Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Bayesianism debate in legal scholarship

The Bayesianism debate in legal scholarship Artificial Intelligence and Law 9: 199–214, 2001. © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Review Essay EPHRAIM NISSAN CMS, Queen Mary Court, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK Ron Allen and Mike Redmayne (eds.), Bayesianism and Juridical Proof, “Special Issue 1997” (unnumbered) of The International Journal of Evidence and Proof (Vol. 1). London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1997. Pp. 253–360. ISBN 1-85431-708-3; ISSN 1365-7127. Mike McConville and Roger Leng (eds.), The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, Vol. 1, No. 5 (Volume 1: 4 issues + special issue). London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1997. Pp. 361–434. It is obvious to me, qua author of this review essay and qua guest editor, that readers of the special issue you have in your hands should next turn to that other special issue, the one edited by Allen and Redmayne. It is devoted to the current debate about the adequacy of Bayes’ theorem in statistical approaches to legal evidence. Two lead articles open the issue: Ron Allen’s “Rationality, algorithms and judicial proof: a preliminary inquiry” – representing the skeptical stance – and Richard D. Friedman’s “Answering the Bayesioskeptical challenge”. To put it in http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

The Bayesianism debate in legal scholarship

Artificial Intelligence and Law , Volume 9 (3) – Oct 19, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-bayesianism-debate-in-legal-scholarship-UtpTQkJvtu
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1023/A:1017918122669
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence and Law 9: 199–214, 2001. © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Review Essay EPHRAIM NISSAN CMS, Queen Mary Court, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK Ron Allen and Mike Redmayne (eds.), Bayesianism and Juridical Proof, “Special Issue 1997” (unnumbered) of The International Journal of Evidence and Proof (Vol. 1). London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1997. Pp. 253–360. ISBN 1-85431-708-3; ISSN 1365-7127. Mike McConville and Roger Leng (eds.), The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, Vol. 1, No. 5 (Volume 1: 4 issues + special issue). London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1997. Pp. 361–434. It is obvious to me, qua author of this review essay and qua guest editor, that readers of the special issue you have in your hands should next turn to that other special issue, the one edited by Allen and Redmayne. It is devoted to the current debate about the adequacy of Bayes’ theorem in statistical approaches to legal evidence. Two lead articles open the issue: Ron Allen’s “Rationality, algorithms and judicial proof: a preliminary inquiry” – representing the skeptical stance – and Richard D. Friedman’s “Answering the Bayesioskeptical challenge”. To put it in

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and LawSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 19, 2004

There are no references for this article.