Switch to: References

Citations of:

Evidence law adrift

New Haven: Yale University Press (1997)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.Douglas Walton David M. Godden - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    . While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.David M. Godden & Douglas Walton - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Algorithmic Decision-Making and the Control Problem.John Zerilli, Alistair Knott, James Maclaurin & Colin Gavaghan - 2019 - Minds and Machines 29 (4):555-578.
    The danger of human operators devolving responsibility to machines and failing to detect cases where they fail has been recognised for many years by industrial psychologists and engineers studying the human operators of complex machines. We call it “the control problem”, understood as the tendency of the human within a human–machine control loop to become complacent, over-reliant or unduly diffident when faced with the outputs of a reliable autonomous system. While the control problem has been investigated for some time, up (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The epistemology of scientific evidence.Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
    In place of the traditional epistemological view of knowledge as justified true belief we argue that artificial intelligence and law needs an evidence-based epistemology according to which scientific knowledge is based on critical analysis of evidence using argumentation. This new epistemology of scientific evidence (ESE) models scientific knowledge as achieved through a process of marshaling evidence in a scientific inquiry that results in a convergence of scientific theories and research results. We show how a dialogue interface of argument from expert (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Justification, coherence, and epistemic responsibility in legal fact-finding.Amalia Amaya - 2008 - Episteme 5 (3):pp. 306-319.
    This paper argues for a coherentist theory of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law, according to which a hypothesis about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is such that an epistemically responsible fact-finder might have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. It claims that this version of coherentism has the resources to address a main problem facing coherence theories of evidence and legal proof, namely, the problem of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • On Legal Interpretation and Second-order Proof Rules.Sebastián Reyes Molina - 2018 - Analisi E Diritto 1 (1):165-184.
    This paper puts forward three critiques of pardo’s second-order proof rules thesis. The first criticism states that these rules are not suitable to guide the interpretation of standards of proof rules because they confuse matters of legal interpretation with matters of epistemology. The second criticism states that second-order proof rules are affected by the same indeterminacy problems they are designed to resolve, thereby rendering them unsuitable for the task they are purposely designed for. The third criticism renders pardo’s proposal redundant. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark