|Abstract||This paper evaluates four competing psychological explanations for why the jury in the O.J. Simpson murder trial reached the verdict they did: explanatory coherence, Bayesian probability theory, wishful thinking, and emotional coherence. It describes computational models that provide detailed simulations of juror reasoning for explanatory coherence, Bayesian networks, and emotional coherence, and argues that the latter account provides the most plausible explanation of the jury's decision.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Baljinder Sahdra & Paul R. Thagard (2003). Self-Deception and Emotional Coherence. Minds and Machines 13 (2):213-231.
Amalia Amaya (2007). Formal Models of Coherence and Legal Epistemology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):429-447.
Amalia Amaya (2011). Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence. Ratio Juris 24 (3):304-329.
Paul Thagard (2007). Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74 (1):28-47.
Paul Thagard (2005). Testimony, Credibility, and Explanatory Coherence. Erkenntnis 63 (3):295 - 316.
David H. Glass (2007). Coherence Measures and Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 157 (3):275 - 296.
Adolfas Mackonis (2013). Inference to the Best Explanation, Coherence and Other Explanatory Virtues. Synthese 190 (6):975-995.
Thomas Bartelborth (1999). Coherence and Explanations. Erkenntnis 50 (2-3):209-224.
Marcello Guarini (2007). Computation, Coherence, and Ethical Reasoning. Minds and Machines 17 (1):27-46.
Elijah Millgram & Paul Thagard (1996). Deliberative Coherence. Synthese 108 (1):63 - 88.
Luc Bovens & Stephan Hartmann (2005). Why There Cannot Be a Single Probabilistic Measure of Coherence. Erkenntnis 63 (3):361-374.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads14 ( #90,469 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?