–593.Google Scholar
Pyziak-Szafnicka, M., ed., 2009. Kodeks cywilny. Część ogólna. Komentarz. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Quine, W. 1970. On the reasons for indeterminacy of translation. Journal of Philosophy, 67(6), pp. 178–183.Google Scholar
Raz, J., 2011. From Normativity to Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reath, A., 1989. Kant’s theory of moral sensibility: Respect for the moral law and the influence of inclination. Kant-Studien, 80, pp. 284–302.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H., 1938. Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N., 1977. Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Reyes, R., Thompson, W., & Bower, G., 1980. Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, pp. 2–12.Google Scholar
Ross, A., 1957. Tû-Tû. Harvard Law Review, 70, pp. 812–825. Originally published in Danish in 1951.Google Scholar
Salmon, W., 1990. Scientific explanation: Causation and unification. Critica, 22(66), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Sartor, G., 2008. Legal concepts: An inferential approach. EUI LAW Working Paper No. 2008/03.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T., 2004. Reasons: A puzzling duality? In: Wallace, R., Pettit, J., Scheffler, S., & Smith, M., eds. Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–246.Google Scholar
Schauer, F., 2008. A critical guide to vehicles in the park. New York University Law Review, 83, pp. 1109–1134.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 2009. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schlick, M., 1959. The foundation of knowledge. In: Ayer, A., ed. Logical Positivism. New York: Free Press, pp. 209–227.Google Scholar
Scriven, M., 1959. Truisms as the ground for historical explanations. In: Gardiner, P., ed. Theories of History. New York: Free Press, pp. 443–475.Google Scholar
Sheehy, B., 2006. Fundamentally conflicting views of the rule of law in China and the West & (and) implications for commercial disputes. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 26, pp. 225–266.Google Scholar
Shettleworth, S., 2012. Do animals have insight, and what is insight anyway? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, pp. 217–226.Google Scholar
Simon, H., 1956. Rational choice and the structure of environments. Psychological Review, 63, pp. 129–138.Google Scholar
Simon, H. 1990. Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, J. & Weiner, E., eds., 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, V., 2008. Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sójka-Zielińska, K., 2010. Idea ‘kodyfikacji’ w kulturze prawnej europejskiego oświecenia. Zeszyty Prawnicze, 10, pp. 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelmach, J., 1991. Die Hermeneutische Auffasung der Rechtsphilosophie. Ebelsbach: R. Gremer.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J., Brożek, B., & Kurek, Ł., eds., 2017. The Province of Jurisprudence Naturalized. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C. & Soanes, A., eds., 2006. Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, A., 1911. The words eidos, idea in pre-platonic literature. In: Taylor, A., ed. Varia Socratica. Oxford: James Parker & Co., pp. 178–267.Google Scholar
Thomson, J., 1971. A defence of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
Tieszen, R., 1989. Mathematical Intuition: Phenomenology and Mathematical Knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Todd, P., Gigerenzer, G., & Group, A. R., 2012. Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, pp. 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Vico, G., 1948. The New Science of Giambattista Vico. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Volz, K. & Cramon, D. von, 2006. What neuroscience can tell about intuitive processes in the context of perceptual discovery. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, pp. 2077–2087.Google Scholar
Waismann, F., 1951. Verifiability. In: Flew, A., ed. Logic and Language. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 35–68.Google Scholar
Wason, P. & Shapiro, D., 1971. Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, pp. 63–71.Google Scholar
Webster, D. & Kruglanski, A., 1994. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, pp. 1049–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinreb, L., 2005. Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, G., 2000. The enchantment of codification in the common-law world. Yale Journal of International Law, 25, pp. 435–532.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Russell, N., & Irwin, D., 2017. On the notion of abstraction in systemic functional linguistics. Functional Linguistics, 4, doi:10.1186/s40554-017-0047-3.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1978. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wróbel, W. & Zoll, A., eds., 2004. Kodeks karny. Komentarz. Część ogólna. Kraków: Zakamycze.Google Scholar
Wróbel, W. & Zoll, A. 2016. Kodeks karny. Część szczególna. Tom III. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Wróblewski, J., 1992. The Judicial Application of Law. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R., 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, pp. 151–175.Google Scholar
Zander, T., Öllinger, M., & Volz, K., 2016. Intuition and insight: Two processes that build on each other or fundamentally differ? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelden, C., 1989. Regional growth and the federal district courts: The impact of judge Joseph C. Hutcheson, Jr., on Southeast Texas, 1918–1931. Houston Review, 11, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. & Kaschak, M. P., 2008. Language in the brain, body, and world. In: Robbins, P. & Aydede, M., eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 368–381.Google Scholar