(in memory of Craig Callen)
in Conjunction with
ICAIL 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 10, 2011
Schedule of Workshop Talks & Events, Friday, June 10, 2011
8:50 – 9:00
|
Giovanni Sartor & Peter Tillers
|
Welcome, greetings
|
9:00 – 9:30
|
James Franklin
|
How much of commonsense and legal reasoning is formalizable? A review
|
9:30 – 10:00
|
D. Michael Risinger
|
Against Symbolization—Some reflections on the limits of formal systems in the description of inferential reasoning and legal argumentation
|
10:00 – 10:30
|
Federico Picinali
|
Structuring inferential reasoning in criminal cases. An analogical approach
|
10:30 – 11:00
|
Coffee
|
Coffee
|
11:00 – 11:30
|
Michael Pardo
|
Relevance, Sufficiency, and Defeasible Inferences: Comments on Modeling Legal Proof
|
11:30 – 12:00
|
David Hamer
|
A probabilistic model of the relationship between the quantity (weight) of evidence, and its strength
|
12:00 – 12:30
|
Joseph Laronge
|
Evaluating Universal Sufficiency of a Single Logical Form for Inference in Court
|
12:30 – 1:00
|
Rainhard Bengez
|
On the Computable Structure of the Logocratic Method and Analyses Specific to Evidence Law
|
1:00 – 2:00
|
Lunch
|
Lunch
|
2:00 – 2:30
|
Bruce Hay
|
Roughly Two Conceptions of the Trial
|
2:20 – 3:00
|
Ronald J. Allen
|
Taming Complexity: Rationality, the Law of Evidence, and the Nature of the Legal System
|
3:00 – 3:30
|
Scott Brewer
|
Representing Legal Arguments: The Centrality of Abduction
|
3:30 – 4:00
|
Coffee
|
Coffee
|
4:00 – 4:30
|
Douglas Walton & Floris Bex
|
Combining Evidential and Legal Reasoning with Burdens and Standards of Proof
|
4:30 – 5:00
|
Bart Verheij
|
Can the argumentative, narrative and statistical perspectives on legal evidence and proof be integrated?
|
5:00 – 5:30
|
Henry Prakken
|
Can non-probabilistic models of legal evidential inference learn from probability theory?
|
5:30 – 6:00
|
Giovanni Sartor & Giuseppe Contissa
|
Evidence arguments in air traffic safety. A model for the law?
|
6:00 – 6:30
|
Boaz Sangero
|
Proposal to Reverse the View of a Confession: From Key Evidence Requiring Corroboration to Corroboration for Key Evidence
|
No comments:
Post a Comment