Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Presumptuous or pluralistic presumptions of innocence? Methodological diagnosis towards conceptual reinvigoration.Paul Roberts - 2020 - Synthese 198 (9):8901-8932.
    This article is a contribution to interdisciplinary scholarship addressing the presumption of innocence, especially interdisciplinary conversations between philosophers and jurists. Terminological confusion and methodological traps and errors notoriously beset academic literature addressing the presumption of innocence and related concepts, such as evidentiary presumptions, and the burden and standard of proof in criminal trials. This article is diagnostic, in the sense that its primary objective is to highlight the assumptions—in particular, the disciplinary assumptions—implicit in influential contributions to debates on the presumption (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Inference to the Best Explanation, Cleaned Up and Made Respectable.Jonah N. Schupbach - 2017 - In Kevin McCain & Ted Poston (eds.), Best Explanations: New Essays on Inference to the Best Explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 39-61.
    Despite decades of focused philosophical investigation, Inference to the Best Explanation still lacks a precise articulation and compelling defense. The primary reason for this is that it is not at all clear what it means for a hypothesis to be the best available explanation of the evidence. This paper first seeks to rectify this problem by developing a formal explication of the explanatory virtue of power. A resulting account of IBE is then evaluated as a form of uncertain inference. Overall, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Hypothesis Competition beyond Mutual Exclusivity.Jonah N. Schupbach & David H. Glass - 2017 - Philosophy of Science 84 (5):810-824.
    Competition between scientific hypotheses is not always a matter of mutual exclusivity. Consistent hypotheses can compete to varying degrees either directly or indirectly via a body of evidence. We motivate and defend a particular account of hypothesis competition by showing how it captures these features. Computer simulations of Bayesian inference are used to highlight the limitations of adopting mutual exclusivity as a simplifying assumption to model scientific reasoning, particularly due to the exclusion of hypotheses that may be true. We end (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • (1 other version)Précis of Inference to the Best Explanation, 2 nd Edition.Peter Lipton - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):421-423.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   565 citations  
  • Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman - 1983 - Psychological Review 90 (4):293-315.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   619 citations  
  • (1 other version)Hot Thought: Mechanisms and Applications of Emotional Cognition.Paul Thagard - 2008 - Bradford.
    Contrary to standard assumptions, reasoning is often an emotional process. Emotions can have good effects, as when a scientist gets excited about a line of research and pursues it successfully despite criticism. But emotions can also distort reasoning, as when a juror ignores evidence of guilt just because the accused seems like a nice guy. In _Hot Thought_, Paul Thagard describes the mental mechanisms -- cognitive, neural, molecular, and social -- that interact to produce different kinds of human thinking, from (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • Inference to the Best Explanation.Peter Lipton - 1991 - London and New York: Routledge.
    How do we go about weighing evidence, testing hypotheses, and making inferences? According to the model of _Inference to the Best Explanation_, we work out what to infer from the evidence by thinking about what would actually explain that evidence, and we take the ability of a hypothesis to explain the evidence as a sign that the hypothesis is correct. In _Inference to the Best Explanation_, Peter Lipton gives this important and influential idea the development and assessment it deserves. The (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   428 citations  
  • The Significance of Unpossessed Evidence.Nathan Ballantyne - 2015 - Philosophical Quarterly 65 (260):315-335.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks.Norman Fenton, Martin Neil & David A. Lagnado - 2013 - Cognitive Science 37 (1):61-102.
    A Bayesian network (BN) is a graphical model of uncertainty that is especially well suited to legal arguments. It enables us to visualize and model dependencies between different hypotheses and pieces of evidence and to calculate the revised probability beliefs about all uncertain factors when any piece of new evidence is presented. Although BNs have been widely discussed and recently used in the context of legal arguments, there is no systematic, repeatable method for modeling legal arguments as BNs. Hence, where (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • Foundations of evidence law.Alex Stein - 2005 - New York: Oxford University Press.
    This is the first book to systematically examine the underlying theory of evidence in Anglo-American legal systems. Stein develops a detailed and innovative theory which sets aside the traditional vision of evidence law as facilitating the discovery of the truth. Combining probability theory, epistemology, economic analysis, and moral philosophy, he argues instead that the fundamental purpose of evidence law is to apportion the risk of error in conditions of uncertainty.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • A philosophy of evidence law: justice in the search for truth.Hock Lai Ho - 2008 - New York: Oxford University Press.
