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
    Statistical evidence alone cannot provide the knowledge n... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Statistical evidence alone cannot provide the knowledge necessary for a finding of liability.

    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.Knowledge necessary for a finding of liability cannot be obtained from statistical evidence alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Statistical evidence such as market share data is not causally connected with the specific fact sought to be proved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Statistical evidence cannot guarantee the truth of the relevant belief about the defendant's specific act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic standards for legal liability should track the probability of truth, not require individualized causal narratives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a defendant's market share is 90%, the probability they caused harm exceeds most 'beyond reasonable doubt' thresholds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring non-statistical proof is an arbitrary epistemic preference that systematically favors defendants with obscured causal records.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Individualized causal evidence is itself probabilistic and inferential, not categorically different from statistical evidence in epistemic kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hacking's frequentist and Cohen's Baconian probability frameworks both ground legitimate belief formation in population-level data without requiring singular causation.
      ?

      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

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    Epistemic standards for legal liability should track the probability of truth, n...Hacking's frequentist and Cohen's Baconian probability frameworks both ground le...If a defendant's market share is 90%, the probability they caused harm exceeds m...Individualized causal evidence is itself probabilistic and inferential, not cate...
    +4 moreShow less
    Knowledge necessary for a finding of liability cannot be obtained from statistic...Requiring non-statistical proof is an arbitrary epistemic preference that system...

    Similar

    Knowledge necessary for a finding of liability cannot be obtained from...87%A finding of legal liability is permissible only if the factfinder can...85%Knowledge of the material facts is necessary for a permissible finding...82%When liability is inferred from statistical evidence such as market sh...80%

    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

    Statistical evidence cannot guarantee the truth of the relevant belief about the...
    Statistical evidence such as market share data is not causally connected with th...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit