This chapter introduces the central epistemic mechanisms by discussing “many-minds” arguments, providing an intellectual zoology, distinguishing among the major species of many-minds arguments and explaining the conditions under which one or another is more or less successful. It provides grounds for skepticism about the robustness and generality of many-minds arguments. The chapter then documents that many-minds arguments have been invoked, for the most part, in support of epistemic legalism—that is, to support the common law vis-à-vis legislation, to support the constitutional common law vis-à-vis statutes, and more generally to support judge-made law as against lawmaking and law-interpretation by legislatures and agencies.
Keywords: many-minds arguments, epistemic legalism, common law, judge-made law, constitutional law, lawmaking, law interpretation,