18 found
Order:
  1.  28
    De‐Biasing Legal Fact‐Finders With Bayesian Thinking.Christian Dahlman - 2020 - Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4):1115-1131.
    Dahlman analyzes the case with a version of Bayes’ rule that can handle dependencies. He claims that his method can help a fact finder avoid various kinds of bias in probabilistic reasoning, and he identifies occurrences of these biases in the analyzed decision. While a mathematical analysis may give a false impression of objectivity to fact finders, Dahlman claims as a benefit that it forces to make assumptions explicit, which can then be scrutinized.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2.  22
    Robust Trust in Expert Testimony.Christian Dahlman, Lena Wahlberg & Farhan Sarwar - 2015 - Humana Mente 8 (28).
    The standard of proof in criminal trials should require that the evidence presented by the prosecution is robust. This requirement of robustness says that it must be unlikely that additional information would change the probability that the defendant is guilty. Robustness is difficult for a judge to estimate, as it requires the judge to assess the possible effect of information that the he or she does not have. This article is concerned with expert witnesses and proposes a method for reviewing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3.  25
    Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence.Christian Dahlman - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):83-99.
    Arguments on legal evidence rely on generalizations, that link a certain circumstance to a certain hypothesis and warrants the claim that the circumstance makes the hypothesis more probable. Some generalizations are acceptable and others are unacceptable. A generalization can be unacceptable on at least four different grounds. A false generalization is unacceptable because membership in the reference class does not increase the probability of the hypothesis. A non-robust generalization is unacceptable because it uses a reference class that is too heterogeneous. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  52
    When Conventionalism Goes Too Far.Christian Dahlman - 2011 - Ratio Juris 24 (3):335-346.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  5.  22
    Fused Modality or Confused Modality?Christian Dahlman - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):80-86.
    According to Svein Eng there are propositions concerning the law which are descriptive as well as normative, but cannot be separated into one descriptive and one normative proposition. Eng calls these propositions “fused” (“sammensmeltede”). In Eng's theory a proposition with “fused modality” is partly descriptive and partly normative, but cannot be classified as a separable combination of a claim about what the law “is” and a claim about what the law “ought to be.” In a “fused” proposition modality is a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  37
    Prototype Effect and the Persuasiveness of Generalizations.Christian Dahlman, Farhan Sarwar, Rasmus Bååth, Lena Wahlberg & Sverker Sikström - 2016 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7 (1):163-180.
    An argument that makes use of a generalization activates the prototype for the category used in the generalization. We conducted two experiments that investigated how the activation of the prototype affects the persuasiveness of the argument. The results of the experiments suggest that the features of the prototype overshadow and partly overwrite the actual facts of the case. The case is, to some extent, judged as if it had the features of the prototype instead of the features it actually has. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  14
    Reliable Debiasing Techniques in Legal Contexts? : Weak Signals from a darker Corner of the Social Science Universe.Frank Zenker & Christian Dahlman - 2016 - Studies in Logic and Argumentation 59:173-196.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  26
    Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation.Christian Dahlman & Thomas Bustamante (eds.) - unknown - Cham: Imprint: Springer.
    This book provides theoretical tools for evaluating the soundness of arguments in the context of legal argumentation. It deals with a number of general argument types and their particular use in legal argumentation. It provides detailed analyses of argument from authority, argument ad hominem, argument from ignorance, slippery slope argument and other general argument types. Each of these argument types can be used to construct arguments that are sound as well as arguments that are unsound. To evaluate an argument correctly (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9. En dialog om framtida preferenser.Christian Dahlman - 2006 - Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 1.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  9
    Introduction.Christian Dahlman - 2019 - Law, Probability and Risk 18 (4).
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  30
    Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law.Christian Dahlman, Alex Stein & Giovanni Tuzet (eds.) - 2021 - New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    "Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law presents a cross-disciplinary overview of the core issues in the theory and methodology of adjudicative evidence and factfinding, assembling the major philosophical and interdisciplinary insights that define evidence theory, as related to law, in a single book. The volume presents contemporary debates on truth, knowledge, rational beliefs, proof, argumentation, explanation, coherence, probability, economics, psychology, bias, gender, and race. It covers different theoretical approaches to legal evidence, including the Bayesian approach, scenario theory, and inference to the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  63
    The difference between obedience assumed and obedience accepted.Christian Dahlman - 2009 - Ratio Juris 22 (2):187-196.
    Abstract. The analysis of legal statements that are made from an "internal point of view" must distinguish statements where legal obedience is accepted from statements where legal obedience is only assumed. Statements that are based on accepted obedience supply reasons for action, but statements where obedience is merely assumed can never provide reasons for action. It is argued in this paper that John Searle neglects this distinction. Searle claims that a statement from the internal point of view provides the speaker (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  27
    The Effect of Imprecise Expressions in Argumentation-Theory and Experimental Results.Christian Dahlman, Farhan Sarwar, Rasmus Bååth, Lena Wahlberg & Sverker Sikström - unknown
    We investigate argumentation where an expression is substituted with a less precise expression. We propose that the effect that this deprecization has on the audience be called deprecization effect. When the audience agrees more with the less precise version of the argument, there is a positive deprecization effect. We conducted an experiment where the participants were presented with a court room scenario. The results of the experiment confirm the following hypothesis: If the participants find it hard to agree with the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  11
    Causal models versus reason models in Bayesian networks for legal evidence.Eivind Kolflaath & Christian Dahlman - 2022 - Synthese 200 (6).
    In this paper we compare causal models with reason models in the construction of Bayesian networks for legal evidence. In causal models, arrows in the network are drawn from causes to effects. In a reason model, the arrows are instead drawn towards the evidence, from factum probandum to factum probans. We explore the differences between causal models and reason models and observe several distinct advantages with reason models. Reason models are better aligned with the philosophy of Bayesian inference, as they (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. Appeal to Expert Testimony – A Bayesian Approach.Lena Wahlberg & Christian Dahlman - unknown - In Christian Dahlman & Thomas Bustamante (eds.), Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation. Cham: Imprint: Springer.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. The role of the expert witness.Lena Wahlberg & Christian Dahlman - 2021 - In Christian Dahlman, Alex Stein & Giovanni Tuzet (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  8
    Debiasing and Rule of Law.Frank Zenker & Christian Dahlman - 2016 - In Eveline Feteris, Harm Kloosterhuis, Jose Plug & Carel Smith (eds.), Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law. Eleven International Publishing. pp. 217-229.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  10
    Giving Reasons Pro et Contra as a Debiasing Technique in Legal Decision Making.Frank Zenker, Christian Dahlman & Farhan Sarwar - 2016 - Studies in Logic 62:809-823.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark