{"title":"The logic of uncertainty in law and life","authors":"K. Clermont","doi":"10.1093/lpr/mgaa012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n My central interest is decision making in the presence of epistemic uncertainty. A method appropriate for both specialized inquiries and everyday reasoning is based on credal logic, which employs multivalent degrees of belief rather than traditional probability theory. It accounts for epistemic uncertainty as unallocated belief. It holds that, when facing real uncertainty, if a person believes a and believes b, then the person believes a and b together. This brand of multivalent logic underlies and justifies how legal decision makers and the rest of us find facts in a world infused with epistemic uncertainty. Indeed, this article closes by showing the equivalence of multivalent logic and inference to the best explanation. By demonstrating this similarity in reasoning, I aim to shore up our faith in the logic of traditional legal reasoning.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"19 1","pages":"181-206"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/lpr/mgaa012","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Probability & Risk","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgaa012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
My central interest is decision making in the presence of epistemic uncertainty. A method appropriate for both specialized inquiries and everyday reasoning is based on credal logic, which employs multivalent degrees of belief rather than traditional probability theory. It accounts for epistemic uncertainty as unallocated belief. It holds that, when facing real uncertainty, if a person believes a and believes b, then the person believes a and b together. This brand of multivalent logic underlies and justifies how legal decision makers and the rest of us find facts in a world infused with epistemic uncertainty. Indeed, this article closes by showing the equivalence of multivalent logic and inference to the best explanation. By demonstrating this similarity in reasoning, I aim to shore up our faith in the logic of traditional legal reasoning.
期刊介绍:
Law, Probability & Risk is a fully refereed journal which publishes papers dealing with topics on the interface of law and probabilistic reasoning. These are interpreted broadly to include aspects relevant to the interpretation of scientific evidence, the assessment of uncertainty and the assessment of risk. The readership includes academic lawyers, mathematicians, statisticians and social scientists with interests in quantitative reasoning.
The primary objective of the journal is to cover issues in law, which have a scientific element, with an emphasis on statistical and probabilistic issues and the assessment of risk.
Examples of topics which may be covered include communications law, computers and the law, environmental law, law and medicine, regulatory law for science and technology, identification problems (such as DNA but including other materials), sampling issues (drugs, computer pornography, fraud), offender profiling, credit scoring, risk assessment, the role of statistics and probability in drafting legislation, the assessment of competing theories of evidence (possibly with a view to forming an optimal combination of them). In addition, a whole new area is emerging in the application of computers to medicine and other safety-critical areas. New legislation is required to define the responsibility of computer experts who develop software for tackling these safety-critical problems.