"Deep Learning" versus Data Crunching?

This interesting article describes a China research venture that rests on the assumption that truly intelligent machines must engage in "deep learning" rather than (merely) data crunching: Daniela Hernandez, ‘Chinese Google’ Opens Artificial-Intelligence Lab in Silicon Valley Wired (April 12, 2013). Hernandez seems to assert that the China AI lab's research project rests on the assumption that conceptual structures, or representations, must be used to develop the most intelligent nonhuman machines possible, machines that are capable of "deep learning." But in at least part of this article Hernandez also seems to assert that the backers of this AI research project assume that such representations, or conceptual structures, can be identified simply by discovering and studying the physical structure and operations of the human brain (e.g., neural networks). It is not at all clear to me that this assumption (if it is in fact made by the AI lab) is warranted. The assumption does not follow merely from the plausible premise that the logical operations of human machines must be done in or through the brain.

&&&
The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Open Source Live Code

RunRev has released the first version of its open source Live Code software. Go to this page for the announcement and details.

This free software -- called Live Code Community Edition -- is a very welcome development. I expect to make some use of it in my further tinkering with evidence marshaling software.
Live Code is an ideal vehicle for non-programmers: you can program without knowing much of anything about programming. That's why Live Code is very popular among the public at large.
&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

In Jersey City August may be the cruelest month...

No, in Jersey City August is more cruel than any other month: it is insufferably hot and humid in Jersey City in August. Time to move elsewhere? Probably so. (There is no real spring here: the seasons in Jersey City skip directly from winter to summer, spring is generally forgotten by the weather gods.)
&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

March?

Well, perhaps March is the cruelest month.
&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

April's Cruelty

April is the cruelest month.
&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

The Growth of Litigation Finance

This article discusses the growth of litigation finance: Jennifer Smith, Investors Put Up Millions of Dollars to Fund Lawsuits Wall Street Journal (April 7, 2013).

What does litigation finance portend for and reveal about the workings of proof in American litigation?

&&&
The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Right to Silence in Australia; New Limits

Harriet Alexander, Right to Silence reforms based on out-of-context British law Sydney Morning Herald (April 8, 2013):
"As the [New South Wales] government overturned one of the most tightly held principles of criminal law - the right to silence - it brandished two arguments in support.

"First, abolishing the right to silence had the support of the police. Second, it was far from the revolutionary move its critics claimed. Britain enacted the same legislation nearly 20 years ago.

"The ''evidence of silence'' laws passed last month were designed to make trials more efficient and stop the defence from springing surprises on the prosecution.

"They require the defence and prosecution to outline the key aspects of their cases weeks before trial, and allow the jury to draw an unfavourable inference if an unexpected defence is raised at trial.

Advertisement

"They also abolish the right to silence, so juries will be able to draw adverse conclusions if accused people choose not to participate in police interviews, but later rely on evidence that they could have brought up in the first place.

"But Britain's Justice and Public Order Act 1994, on which they were modelled, was formulated in an entirely different context.

"In Britain, duty solicitors are stationed at police stations 24 hours, and one of their roles is to advise the accused on the implications of remaining silent.

"In [New South Wales], there is no funding to place a duty solicitor in every police station around the clock, although the law will still only apply to people who have been cautioned in the presence of a lawyer.

"President of the NSW Bar Association Phillip Boulten also warns that while in Britain there is a culture of continuous disclosure, that does not exist in Australia."

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

A Modest Proposal for a Solution to the Sexual Abuse Crisis (Crises?)

It seems to me this is a good time to reproduce my modest proposal of 2010 for a final solution to sex abuse scandals:

A Modest Proposal

What a dimwit I have been! I apologize. A light has dawned in my foggy noggin. I now realize what the solution to the problem is. (You do know what the problem is, don't you, dear Reader?)

The solution to the problem is this:

All organizations that harbor any sexual predators must be done away with.

