David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):391-410 (2007)
The purpose of this paper is to improve on the logical and measure-theoretic foundations for the notion of probability in the law of evidence, which were given in my contributions Åqvist [ (1990) Logical analysis of epistemic modality: an explication of the Bolding–Ekelöf degrees of evidential strength. In: Klami HT (ed) Rätt och Sanning (Law and Truth. A symposium on legal proof-theory in Uppsala May 1989). Iustus Förlag, Uppsala, pp 43–54; (1992) Towards a logical theory of legal evidence: semantic analysis of the Bolding–Ekelöf degrees of evidential strength. In: Martino AA (ed) Expert systems in law. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 67–86]. The present approach agrees with the one adopted in those contributions in taking its main task to be that of providing a semantic analysis, or explication, of the so called Bolding–Ekelöf degrees of evidential strength (“proof-strength”) as applied to the establishment of matters of fact in law-courts. However, it differs from the one advocated in our earlier work on the subject in explicitly appealing to what is known as “Pro-et-Contra Argumentation”, after the famous Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. It tries to bring out the logical form of that interesting kind of reasoning, at least in the context of the law of evidence. The formal techniques used here will be seen to be largely inspired by the important work done by Patrick Suppes, notably Suppes [(1957) Introduction to logic. van Nostrand, Princeton and (1972) Finite equal-interval measurement structures. Theoria 38:45–63].
|Keywords||Pro-et-contra reasoning Evidence for and evidence against a fact Quaternary ordering relation Binary probability ranking n-level grading mechanism Measures of differences in evidential weight and of probability Degrees of evidential strength Empirical test of hypothesis and historical source criticism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Douglas Walton (2008). A Dialogical Theory of Presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
I. I. I. Mootz (2010). Perelman's Theory of Argumentation and Natural Law. Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (4).
Andrew C. Stumer, Book Review: Ho, A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth. [REVIEW]
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Timothy Williamson (1998). Conditionalizing on Knowledge. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):89-121.
William L. Twining (2006/1994). Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays. Cambridge University Press.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, and Law. Cambridge University Press.
Alex Stein (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Lennart Åqvist (2010). Grades of Probability Modality in the Law of Evidence. Studia Logica 94 (3):307 - 330.
SolomonEyal Shimony & Ephraim Nissan (2001). Kappa Calculus and Evidential Strength: A Note on Åqvist's Logical Theory of Legal Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (2-3).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #84,621 of 1,018,103 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #65,012 of 1,018,103 )
How can I increase my downloads?