Much of evidence scholarship deals with straight forward doctrinal rules,such as relevancy,hearsay,character evidence,expert testimony and the like.These rules are extremely important,and I have lectured on many of them in China.There is another set of questions,though,questions that deal with the conceptual foundations of the law of evidence specifically,or the rule of law more generally.In my first lecture,I touched on some of these issues in discussing the relationship between evidence,procedure,and substantive law.Today I wish to talk with you about another fundamental question,in fact perhaps the most fundamental question pertaining to evidence law,and that question is: What is the nature of juridical proof? Much of evidence scholarship deals with straight forward doctrinal rules, such as relevancy, hearsay, character evidence, expert testimony and the like. These rules are extremely important, and I have lectured on many of them in China. There is another set of questions, though, questions that deal with the conceptual foundations of the law of evidence specifically, or the rule of law more generally.In my first lecture, I touched on some of these issues in discussing the relationship between evidence, procedure, and substantive law.Today I wish to talk with you about another fundamental question, in fact perhaps the most fundamental question pertaining to evidence law, and that question is: What is the nature of juridical proof?