Proof Paradoxes and Normic Support: Socializing or Relativizing?

Mind:fzz021 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Smith argues that, unlike other forms of evidence, naked statistical evidence fails to satisfy normic support. This is his solution to the puzzles of statistical evidence in legal proof. This paper focuses on Smith’s claim that DNA evidence in cold-hit cases does not satisfy normic support. I argue that if this claim is correct, virtually no other form of evidence used at trial can satisfy normic support. This is troublesome. I discuss a few ways in which Smith can respond.
Categories
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DIBPPA
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-07-17
View other versions
Added to PP index
2019-04-27

Total views
107 ( #32,686 of 51,557 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #17,722 of 51,557 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.