11 found
Order:
  1.  17
    De‐Biasing Legal Fact‐Finders With Bayesian Thinking.Christian Dahlman - 2020 - Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4):1115-1131.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2.  19
    Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence.Christian Dahlman - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):83-99.
    Arguments on legal evidence rely on generalizations, that link a certain circumstance to a certain hypothesis and warrants the claim that the circumstance makes the hypothesis more probable. Some generalizations are acceptable and others are unacceptable. A generalization can be unacceptable on at least four different grounds. A false generalization is unacceptable because membership in the reference class does not increase the probability of the hypothesis. A non-robust generalization is unacceptable because it uses a reference class that is too heterogeneous. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  46
    When Conventionalism Goes Too Far.Christian Dahlman - 2011 - Ratio Juris 24 (3):335-346.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  15
    Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation.Christian Dahlman & Thomas Bustamante - unknown
    In this chapter, we offer a Bayesian model for evaluating expert testimony in the court room. Statements from a putative expert are difficult for a legal decision maker to assess, as the legal decision maker – who lacks expert knowledge on the subject issue – must distinguish between experts that are highly reliable and experts that are less reliable. A methodology for the assessment of the expert testimony has been suggested previously, in the works of Walton and Goldman, and we (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  3
    Reliable Debiasing Techniques in Legal Contexts? : Weak Signals From a Darker Corner of the Social Science Universe.Frank Zenker & Christian Dahlman - 2016 - Studies in Logic and Argumentation 59:173-196.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6.  11
    Fused Modality or Confused Modality?Christian Dahlman - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):80-86.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7. Appeal to Expert Testimony – A Bayesian Approach.Lena Wahlberg & Christian Dahlman - 2015 - In Christian Dahlman & Thomas Bustamante (eds.), Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation. Springer Verlag.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  50
    The Difference Between Obedience Assumed and Obedience Accepted.Christian Dahlman - 2009 - Ratio Juris 22 (2):187-196.
    Abstract. The analysis of legal statements that are made from an "internal point of view" must distinguish statements where legal obedience is accepted from statements where legal obedience is only assumed. Statements that are based on accepted obedience supply reasons for action, but statements where obedience is merely assumed can never provide reasons for action. It is argued in this paper that John Searle neglects this distinction. Searle claims that a statement from the internal point of view provides the speaker (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  16
    Prototype Effect and the Persuasiveness of Generalizations.Christian Dahlman, Farhan Sarwar, Rasmus Bååth, Lena Wahlberg & Sverker Sikström - 2016 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7 (1):163-180.
    An argument that makes use of a generalization activates the prototype for the category used in the generalization. We conducted two experiments that investigated how the activation of the prototype affects the persuasiveness of the argument. The results of the experiments suggest that the features of the prototype overshadow and partly overwrite the actual facts of the case. The case is, to some extent, judged as if it had the features of the prototype instead of the features it actually has. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  3
    Debiasing and Rule of Law.Frank Zenker & Christian Dahlman - 2016 - In Eveline Feteris, Harm Kloosterhuis, Jose Plug & Carel Smith (eds.), Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law. Eleven International Publishing. pp. 217-229.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  2
    Giving Reasons Pro Et Contra as a Debiasing Technique in Legal Decision Making.Frank Zenker, Christian Dahlman & Farhan Sarwar - 2016 - Studies in Logic 62:809-823.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark