David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Reasoning by jurors concerning whether an accused person should be convicted of committing a crime is a kind of casual inference. Jurors need to decide whether the evidence in the case was caused by the accused’s criminal action or by some other cause. This paper compares two computational models of casual inference: explanatory coherence and Bayesian networks. Both models can be applied to legal episodes such as the von Bu¨low trials. There are psychological and computational reasons for preferring the explanatory coherence account of legal inference.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Paul Thagard (2010). Why Wasn't O.J. Convicted? Emotional Coherence in Legal Inference. Cognition and Emotion 17 (3):361-383.
Paul Thagard (2005). Testimony, Credibility, and Explanatory Coherence. Erkenntnis 63 (3):295 - 316.
Amalia Amaya (2007). Formal Models of Coherence and Legal Epistemology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):429-447.
Adolfas Mackonis (2013). Inference to the Best Explanation, Coherence and Other Explanatory Virtues. Synthese 190 (6):975-995.
Luc Bovens & Stephan Hartmann (2000). Coherence, Belief Expansion and Bayesian Networks. In BaralC (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR'2000.
Amalia Amaya (2011). Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence. Ratio Juris 24 (3):304-329.
Paul Thagard & Gregory Nowak (1988). The Explanatory Coherence of Continental Drift. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:118 - 126.
Barbara Baum Levenbook (1984). The Role of Coherence in Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 3 (3):355 - 374.
Daniel Schoch (2000). A Fuzzy Measure for Explanatory Coherence. Synthese 122 (3):291-311.
Paul Thagard (2007). Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74 (1):28-47.
Paul Thagard (1989). Explanatory Coherence (Plus Commentary). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (3):435-467.
Thomas Bartelborth (1999). Coherence and Explanations. Erkenntnis 50 (2-3):209-224.
Frederick Eberhardt & David Danks (2011). Confirmation in the Cognitive Sciences: The Problematic Case of Bayesian Models. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 21 (3):389-410.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads13 ( #125,610 of 1,099,868 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #303,846 of 1,099,868 )
How can I increase my downloads?