    This book examines the legal and moral theory behind the law of evidence and proof, arguing that only by exploring the nature of responsibility in fact-finding can the role and purpose of much of the law be fully understood. Ho argues that the court must not only find the truth to do justice, it must do justice in finding the truth.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Laws and symmetry.Bas C. Van Fraassen - 1989 - New York: Oxford University Press.
    Metaphysicians speak of laws of nature in terms of necessity and universality; scientists, in terms of symmetry and invariance. In this book van Fraassen argues that no metaphysical account of laws can succeed. He analyzes and rejects the arguments that there are laws of nature, or that we must believe there are, and argues that we should disregard the idea of law as an adequate clue to science. After exploring what this means for general epistemology, the author develops the empiricist (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   822 citations  
  • Inference to the only explanation. [REVIEW]Alexander Bird - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):424–432.
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (forthcoming).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  • The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice.Paul R. Thagard - 1978 - Journal of Philosophy 75 (2):76-92.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   246 citations  
  • Dissecting explanatory power.Petri Ylikoski & Jaakko Kuorikoski - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 148 (2):201–219.
    Comparisons of rival explanations or theories often involve vague appeals to explanatory power. In this paper, we dissect this metaphor by distinguishing between different dimensions of the goodness of an explanation: non-sensitivity, cognitive salience, precision, factual accuracy and degree of integration. These dimensions are partially independent and often come into conflict. Our main contribution is to go beyond simple stipulation or description by explicating why these factors are taken to be explanatory virtues. We accomplish this by using the contrastive-counterfactual approach (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   122 citations  
  • (1 other version)A confutation of convergent realism.Larry Laudan - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (1):19-49.
    This essay contains a partial exploration of some key concepts associated with the epistemology of realist philosophies of science. It shows that neither reference nor approximate truth will do the explanatory jobs that realists expect of them. Equally, several widely-held realist theses about the nature of inter-theoretic relations and scientific progress are scrutinized and found wanting. Finally, it is argued that the history of science, far from confirming scientific realism, decisively confutes several extant versions of avowedly 'naturalistic' forms of scientific (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   765 citations  
  • The inference to the best explanation.Gilbert H. Harman - 1965 - Philosophical Review 74 (1):88-95.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   525 citations  
  • (1 other version)Hot Thought: Mechanisms and Applications of Emotional Cognition.Paul Thagard - 2006 - Cambridge MA: Bradford Book/MIT Press.
    A description of mental mechanisms that explain how emotions influence thought, from everyday decision making to scientific discovery and religious belief, and an analysis of when emotion can contribute to good reasoning.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   59 citations  
  • Relative plausibility and a prescriptive theory of evidence assessment.Eivind Kolflaath - 2019 - International Journal of Evidence and Proof 23 (1-2):121-127.
    While the theory of relative plausibility is presented by Allen and Pardo as a descriptive theory of the proof process, this commentary discusses their theory as a possible starting point for a prescriptive theory of evidence assessment. Generally, naturalness and simplicity are necessary for the success of such a theory. The theory of relative plausibility is very promising in this respect, as its key concept is the straightforward and intuitive notion of explanation, according to which an explanation is an answer (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Narration in judiciary fact-finding: a probabilistic explication.Rafal Urbaniak - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (4):345-376.
    Legal probabilism is the view that juridical fact-finding should be modeled using Bayesian methods. One of the alternatives to it is the narration view, according to which instead we should conceptualize the process in terms of competing narrations of what happened. The goal of this paper is to develop a reconciliatory account, on which the narration view is construed from the Bayesian perspective within the framework of formal Bayesian epistemology.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology.Larry Laudan - 2006 - Cambridge University Press.
    Beginning with the premise that the principal function of a criminal trial is to find out the truth about a crime, Larry Laudan examines the rules of evidence and procedure that would be appropriate if the discovery of the truth were, as higher courts routinely claim, the overriding aim of the criminal justice system. Laudan mounts a systematic critique of existing rules and procedures that are obstacles to that quest. He also examines issues of error distribution by offering the first (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   58 citations  
  • Truth-Seeking by Abduction.Ilkka Niiniluoto - 2004 - Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 11:57-82.
    In a seminar with the title “Deduction and Induction in the Sciences”, it is intriguing to ask the following questions: Is there a third type of inference besides deduction and induction? Does this third type of inference play a significant role within scientific inquiry? A positive answer to both of these questions was advocated by Charles S. Peirce throughout his career, even though his opinions changed in important ways during the fifty years between 1865 and 1914. Peirce called the third (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  • The No Alternatives Argument.Richard Dawid, Stephan Hartmann & Jan Sprenger - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (1):213-234.
