{"title":"证据、概率和相对可信性。","authors":"Colin Aitken, Franco Taroni, Silvia Bozza","doi":"10.1177/13657127221114508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A comparison is made between probability and relative plausibility as approaches for the interpretation of evidence. It is argued that a probabilistic approach is capable of answering the criticisms of the proponents of relative plausibility. It is also shown that a probabilistic approach can answer the problem of overlapping where there is evidence that each side claims supports its theory of what happened.</p>","PeriodicalId":93382,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of evidence & proof","volume":"26 4","pages":"309-324"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/4c/47/10.1177_13657127221114508.PMC9465537.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence, probability and relative plausibility.\",\"authors\":\"Colin Aitken, Franco Taroni, Silvia Bozza\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127221114508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A comparison is made between probability and relative plausibility as approaches for the interpretation of evidence. It is argued that a probabilistic approach is capable of answering the criticisms of the proponents of relative plausibility. It is also shown that a probabilistic approach can answer the problem of overlapping where there is evidence that each side claims supports its theory of what happened.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The international journal of evidence & proof\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"309-324\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/4c/47/10.1177_13657127221114508.PMC9465537.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The international journal of evidence & proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221114508\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of evidence & proof","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221114508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparison is made between probability and relative plausibility as approaches for the interpretation of evidence. It is argued that a probabilistic approach is capable of answering the criticisms of the proponents of relative plausibility. It is also shown that a probabilistic approach can answer the problem of overlapping where there is evidence that each side claims supports its theory of what happened.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