This of course includes, not just the Roman Catholic Church, but also Protestant churches, Jewish synagogues, high schools, middle schools, junior high schools (and, of course, elementary schools), universities, research institutes, newspapers, TV and radio stations, courts, police departments, large corporations, all large associations & organizations of any description whatever, any small association or organization in which there has been child abuse (as a prophylactic measure, the institution of the family should be abolished since it is in the family that child abuse happens most often), Congress, and so on.

Yes, I know: the destruction of such organizations & associations is a high price to pay. But at least we could all go to sleep at night knowing that our children are safe. (They would be sleeping safely in schools run by the government. They would be safe there.)

Would hanging or shooting the leaders of such organizations and associations be an even more effective remedy? Perhaps such capital remedial measures should be considered (along with, in the U.S., an amendment to the Constitution). Monetary penalties may not be enough. Prison may not be not enough. Even flogging may not be enough.

In any event, it is clear, isn't it, that if the Catholic Church, Protestant churches, schools, universities, newspapers, etc, were abolished, we would be rid of the pestilence of child sexual abuse, yes?

Well, OK. Perhaps I am getting carried away just a bit: I acknowledge that abolition or destruction of such organizations or institutions might be a bit extreme in some cases. I see a possible alternative:

Organizations should be required to make sure that their members regularly engage in gratifying sexual intercourse or other satisfying sexual activity with other freely-consenting adults.

For example, perhaps organizations should be required to levy fines against any of their members who choose to remain celibate. This way we would know that the people who come into contact with our children are sexually gratified and have no reason to seek further gratification by molesting our children.

Short of this sensible remedy (i.e., the imposition of fines against sexually inactive people for being sexually inactive), organizations & associations of every stripe should be liable in spades (i.e., many dollars) for every sexual misdeed -- known or not, foreseen or not -- of every one of its members. That's clearly necessary. And, of course, such monetary penalties fall far short of lynching or shooting -- even though it must be admitted that in some instances monetary penalties could destroy or severely damage institutions such as schools, churches, and hospitals.

We can & should invert Kant's dictum about the horror of punishing the innocent thus:

It is better for the world to perish than for any institution (particularly a religious one) that harbors & succors -- whether wittingly or unwittingly -- even a single sexual miscreant to escape severe punishment.

This reformulated maxim is a fitting tribute to our modern sense of justice and proportion; it reflects the enlightened temper of our times. See Editorial, The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal New York Times (March 24, 2010).

 

&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

"Private School Sex Abuse Scandal"

We had the "clergy sex abuse scandal." Now it seems that it's time for the "private school sex abuse sandal." See Jess Bidgood, Abuse Charge at Exclusive Boarding School [Deerfield Academy] Stirs Inquiry, NYTimes. (March 29, 2013). Other cases of this sort have (unsurprisingly) surfaced in recent months. See, e.g., the Horace Mann Case. Will the Deerfield Academy investigation and cases like it garner a journalist or a news organization a Pulitzer Prize? Will it and cases like it lead to the formation of of SNAPS ("survivors network of those abused by private schools"). Will such cases lead to a campaign to discredit and bankrupt private schools? Will such cases produce a new generation of multimillionaire tort lawyers? Will such cases lead to attacks on the religious organizations with which schools such as Horace Mann are affiliated? Will they lead to calls for faculty members who are sworn to celibacy? Compare:

Thursday, March 25, 2010

News Flash: The BBC and the New York Times Discover Sexual Sinners in the Roman Catholic Church!

Child sexual abuse is a horrible, grievous crime. Homosexual child abuse by priests is a terrible wrong.

But this non-Catholic (Lutheran) & heterosexual has a few questions:

...

6. It is often suggested that clerical celibacy is the root of the problem among the Catholic clergy. SNAP seems to think that celibacy is the root of the problem. See Comment of David Clohessy, National Director, SNAP ("Sometimes, sexually troubled young Catholic men will turn to the priesthood, hoping and praying that if they promise to be celibate, God will give them the gift of celibacy, and help them overcome the troubling sexual urges they feel. Obviously, often that doesn't happen.") Cf. Clifford J. Levy, A Flock Grows Right at Home for a Priest in Ukraine, New York Times (March 23, 2010).

