UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

SCHOOL OF LAW

MASTERS OF LAW (LLM) PROGRAM

GPR 6103: JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY

ASSIGNMENT: SEMINAR TWO QUESTION

NAME: ANNET AKOTH OTAGO

REGISTRATION NUMBER: G62/45405/2023

COURSE INSTRUCTORS: PROF. ALBERT MUMMA

DR. NANCY BARAZA

1|Page
SEMINAR TWO: THE PROBLEM OF EPISTEMOLOGY

Question:

How do scholars acquire social knowledge? Is it possible for scholars to obtain objective truth?

Introduction

Scholars engage in a multifaceted pursuit of knowledge through a process deeply rooted in the

philosophical discipline of epistemology.1 Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies

knowledge.2 It is mainly concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and examines the

ways in which knowledge is acquired, justified, and understood. It attempts to answer the basic

question of what distinguishes true or adequate knowledge from otherwise false or inadequate

knowledge. This paper aims to explore the process through which scholars gain social

knowledge and to examine the feasibility of attaining an objective truth in this context.

Branches of Epistemology and Theories of Truth

The major branches of epistemological theory are rationalism and empiricism. 3 Rationalism

implies that knowledge is obtained through reason and introspection. Ones ideas are justified by

sense experience, but if the senses and intuition are in conflict, the sensory evidence must be

discarded. In empiricism, knowledge is obtained through observation and experiment. Models

and theories may be used to organize this sensory experience, but if theories contradict

experience they are wrong. The integration of these approaches, known as critical empiricism,

acknowledges the complementary nature of reason and empirical evidence in the study of social

phenomena.

1
Ho H.L., Epistemology of Legal Fact-Finding (Oxford; oxford University Press,2008)
2
ibid
3
ibid

2|Page
Theories of truth

The major theories of truth are correspondence theory, coherence theory and pragmatism theory.

These theories offer distinct perspectives on the nature of truth and its attainability and also

present scholars with different frameworks for assessing the validity of social knowledge. The

correspondence theory suggests that social knowledge is true if it accurately reflects objective

reality, suggesting an external, objective standard. This means that something is true when the

claim one makes corresponds to reality. This theory maps more clearly to science.

Coherence theory, on the other hand, emphasizes the internal consistency of beliefs within a

system. That is to mean that arguments must flow logically from premises and intermediate

propositions. This is where the notion of ‘fallacy’ comes from — if you make a fallacious

argument, you are violating the rules of logic, and therefore your argument may be rejected as

false.

Pragmatism theory contends that in the end, what we collectively decide is the truth is what

works for us. This theory focuses on truth claims that work for us and that can be used to solve

problems. It identifies with American pragmatism.

Acquiring social knowledge and obtaining objective truth

The influence of biases, cultural perspectives, and individual experiences on the acquisition and

interpretation of knowledge complicates the notion of objective truth.4

4
Teubner G., How the Law Thinks: Toward a Constructivist Epistemology of Law (1989) Law and Society Review
Vol.23, No. 5 pp. 727-758

3|Page
Knowledge is dynamic and what may be considered true in one context may evolve or be

contested in another. The interplay between empirical evidence, rational inquiry, and societal

consensus continues to contribute to the ongoing refinement and expansion of knowledge.5

While achieving absolute objectivity may be an elusive goal, scholars must strive for a balanced

and well-informed understanding of the world. The dialectical process of questioning,

challenging assumptions, and integrating new insights is believed to foster intellectual growth

which may eventually contribute to the collective advancement of knowledge. Scholars therefore

should continuously refine their methodologies and theories in the perpetual pursuit of a more

accurate representation of truth.

Conclusion

The quest for objective truth, a central concern in epistemology, poses a complex challenge to

scholars since Law is regarded as a value judgment rather than a science thus making it

impossible to have an empirical rendition of Law. In the common law tradition, Law was not a

University discipline and Jurisprudence was something done not in the faculty of law but in the

faculty of philosophy. Jurisprudence is rather a new phenomenon in the English legal tradition

and Lawyers must claim jurisprudence to be a science for law to be objective and empirical.

5
ibid

4|Page
5|Page