David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Public Affairs 40 (3):197-224 (2012)
The law views with suspicion statistical evidence, even evidence that is probabilistically on a par with direct, individual evidence that the law is in no way suspicious of. But it has proved remarkably hard to either justify this suspicion, or to debunk it. In this paper, we connect the discussion of statistical evidence to broader epistemological discussions of similar phenomena. We highlight Sensitivity – the requirement that a belief be counterfactually sensitive to the truth in a specific way – as a way of epistemically explaining the legal suspicion towards statistical evidence. Still, we do not think of this as a satisfactory vindication of the reluctance to rely on statistical evidence. Knowledge – and Sensitivity, and indeed epistemology in general – are of little, if any, legal value. Instead, we tell an incentive-based story vindicating the suspicion towards statistical evidence. We conclude by showing that the epistemological story and the incentive-based story are closely and interestingly related, and by offering initial thoughts about the role of statistical evidence in morality.
|Keywords||Statistical Evidence Sensitivity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Lara Buchak (2013). Belief, Credence, and Norms. Philosophical Studies (2):1-27.
Similar books and articles
Amit Pundik, What is Wrong with Statistical Evidence? The Attempts to Establish an Epistemic Deficiency.
Carl Cranor & Kurt Nutting (1990). Scientific and Legal Standards of Statistical Evidence in Toxic Tort and Discrimination Suits. Law and Philosophy 9 (2):115 - 156.
Kent W. Staley, Strategies for Securing Evidence Through Model Criticism: An Error-Statistical Perspective.
Kent W. Staley (2005). Agency and Objectivity in the Search for the Top Qjjark. In P. Achinstein (ed.), Scientific Evidence: Philosophical Theories & Applications. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Alastair McKinnon (1984). Kierkegaard's Interpretation of His 'Authorship': Some Statistical Evidence. Inquiry 27 (1-4):225 – 233.
David L. Dowe (2008). Minimum Message Length and Statistically Consistent Invariant (Objective?) Bayesian Probabilistic Inference—From (Medical) “Evidence”. Social Epistemology 22 (4):433 – 460.
Susan Haack (2012). The Embedded Epistemologist: Dispatches From the Legal Front. Ratio Juris 25 (2):206-235.
Hillel D. Braude (2009). Clinical Intuition Versus Statistics: Different Modes of Tacit Knowledge in Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (3):181-198.
Hilary Greaves & Wayne C. Myrvold (2010). Everett and Evidence. In Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent & David Wallace (eds.), Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality. Oxford University Press.
Michael Strevens (2009). Objective Evidence and Absence: Comment on Sober. Philosophical Studies 143 (1):91 - 100.
Steven Gimbel (1999). Peirce Snatching: Towards a More Pragmatic View of Evidence. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 51 (2-3):207-231.
Kent Staley (2012). Strategies for Securing Evidence Through Model Criticism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):21-43.
Added to index2012-10-16
Total downloads25 ( #70,792 of 1,103,045 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #29,715 of 1,103,045 )
How can I increase my downloads?