But question: If celibacy of the Catholic clergy were abolished, would the problem of child sexual abuse go away or diminish? Or would the phenomenon just migrate?

Was I mistaken in believing that the most common instances of child sexual abuse are those committed by parents on their children?

Perhaps the rule should be: sex by clergy: OK; having children: not OK? Is this the idea here?

Is child sexual abuse by married adults less common than child sexual abuse by unmarried adults?

Should celibacy by Tibetan monks also be done away with? Or should we embrace celibacy there on the ground that celibacy in Tibet is quaint & admirable -- and an effective form of birth control in a part of the world that very much needs effective birth control, perhaps even more effective than the PRC's one child policy?

&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Impartial Judge

Martha Neil, Judge admits sex with witness in chambers, but says it didn’t affect his decision-making (March 29, 2013):

"T]he judge admitted, in response to a claim that he had sex in chambers with a witness in a child-support case, that he indeed 'made the unfortunate decision to engage in a sexual relationship with [the witness] and also admits that on a few occasions, the relationship took place in his chambers.'...
...
"But [the trial judge denied" that he allowed his relationship with Mott 'to influence his judicial conduct or judgment" and says it "did not impact any of Judge McCree's decisions'...."
&&&
The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Social Intelligence

Social ant intelligence -- or the social whole -- sometimes is, or becomes, more intelligent than its parts:

Robot Ants Could Make Us More Efficient

Posted by Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato in Weird & Wild on March 29, 2013

With their tiny wires and circuits, robotic ants won’t be taking over the world anytime soon.

But what these artificial insects lack in processing power, they make up for in efficiency: Robotic ants can automatically choose the shortest route from their food sources back to their nests, just like real ants, a new study says. This gives valuable insight into how people should plan transportation and communication systems.

&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Wild Tapestry in Cape Onion, Newfoundland

This is evidence of ... ? &&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Our Future: A Sky Dark with Drones?

Mathhew Wald, Domestic Drones on Patrol, NYTimes (March 17, 2013). &&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

John Sexton and NYU

Although I personally very much dislike the "superstar" system that President Sexton apparently has run at NYU - faculty superstars, so-called, get paid a lot more than "ordinary" faculty members - I find it hard to sympathize with the NYU arts & science faculty's vote of no confidence in him. Sexton has done an awful lot to make NYU one of the world's leading universities.

Your opinion?
&&&
The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

A Proposal to Imitate the Medical Model of Education

The dean of Boston College Law School has proposed that law schools imitate at least part of the medical "model" of education. See Vincent D. Rougeau, Law schools should consider med-school model—a dean’s view  Legal Rebels (blog) (March 13, 2013).

This is not a new idea. But it is an interesting one. But ... but ... the idea will only work if law teachers adopt a more "scientific" attitude toward "theory" -- which means in part that they must come to think of "legal theory" as consisting in important part of hypotheses that may be shown  to be true or false by "empirical observation," by observation, that is, of how legal theories play out in the real world. (This sort of empirical "verification" is not an exact analogue to empirical testing of scientific hypotheses, but it moves in that direction.) The Legal Realists were onto something.
&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Federal Judge Rules Surveillance Provisions Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Rules Surveillance Provisions Unconstitutional, NYTimes (Reuters Story, March 15, 2013):

A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional national security provisions that permit federal investigators to access customer information from some companies without court approval.

The provisions "suffer from significant constitutional infirmities," and violate the First Amendment and separation of powers, Judge Susan Illston of the District Court for the Northern District of California wrote in an order on Thursday.

The judge's decision stems from a "National Security Letter" that the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued to an unnamed telecommunications company, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[etc.]

&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Some Readings on Theories of Evidence and Inference

This old list of useful readings needs to be updated and supplemented:

 

---

  Cardozo Law School

[2005] Seminar: Theories of Evidence
Professor Peter Tillers

---

Literature & Links about Evidence and Inference

INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

James Franklin, THE SCIENCE OF CONJECTURE: EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITY BEFORE PASCAL (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001)

Lorraine Daston, CLASSICAL PROBABILITY IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT (Princeton, 1988)

William L. Twining, THEORIES OF EVIDENCE: BENTHAM AND WIGMORE (1985)
George Fisher, The Jury's Rise as Lie Detector, 107 Yale L. J. 575 (1997)
Peter Murhpy, EVIDENCE, PROOF, AND FACTS: A BOOK OF SOURCES (Oxford, 2003)

INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

Mirjan R. Damaška, EVIDENCE LAW ADRIFT (Yale U. Press, 1997)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

James D. McCawley, EVERYTHING THAT LINGUISTS HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT LOGIC* *but were ashamed to ask (2nd ed., 1993)

INFERENCE, IF-THEN LOGIC & THE LOGIC OF UNCERTAINTY

J.S. Covington, Jr., THE STRUCTURE OF LEGAL ARGUMENT AND PROOF (1993)
Brian Skyrms, CHOICE & CHANCE: AN INTRODUCTION TO INDUCTIVE LOGIC (4th ed., 2000)
Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. & Choh Man Teng, UNCERTAIN INFERENCE (2001)
Richard Lowry, THE ARCHITECTURE OF CHANCE: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LOGIC AND ARITHMETIC OF PROBABILITY (Oxford, 1989)

INFERENCE, INTUITION & COMMON SENSE

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (assessment of evidence involves more than "linear reasoning")
Judge Jack B. Weinstein in United States v. Shonubi, 895 F.Supp. 460 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (lengthy and interesting opinion includes discussion of role of judicial judgment and discretion in assessment of evidence) (caveat emptor: P. Tillers served as a court-appointed expert witness in this case)
Ronald J.Allen, Common Sense, Rationality, and the Legal Process, in Marilyn MacCrimmon & Peter Tillers, eds., The Dynamics of Judicial Proof: Computation, Logic, and Common Sense (Physica- & Springer-Verlag, 2002)
Marilyn MacCrimmon, What Is "Common" about Common Sense? Cautionary Tales for Travelers Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries, in Marilyn MacCrimmon & Peter Tillers, eds., The Dynamics of Judicial Proof: Computation, Logic, and Common Sense (Physica- & Springer-Verlag, 2002)
The Cycorp Project (formalized common sense becomes profitable -- and practicable?)
Andrew E. Taslitz, Abuse Excuses and the Logic and Politics of Expert Relevance, 49 Hastings L.J. 1039 (1998) (emphasis on holism)
Michael S. Pardo, Comment: Juridical Proof, Evidence, and Pragmatic Meaning: Toward Evidentiary Holism, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev. 399 (2000)

INFERENCE, LANGUAGE & FUZZY THINKING

VAGUENESS IN LANGUAGE & LEGAL LANGUAGE (conceptual vagueness)

Lon L. Fuller, THE MORALITY OF LAW (Yale, 1st ed., 1969, 2nd ed., 1977)Edward Levi, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (1962)

FUZZY & ROUGH SETS

Susan Haack, DEVIANT LOGIC, FUZZY LOGIC: BEYOND THE FORMALISM (1974 & 1996)

GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, MODERN BEHAVIORAL PSYCHOLOGY & COGNATE PERSPECTIVES ON REAL-WORLD INFERENCE

Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin & Daniel Kahneman, eds., HEURISTICS AND BIASES: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INTUITIVE JUDGMENT (Cambridge U. Press, 2002)

Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, CHOICES, VALUES, AND FRAMES (2000)

INFERENCE & PERCEPTION

Alva Noë & Evan Thompson, VISION AND MIND: SELECTED READINGS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF PERCEPTION (MIT Press, 2002)

