Abstract
In this article, we provide a formal logical model of evidential reasoning with proof standards and burdens of proof, which enables us to evaluate evidential reasoning by comparing stories on either side of a case. It is based on a hybrid inference model that combines argumentation and explanation, using inference to the best explanation as the central form of argument. The model is applied to one civil case and two criminal cases. It is shown to have some striking implications for modelling and using traditional proof standards like preponderance of the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | mgs003 |
| Pages (from-to) | 113-133 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Law, Probability & Risk |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 2-3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2012 |
Keywords
- Argumentation
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- Critically questioning a story
- Evidence supporting a story
- Inference to the best explanation
- Plausible reasoning
- Shifting of burden of proof