Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Christian Dahlman
• 关键词：Legal argumentation ; Evidence ; Generalization ; Reference class ; Robustness ; Discrimination
• 刊名：Argumentation
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：March 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：31
• 期：1
• 页码：83-99
• 全文大小：445KB
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Logic; Communication Studies; Theories of Law, Philosophy of Law, Legal History; Political Communication;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-8374
• 卷排序：31

文摘

Arguments on legal evidence rely on generalizations, that link a certain circumstance to a certain hypothesis and warrants the claim that the circumstance makes the hypothesis more probable. Some generalizations are acceptable and others are unacceptable. A generalization can be unacceptable on at least four different grounds. A false generalization is unacceptable because membership in the reference class does not increase the probability of the hypothesis. A non-robust generalization is unacceptable because it uses a reference class that is too heterogeneous. A biastriggering generalization is unacceptable because decision makers are inclined to overestimate the evidentiary value of membership in the reference class. A discriminating generalization is unacceptable because it puts members in the reference class in an unfair disadvantage. Research funded by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet).