Define: Fact Scepticism

Fact scepticism is a philosophical stance that questions the certainty or reliability of factual knowledge and truth claims. It suggests that our understanding of reality and the accuracy of factual statements are inherently limited or subject to doubt due to factors such as perception, bias, interpretation, or the limitations of human cognition. Fact sceptics argue that there may be multiple interpretations or perspectives on any given set of facts, and that absolute certainty is rarely attainable. This scepticism encourages critical thinking, open-mindedness, and a willingness to re-evaluate beliefs in light of new evidence or perspectives. While fact scepticism challenges dogmatism and encourages intellectual humility, it also raises important questions about the nature of truth and knowledge in various domains, including science, history, and everyday life.

The view that, when delivering the reasons for a judgement, the adjudicator presents the facts in a way that gives credence to his decision. See also Rule Scepticism and Legal Realism.

Judge Jerome N. Frank, along with Karl Llewellyn, is considered the founding father of jurisprudential legal realism. In his famous book ‘Law and the Modern Mind’, Jerome Frank emphasised the futility of investing too much time and energy in appellate courts rather than trial courts, where a case is studied on the basis of facts and analysed threadbare.

For convenience, Frank categorised the realists into two groups: rule sceptics (sceptics) and fact sceptics (sceptics). Accordingly, the Rule Sceptics categorically rejected any scope of achieving uniformity in law through legal rules. Instead, they relied on social science to deliver uniformity in rules. In short, rule sceptics were of the opinion that judges are governed by several ‘social forces’, like their professional background, social exposure, et al., while delivering judgements. Basically, ‘social forces’ and not ‘rules’ are the deciding factor in a judge’s professional conduct.

Fact-sceptics (including Jerome Frank), on the other hand, rejected the possibility of achieving rule certainty. He was of the firm opinion that the facts are not established in toto, even by the trial judge. Further, he emphasised that even if we presume that the rules are clear, the decisions of the trial court are seldom based on rules. Rather, it depends on factors like conscious and subconscious attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices, which are peculiar to the parties, witnesses, and facts of each case. These factors imply that prediction of the decision in a case is virtually impossible, as the case is decided on the “idiosyncratic facts about the psychology or personality of the individual judge.”

Therefore, fact scepticism refers to the idea of legal realism, which states that while elucidating the reasons for a judgement, the judge considers and presents the facts in a way that gives credence to his decision, as opposed to presenting the facts as they are.

Frank underscored the twisting of facts in a trial not once but twice. First, by the witnesses who report what they think are the facts, and then by the judge or jury, who are mere witnesses of what goes on in the courtroom. The witness, however independent he may be, perceives the data objectively, individually, and according to his personality, which is an outcome of his social, political, economic, and educational background. Thus, an inevitable influence of personal bias, experiences, sympathies, antipathies, or even the instantaneous state of well-being creeps in while arriving at the facts of each case. Frank was of the opinion that these factors cannot be excluded by applying any kind of psychological or sociological theory or procedural arrangement.

Frank concluded by stating: “[L]egal rights are then dependent on human guesses about the facts… The personality of the judge (or jury) is one of the most important factors in the decision of any ‘contested’ case.”

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 10th April 2024.