Irvin Rock, THE LOGIC OF PERCEPTION (MIT Press, 1983)VISUAL PERCEPTION: http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelman/Course/perception/perception.html
Richard L. Gregory, Knowledge in Perception and Illusion
Tillers, Blog, Monday, June 02, 2003 Reason and Intuition in the Assessment of Evidence in Litigation
Hermann von Helmholtz, 1866/1962 Treatise on Physiological Optics volume 2, translated by J P L Southall (New York: Dover) pp 264--301 [originally published as Handbuch der physiologischen Optik (1866, Leipzig: Voss)]
Claire F. Michaels and Claudio Carello, DIRECT PERCEPTION (1981)
Patrick McDonald on Helmholtz

PROBABILITY THEORY & INFERENCE

Alan Hájek, Interpretations of Probability, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
THOMAS BAYES' ESSAY!
Laurence Tribe, Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Trial Process, 84 Harvard Law Review 1329 (1971)
Richard Lempert, Modeling Relevance, 75 Michigan Law Review 1021 (1977)
Richard Lempert, The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing the Process of Proof, 66 Boston University Law Review (1986 )
Thomas D. Lyon & Jonathan J. Koehler, The Relevance Ratio: Evaluating the Probative Value of Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Cases, 82 Cornell Law Review 43 (1996)
Bernard Robertson & G.A. Vignaux, INTERPRETING EVIDENCE (Wiley, 1995)
Peter Tillers & Eric Green, eds., PROBABILITY AND INFERENCE IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE; THE USES AND LIMITS OF BAYESIANISM (1988)

STATISTICAL INFERENCE

Richard Lowry, THE ARCHITECTURE OF CHANCE: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LOGIC AND ARITHMETIC OF PROBABILITY (Oxford, 1989) (focus on probability in statistics)
Koehler on Background Statistics in the Courtroom
Charles O. Shonubi's Saga
State v. Claflin, 38 Wash. App. 847, 852; 690 P. 2d 1186 (Wash. App. 1984) (testimony that 43 percent of child molestations were committed by "father-figures," in a case where defendant was a father-figure, was "extremely prejudicial and should not have been admitted")
State v. Steward, 34 Wash. App. 221, 223-4; 660 P. 2d 278, 280 (1983) (testimony that the perpetrator in 8 out of 16 child abuse cases in which serious injuries "were inflicted by either live in or babysitting boy friends," in a case where defendant was a babysitting boyfriend, was "certainly highly prejudicial").
Daniel Shaviro, Statistical Probability Evidence and the Appearance of Justice, 103 Harvard Law Review 530 (1989)

BACONIAN INFERENCE

John Maynard Keynes, A TREATISE ON PROBABILITY (Macmillan and Co., 1921)
L.J. Cohen, THE PROBABLE AND THE PROVABLE (1977)

INFERENCE & DISCOVERY

KARL R. POPPER, THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
Karl Popper, CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS: THE GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (Basic Books, 1962)
Arthur Koestler, THE ACT OF CREATION (Reissue edition, 1990)
Charles S. Peirce: books & online extracts
Umberto Eco & Thomas Sebeok, eds., THE SIGN OF THREE: DUPIN, HOLMES, PEIRCE (Indiana U. Press, 1983, 1988)
John Josephson & Susan Josephson, ABDUCTIVE INFERENCE: COMPUTATION, PHILOSOPHY, TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge U. Press, 1994) (download the elegant discussion of abduction in Chapter 1 of this book by clicking on this link)
Lorenzo Magnani, ABDUCTION, REASON, AND SCIENCE: PROCESSES OF DISCOVERY AND EXPLANATION (2001)
D. Binder & P. Bergman, FACT INVESTIGATION: FROM HYPOTHESIS TO PROOF (1984)
P. Tillers & D. Schum, A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation, 24 University of California at Davis Law Revview 931 (1991)

