Coherence and Probability in Legal Evidence

The authors investigate to what extent an evaluation of legal evidence in terms of coherence (suggested by Thagard, Amaya, Van Koppen and others) is reconcilable with a probabilistic (Bayesian) approach to legal evidence. The article is written by one author (Dahlman) with a background in the bayesian approach to legal evidence, and one author (Mackor) with a background in scenario theory. The authors find common ground but partly diverge in their conclusions. Their findings give support to the claim (reductionism) that coherence can be translated into probability without loss. Dahlman therefore concludes that the probabilistic vocabulary is superior to the coherence vocabulary, since it is more precise. Mackor is more agnostic in her conclusions about reductionism. In Mackor's view, the findings of their joint investigation do not imply that the probabilistic approach is superior to the coherentist approach.

[1]  Heather Douglas.  The Value of Cognitive Values , 2013, Philosophy of Science.

[2]  Michael N. Keas.  Systematizing the theoretical virtues , 2017, Synthese.

[3]  David Lindley,et al.  Probability and the Law , 1977 .

[4]  Marko Schweizer.  Comparing Holistic and Atomistic Evaluation of Evidence , 2012 .

[5]  L. McGrew.  Bayes Factors All the Way: Toward a New View of Coherence and Truth , 2016 .

[6]  C. I. Lewis,et al.  An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. , 1947 .

[7]  P. Thagard,et al.  Coherence in Thought and Action , 2000 .

[8]  Mark Siebel,et al.  Against Probabilistic Measures of Coherence , 2005 .

[9]  S. Rakover,et al.  Explanation: Theoretical Approaches and Applications , 2003 .

[10]  William G. Lycan,et al.  Judgment and Justification. , 1991 .

[11]  Tomoji Shogenji,et al.  Is coherence truth conducive , 1999 .

[12]  W. Lycan.  EXPLANATIONIST REBUTTALS (COHERENTISM DEFENDED AGAIN) , 2012 .

[13]  Adolfas Mackonis.  Inference to the best explanation, coherence and other explanatory virtues , 2011, Synthese.

[14]  Branden Fitelson.  A probabilistic theory of coherence , 2003 .

[15]  Mark Siebel.  Why explanation and thus coherence cannot be reduced to probability , 2011 .

[16]  Paul K. Moser,et al.  The Oxford handbook of epistemology , 2002 .

[17]  D. Maccormick.  The coherence of a case and the reasonableness of doubt , 1980 .

[18]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction , 2019, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  Paul Thagard,et al.  The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice , 1978 .

[20]  Christian Dahlman.  Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence , 2017 .

[21]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Legal Evidence and Proof , 2009 .

[22]  Michał Araszkiewicz,et al.  Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence , 2013 .

[23]  Jeremy Bentham,et al.  Rationale of judicial evidence , 1978 .

[24]  Igor Douven,et al.  Realism in the Sciences , 1996 .

[25]  Floris Bex,et al.  Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence - A Formal Hybrid Theory , 2011, Law and philosophy library.

[26]  Luc Bovens,et al.  Why There Cannot be a Single Probabilistic Measure of Coherence , 2005 .

[27]  Timothy J. McGrew.  Confirmation, Heuristics, and Explanatory Reasoning , 2003, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[28]  Peter Lipton,et al.  Inference to the best explanation , 1993 .

[29]  Van Fraassen,et al.  Laws and symmetry , 1989 .