Summary

It is stated in this research that an adequate understanding of healthy criticism demands consideration of the normative aspects of judicial evidence. In a judicial process, the testing of facts is aimed at verifying institutional facts, an issue that involves both the testing of empirical propositions on raw facts and their qualification. The transition from the brute fact to the normative assumption implies subordinating, many times, epistemic resources to normative criteria within an argumentative process. And this is precisely what the weighing of judicial evidence in accordance with critical criticism consists of.