COMPLEX (multistage) INFERENCE

P. Tillers, Webs of Things in the Mind: A New Science of Evidence, (review essay), 87 Michigan Law Review 1225 (1989)
D. Schum, EVIDENTIAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROBABILISTIC REASONING (Wylie, 1994)
Joseph Kadane & David Schum, A PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE SACCO AND VANZETTI EVIDENCE (Wiley, 1996)
Terence Anderson & William Twining, ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE (Little, Brown & Co., 1991 or 2d ed., Northwestern U. Press, 1998)
A MODERN WIGMOREAN CHART
INTRODUCTION TO GRAPHS

which are very important for an understanding of some important theories of evidence and inference

INFERENCE & ARGUMENTATION THEORY

Chaïm Perelman, THE NEW RHETORIC: A TREATISE ON ARGUMENTATION (trans., John Wilkinson, University of Notre Dame Press, December 1969)
Stephen Toulmin, THE USES OF ARGUMENT (1958; 1st paperback ed., 1964)
John L. Pollock, COGNITIVE CARPENTRY (1995)
DOUGLAS WALTON, LEGAL ARGUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE (2002)
Paul A. Kirschner, Simon J. Buckingham Shum & Chad S. Carr, eds., VISUALIZING ARGUMENTATION: SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR COLLABORATIVE AND EDUCATIONAL SENSE-MAKING (2003)
Reason!Able software (trial version), available at http://www.goreason.com/

VALUES & INFERENCE

Robert P. Burns, A THEORY OF THE TRIAL (1999)
David T. Wasserman, The Morality of Statistical Proof and the Risk of Mistaken Liability, 13 Cardozo Law Review 935 (1991) (base rates are immoral because they offend a defendant's right to be treated as an individual)
Alvin I. Goldman, KNOWLEDGE IN A SOCIAL WORLD (1999)

INFERENCE, PREFERENCE & CHOICE

Richard Jeffrey, THE LOGIC OF DECISION (University of Chicago Press; 1966; 2nd ed., 1983)
Richard A. Posner, An Economic Approach to the Law of Evidence, 51 Stanford Law Review 1477 (1999) & draft version, Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 66

INFERENCE IN AND ABOUT SPACE & TIME

Peter Øhrstrøm & Per F. V. Hasle, TEMPORAL LOGIC: FROM ANCIENT IDEAS TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (Kluwer, 1995)
A link to Temporal Logic
Dov M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger & J. A. Robinson, eds., EPISTEMIC AND TEMPORAL REASONING (Clarendon-Oxford, 1995) (Vol. 4 of HANDBOOK OF LOGIC IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LOGIC PROGRAMMING)

INFERENCE AND CAUSALITY

Wesley C. Salmon, Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World (Princeton, 1984)
Judea Pearl, CAUSALITY (Cambridge University Press, 2000)
Glenn Shafer, THE ART OF CAUSAL CONJECTURE (MIT Press, 1996)

INFERENCE IN TIME: DYNAMIC INFERENCE

Jim Blythe, Decision-theoretic Planning (Feb. 11, 1999)
John L. Pollock, Evaluative Cognition
David Schum, Probability and the Processes of Discovery, Proof, and Choice, 66 Boston University Law Review 825 (1986)
Marilyn MacCrimmon & Peter Tillers, eds., The Dynamics of Judicial Proof: Computation, Logic, and Common Sense(Physica- & Springer-Verlag, 2002)
Peter Tillers, The Explosive Dynamic Complexity of Evidentiary Processes
Peter Tillers, The Fabrication of Facts in Investigation and Ajudication

---

On Probability and Uncertainty in Law

Konstanz 2003 International Summer School Lecture Notes

Readings (Extracts) from Charles Saunders Peirce:Of Inference, Deduction, Induction,
and Abduction (Retroduction)

---

Some of the above material rearranged and mixed with some additional material:

Terence Anderson & William Twining, ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE (Little, Brown & Co., 1991 or 2d ed., Northwestern U. Press, 1998)

D. Binder & P. Bergman, FACT INVESTIGATION: FROM HYPOTHESIS TO PROOF (1984)

Robert Burns, A THEORY OF THE TRIAL (1999)

Robert P. Burns, A THEORY OF THE TRIAL (1999)

L.J. Cohen, THE PROBABLE AND THE PROVABLE (1977)

J.S. Covington, Jr., THE STRUCTURE OF LEGAL ARGUMENT AND PROOF (1993)

Mirjan R. Damaška, EVIDENCE LAW ADRIFT (Yale, 1997)

Lorraine Daston, CLASSICAL PROBABILITY IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT (Princeton, 1988)

Keith Devlin, LOGIC AND INFORMATION (1991 & various reprints)

Umberto Eco & Thomas Sebeok, eds., THE SIGN OF THREE: DUPIN, HOLMES, PEIRCE, (Indiana U. Press, 1983, 1988)

James Franklin, THE SCIENCE OF CONJECTURE: EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITY BEFORE PASCAL (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001)

Lon L. Fuller, THE MORALITY OF LAW (1st ed., 1969; or 2nd ed., 1977)

Dov M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger & J. A. Robinson, eds., EPISTEMIC AND TEMPORAL REASONING (Clarendon-Oxford, 1995) (Vol. 4 of HANDBOOK OF LOGIC IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LOGIC PROGRAMMING)

Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin & Daniel Kahneman, eds., HEURISTICS AND BIASES: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INTUITIVE JUDGMENT (Cambridge U. Press, 2002)

Alvin I. Goldman, EPISTEMOLOGY AND COGNITION (Harvard, 1986)

Alvin I. Goldman, KNOWLEDGE IN A SOCIAL WORLD (1999)

Susan Haack, DEVIANT LOGIC, FUZZY LOGIC: Beyond the Formalism (1974 & 1996)

Susan Haack, EVIDENCE AND INQUIRY: TOWARD RECONSTRUCTION IN EPISTEMOLOGY (Blackwell, 1993)

Reid Hastie, Steven Penrod & Nancy Pennington, INSIDE THE JURY (1983)

Hermann von Helmholtz, 1866/1962 TREATISE ON PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS volume 2 (1866/1962, trans., by J P L Southall; New York: Dover) (see esp. pp. 264-301; originally published as HANDBUCH DER PHYSIOLOGISCHEN OPTIK (1866, Leipzig: Voss)]

Richard Jeffrey, THE LOGIC OF DECISION (University of Chicago Press; 1966 & 2nd ed., 1983)

John Josephson & Susan Josephson, ABDUCTIVE INFERENCE: COMPUTATION, PHILOSOPHY, TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge U. Press, 1994) (download the elegant discussion of abduction in Chapter 1 of this book by clicking on this link)

Joseph Kadane & David Schum, A PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE SACCO AND VANZETTI EVIDENCE (1996)

Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, CHOICES, VALUES, AND FRAMES (Cambridge U. Press, 2000)

John Maynard Keynes, A TREATISE ON PROBABILITY (Macmillan and Co., 1921)

Paul A. Kirschner, Simon J. Buckingham Shum & Chad S. Carr, eds., VISUALIZING ARGUMENTATION: SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR COLLABORATIVE AND EDUCATIONAL SENSE-MAKING (2003)

Arthur Koestler, THE ACT OF CREATION (Reissue edition, 1990)

Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. & Choh Man Teng, UNCERTAIN INFERENCE (2001)

Edward Levi, AN INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL REASONING (Chicago, 1962)

Richard Lowry, THE ARCHITECTURE OF CHANCE: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LOGIC AND ARITHMETIC OF PROBABILITY (Oxford, 1989)

Lorenzo Magnani, ABDUCTION, REASON, AND SCIENCE: PROCESSES OF DISCOVERY AND EXPLANATION (2001)

