Article PDF
References
Adler, M., and Himma, K. E. (eds.), The Rule of Recognition and the U.S. Constitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
Alexander, L., ‘All or Nothing at All? The Intentions of Authorities and the Authority of Intentions.’ In Marmor, A. (Ed.), Law and Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Alexander, L., and Prakash, S., ‘Is That English You’re Speaking? Why Intention Free Interpretation is an Impossibility’, San Diego Law Review 41 (2004): 967–995.
Boudreau, C., Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., and Rodriguez, D. B., ‘What Statutes Mean: Interpretive Lessons from Positive Theories of Communication and Legislation’, San Diego Law Review 44 (2007): 957–992.
Campos, P., ‘Against Constitutional Theory’, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 4 (1992): 279.
Campos, P., ‘Three Mistakes About Interpretation’, Michigan Law Review 92 (1993a): 388–397.
Campos, P., ‘That Obscure Object of Desire: Hermeneutics and the Autonomous Legal Text’, Minnesota Law Review 77 (1993b): 1065.
Coleman, J. (ed.), Hart’s Postscript (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Collins, J., and Peacocke, C., ‘Special Issue: Epistemic Norms’, Journal of Philosophy 105 (2008): 441–663.
Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977).
Dworkin, R., Law’s Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986).
Dworkin, R., ‘Pragmatism, Right Answers, and True Banality.’ In Brint, M., and Weaver, W. (eds.), Pragmatism in Law and Society (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991).
Dworkin, R., Justice in Robes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).
Fish, S., ‘There is no Textualist Position’, San Diego Law Review 42 (2005): 629–650.
Greenberg, M., ‘How Facts Make Law’, Legal Theory 10 (2004): 157–198.
Greenberg, M., ‘A New Map of Theories of Mental Content: Constitutive Accounts and Normative Theories’, Philosophical Issues 15 (2005): 299–320.
Greenberg, M., ‘The Standard Picture and Its Discontents’, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law 1 (2011a).
Greenberg, M., ‘Legislation as Communication? Legal Interpretation and the Study of Linguistic Communication.’ In Marmor, A., and Soames, S. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011b).
Greenberg, M., ‘Naturalism in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Law’, (Naturalism I), Law and Philosophy 30 (2011c): 419–451.
Greenberg, M., ‘Beyond the Standard Picture’, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law 3 (forthcoming).
Hershovitz, S., Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Johnsen, B., ‘How to Read ‘Epistemology Naturalized’’, Journal of Philosophy 102 (2005): 78–93.
Kim, J., ‘What Is ‘Naturalized Epistemology’?’ In Kornblith, H. (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology (2nd ed.) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994).
Knapp, S., and Michaels, W., ‘Against Theory’, Critical Inquiry 8 (1982): 723–742.
Knapp, S., and Michaels, W., ‘A Reply to Our Critics’, Critical Inquiry 9 (1983): 790–800.
Knapp, S., and Michaels, W., ‘Not a Matter of Interpretation’, San Diego Law Review 42 (2005): 651–668.
Kornblith, H. (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology (2nd ed.) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994).
Leiter, B., ‘Rethinking Legal Realism: Toward a Naturalized Jurisprudence’, Texas Law Review 76 (1997): 267–315.
Leiter, B., ‘Naturalism and Naturalized Jurisprudence.’ In Bix Brian (ed.), Analyzing Law: New Essays in Legal Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
Leiter, B., ‘Legal Realism and Legal Positivism Reconsidered’, Ethics 111 (2001): 278–301.
Leiter, B., Naturalizing Jurisprudence: Essays on American Legal Realism and Naturalism in Legal Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007a).
Leiter, B., ‘Explaining Theoretical Disagreement’ (August 3, 2007). University of Texas, Austin School of Law Public Law Research Paper No. 124 (2007b). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1004768.
Marmor, A., ‘The Pragmatics of Legal Language’, Ratio Juris 21 (2008): 423–452.
Marmor, A., ‘Can the Law Imply More Than It Says? – On Some Pragmatic Aspects of Strategic Speech.’ In Marmor, A., and Soames, S. (eds.), Foundations of Language and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Marmor, A., and Soames, S. (eds.), Foundations of Language and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Neale, S., ‘The Intentionalism of Textualism’, http://lawold.usc.edu/academics/centers/clp/papers/documents/Neale.pdf (2009).
Putnam, H., ‘Why Reason Can’t Be Naturalized.’ In Putnam, H. (ed.), Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers 3 (1983): 229–247.
Quine, W. V. O., Epistemology Naturalized in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969).
Quine, W. V. O., The Pursuit of Truth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).
Quine, W. V. O., and Ullian, J., The Web of Belief (2nd ed.). (New York: Random House, 1978).
Raz, J., Between Authority and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
Shapiro, S., Legality (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010).
Soames, S., ‘Interpreting Legal Texts: What is, and What is Not, Special About the Law.’ In Soames, S. (ed.), Philosophical Essays, Volume I: Natural Language: What It Means & How We Use It (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at doi:10.1007/s10982-011-9110-5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Greenberg, M. Erratum to: Implications of Indeterminacy: Naturalism in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Law II. Law and Philos 31, 619–642 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9139-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9139-0