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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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