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
    Probability-based decision thresholds can accommodate the... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Probability-based decision thresholds can accommodate the requirement that trial evidence be reasonably complete

    ConsequentialismJustice & Punishment
    ?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.One way to handle incomplete or one-sided evidence is to lower the probability threshold for civil or criminal liability when the body of evidence is incomplete
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lowering the threshold in response to evidentiary incompleteness is a modification within the probabilistic framework, not a rejection of it
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lowering probability thresholds to compensate for incomplete evidence conflates epistemic confidence with the strength of the evidentiary record itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.L. Jonathan Cohen's 'inductive probability' framework shows that Pascalian probability cannot capture the evidential completeness dimension, which tracks how many relevant considerations have been investigated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A threshold adjustment within a Pascalian system therefore fails to satisfy the completeness requirement because it substitutes a degree-of-belief measure for a genuinely distinct evidential concept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The requirement that evidence be reasonably complete is a deontological constraint on the process of adjudication, not merely an input variable to a decision-theoretic calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Adjusting thresholds in response to incompleteness permits conviction on structurally deficient evidence so long as the numerical bar is lowered, which violates Dworkin's principle that defendants have rights against certain procedural shortcuts regardless of outcome utility.
      ?

      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 & PunishmentConsequentialism

    Related

    A threshold adjustment within a Pascalian system therefore fails to satisfy the ...Adjusting thresholds in response to incompleteness permits conviction on structu...L. Jonathan Cohen's 'inductive probability' framework shows that Pascalian proba...Lowering probability thresholds to compensate for incomplete evidence conflates ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Lowering the threshold in response to evidentiary incompleteness is a modificati...One way to handle incomplete or one-sided evidence is to lower the probability t...The requirement that evidence be reasonably complete is a deontological constrai...

    Similar

    Lowering the threshold in response to evidentiary incompleteness is a ...75%If the overall probability of the case must exceed the threshold, the ...74%One way to handle incomplete or one-sided evidence is to lower the pro...74%A rule-based approach to admissibility of evidence will not undermine ...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: legal-probabilism
    View source passageHide passage
    Scholars and commentators have also voiced more specific objections that need not invalidate the probabilistic framework but rather call for refinements. Nance (2016) argues that the evidence on which to base a trial decision should be reasonably complete—it should be all the evidence that one would reasonably expect to see from a conscientious investigation of the facts. A similar argument can be found in Davidson and Pargetter (1987). Arguably, probability-based decision thresholds can accommo
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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