Legal Argumentation and Evidence [Book Review]

Review of Metaphysics 58 (2):471-473 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Walton’s book aims to supply a fresh method for evaluating logical reasoning and legal argumentation. Drawn from philosophy, law and science, Walton’s method rests on a theory of “plausibilistic” reasoning or “probabilism”. According to plausibilistic reasoning, we can logically infer conclusions from a set of premises even though the premises are neither definite nor of a measurable probability. We may tentatively draw such inferences so long as they rest on generally valid premises. To illustrate this method, Walton cites a famous example from Wigmore: A man had no money before a robbery, but suddenly came into a great deal of money following the robbery. It is therefore plausible to infer that the man committed the robbery.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,923

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law.Kurt Nutting - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (1):111-133.
Law, logic, rhetoric: A procedural model of legal argumentation.Arno R. Lodder - 2004 - In S. Rahman (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 569--588.
A formal model of adjudication dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation.Arno R. Lodder - 1999 - Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-09

Downloads
18 (#857,094)

6 months
4 (#859,620)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references