    Scientific theories are hard to find, and once scientists have found a theory, H, they often believe that there are not many distinct alternatives to H. But is this belief justified? What should scientists believe about the number of alternatives to H, and how should they change these beliefs in the light of new evidence? These are some of the questions that we will address in this article. We also ask under which conditions failure to find an alternative to H (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   56 citations  
  • Van Fraassen's Critique Of Inference To The Best Explanation.Samir Okasha - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (4):691-710.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   92 citations  
  • (1 other version)Laws and Symmetry.Bas C. Van Fraassen - 1989 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 182 (3):327-329.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   733 citations  
  • Assurance: An Austinian View of Knowledge and Knowledge Claims.Krista Lawlor - 2013 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    What is an assurance? What do we do when we claim to know? Krista Lawlor offers an original account based on the work of J. L. Austin. She addresses challenges to contextualist semantic theories; resolves closure-based skeptical paradoxes; and helps us tread the line between acknowledging our fallibility and skepticism.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   43 citations  
  • Is reasonable doubt reasonable?Larry Laudan - 2003 - Legal Theory 9 (4):295-331.
    It is difficult, if not impossible, to so define the term as to satisfy a subtle and metaphysical mind, bent on the detection of some point, however attenuated, upon which to hang a criticism. —Supreme Court of Virginia 1.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The problematic value of mathematical models of evidence.Ronald J. Allen & Michael S. Pardo - 2007
    Legal scholarship exploring the nature of evidence and the process of juridical proof has had a complex relationship with formal modeling. As evident in so many fields of knowledge, algorithmic approaches to evidence have the theoretical potential to increase the accuracy of fact finding, a tremendously important goal of the legal system. The hope that knowledge could be formalized within the evidentiary realm generated a spate of articles attempting to put probability theory to this purpose. This literature was both insightful (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Confirmation, heuristics, and explanatory reasoning.Timothy McGrew - 2003 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (4):553-567.
    Recent work on inference to the best explanation has come to an impasse regarding the proper way to coordinate the theoretical virtues in explanatory inference with probabilistic confirmation theory, and in particular with aspects of Bayes's Theorem. I argue that the theoretical virtues are best conceived heuristically and that such a conception gives us the resources to explicate the virtues in terms of ceteris paribus theorems. Contrary to some Bayesians, this is not equivalent to identifying the virtues with likelihoods or (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   92 citations  
  • (1 other version)A Confutation of Convergent Realism.Larry Laudan - 2001 - In Yuri Balashov & Alexander Rosenberg (eds.), Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. New York: Routledge. pp. 211.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   719 citations  
  • Juridical proof and the best explanation.Michael S. Pardo & Ronald J. Allen - 2007 - Law and Philosophy 27 (3):223 - 268.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  • Resiliency, robustness and rationality of probability judgements.James Logue - 1997 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (1):21 – 34.
    This paper addresses and rejects claims that one can demonstrate experimentally that most untutored subjects are systematically and incurably irrational in their probability judgements and in some deductive reasoning tasks. From within a strongly subjectivist theory of probability, it develops the notions of resiliency —a measure of stability of judgements—and robustness —a measure of expected stability. It then becomes possible to understand subjects' behaviour in the Wason selection task, in examples which have been claimed to involve a 'base-rate fallacy', in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Inference to the best legal explanation.Amalia Amaya - 2008 - In Hendrik Kaptein (ed.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory.Floris J. Bex - 2011 - Springer.
    In this book a theory of reasoning with evidence in the context of criminal cases is developed. The main subject of this study is not the law of evidence but rather the rational process of proof, which involves constructing, testing and justifying scenarios about what happened using evidence and commonsense knowledge. A central theme in the book is the analysis of ones reasoning, so that complex patterns are made more explicit and clear. This analysis uses stories about what happened and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Whither the alternatives: Determinants and consequences of selective versus comparative judgemental processing.David M. Sanbonmatsu, Sam Vanous, Christine Hook, Steven S. Posavac & Frank R. Kardes - 2011 - Thinking and Reasoning 17 (4):367 - 386.
    Judgements of the value or likelihood of a focal object or outcome have been shown to vary dramatically as a function of whether judgement is based on selective or comparative processing. This article explores the question of when selective versus comparative processing is likely, and demonstrates that as motivation and opportunity to process information carefully (operationalised as accountability and time pressure, respectively) decrease, the likelihood of selective processing increases. Moreover, we document how individuals manage to render judgements when in selective (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations