Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A finding of liability based on bare statistical evidence... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A finding of liability based on bare statistical evidence is unsafe and therefore should not be entered.

    Justice & PunishmentTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Safety requires that a belief formed on the same basis would be true in close possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A finding based on bare statistical evidence can easily be wrong because little in the actual world needs to change for it to be wrong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An unsafe finding of liability should not be entered against a defendant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Legal fact-finding already relies on probabilistic inference from testimonial and physical evidence, making bare statistics categorically distinct only in surface form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 0.51 probability derived from statistical evidence is insufficient for liability, then equally low-probability conclusions from witness testimony must fail by the same standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Singling out explicit statistical reasoning for exclusion while accepting implicit probabilistic reasoning is an epistemically arbitrary double standard, as Nesson and Cohen argued in the 1980s literature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Safety conditions derived from modal epistemology, as developed by Sosa and Pritchard, require sensitivity to nearby possible worlds, but legal verdicts are institutional acts, not individual beliefs, and the modal framework does not straightforwardly transfer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An institutional finding of liability aims at systemic accuracy across a class of cases, not truth in a single possible-world scenario, so Judith Jarvis Thomson's market-share liability intuitions support aggregate probabilistic justice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A finding based on bare statistical evidence can easily be wrong because little ...An institutional finding of liability aims at systemic accuracy across a class o...An unsafe finding of liability should not be entered against a defendant.If 0.51 probability derived from statistical evidence is insufficient for liabil...
    +4 moreShow less
    Legal fact-finding already relies on probabilistic inference from testimonial an...Safety conditions derived from modal epistemology, as developed by Sosa and Prit...Safety requires that a belief formed on the same basis would be true in close po...Singling out explicit statistical reasoning for exclusion while accepting implic...

    Similar

    Knowledge necessary for a finding of liability cannot be obtained from...87%An unsafe finding of liability should not be entered against a defenda...86%When liability is inferred from statistical evidence such as market sh...79%Statistical evidence alone cannot provide the knowledge necessary for ...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: evidence-legal
    View source passageHide passage
    On a different epistemic interpretation, the evidence is sufficient to meet a legal standard of proof, and a finding of legal liability is permissible, only if the factfinder can gain knowledge of the defendant’s liability—to be precise, of the material facts establishing such liability—from the evidence (Duff et al. 2007: 87–91; Pardo 2010; for a critical overview of knowledge-centered accounts, see Gardiner forthcoming). High probability of liability alone will not suffice. On more subtle know
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit