Final answer:
The question about Professor DiGiovanna's views cannot be directly confirmed as true or false, but the associated references imply that subjectivity and the challenge of distinguishing facts from subjective claims are pertinent in legal contexts and the philosophy of law. Topics like motivated reasoning and the fragility of memory align with the difficulties in separating objective facts from subjective perceptions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement about Professor DiGiovanna's agreement that many people stopped by the police will use false and subjective claims cannot be considered true or false without explicit confirmation of Professor DiGiovanna's views. However, based on the provided references, one can infer that discussions around subjective claims, testimonial injustice, and issues related to observation and interpretation are relevant to the field of Law, particularly in the context of criminal justice and philosophy of law.
We can look at the concept of subjective experiences and interpretations concerning both large celestial bodies and subatomic particles that are beyond direct human experience. This also includes simpler instances like checking for a container of milk in a refrigerator which can be straightforward or still involve subjective interpretations depending on the criteria used.
Moreover, the references given highlight issues such as motivated reasoning, where individuals find evidence that supports existing beliefs and dismiss conflicting data, the vulnerability to suggestions that can lead to false memories, and the challenges in differentiating between facts and evaluative statements, which could be seen as relevant to what Professor DiGiovanna might believe.