James D. McCawley, EVERYTHING THAT LINGUISTS HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT LOGIC* *but were ashamed to ask (2nd ed., 1993)

Peter Murphy, EVIDENCE, PROOF, AND FACTS: A BOOK OF SOURCES (Oxford, 2003)

Alva Noë & Evan Thompson, VISION AND MIND: SELECTED READINGS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF PERCEPTION (MIT Press, 2002)

Peter Øhrstrøm & Per F. V. Hasle, TEMPORAL LOGIC: FROM ANCIENT IDEAS TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995)

Andrew Palmer, PROOF AND THE PREPARATION OF TRIALS (Thomson, 2003)

Judea Pearl, CAUSALITY (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

Chaïm Perelman, THE NEW RHETORIC: A TREATISE ON ARGUMENTATION (trans., John Wilkinson, University of Notre Dame Press, December 1969)

John L. Pollock, COGNITIVE CARPENTRY (1995)

John L. Pollock, NOMIC PROBABILITY AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF INDUCTION (Oxford, 1990)

John L. Pollock & Joseph Cruz, CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE (Rowman & Littlefield, 2d ed., 2002)

Karl R. Popper, CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS: THE GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (Basic Books, 1962)

Karl R. Popper , THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY (any edition, including Routledge, 5th ed., March 29, 2002)

Karl R. Popper, CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS: THE GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (Basic Books, 1962)

Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton, Argumentation Schemes and Generalisation in Reasoning about Evidence" [url needed]

Bernard Robertson & G.A. Vignaux, INTERPRETING EVIDENCE (Wiley, 1995)

Irvin Rock, THE LOGIC OF PERCEPTION (MIT Press, 1983)

David Schum, EVIDENCE AND INFERENCE FOR THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYST (2 vols., University Press of America, 1987)

David Schum, EVIDENTIAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROBABILISTIC REASONING (Wylie, 1994)

D. Schum & P. Tillers, Marshalling Evidence in Adversary Litigation, 13 Cardozo Law Review 657 (1991)

Glenn Shafer, THE ART OF CAUSAL CONJECTURE (MIT Press, 1996)

Brian Skyrms, CHOICE & CHANCE: AN INTRODUCTION TO INDUCTIVE LOGIC (4th ed., 2000)

Peter Tillers, Mapping Inferential Domains, 66 Boston University Law Review 883 (1986)

Peter Tillers & Eric Green, eds., PROBABILITY AND INFERENCE IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE: THE USES AND LIMITS OF BAYESIANISM (1988)

Peter Tillers & David Schum, Charting New Territory in Judicial Proof: Beyond Wigmore, 9 Cardozo Law Review 907 (1988)

Peter Tillers & David Schum, A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation, 24 University of California at Davis Law Review 931 (1991)

Stephen Toulmin, THE USES OF ARGUMENT (1958; 1st paperback ed., 1964)

William Twining, RETHINKING EVIDENCE: EXPLORATORY ESSAYS (Blackwell, Oxford, 1990)

William Twining & Iain Hampsher-Monk, eds., EVIDENCE AND INFERENCE IN HISTORY AND LAW (Northwestern U. Press, 2003)

Douglas N. Walton, LEGAL ARGUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE (2002)

David T. Wasserman, The Morality of Statistical Proof and the Risk of Mistaken Liability, 13 Cardozo Law Review 935 (1991)

---

---

(Even) Harvard University May Read Your (Its Staff's) E-Mail

RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA, Harvard Searched E-Mails for Source of Media Leaks NYTimes (March 9, 2013).

You had better watch out...
&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Sociological Jurisprudence, Logical Jurisprudence, and Factual Proof

In years past I have not been much interested in sociological jurisprudence. It seemed to me that talk about social forces, social interests, social preferences, etc., as a basis for legal interpretation (or lawmaking) lacks theoretical rigor. But I now find that I am somewhat attracted to the idea of some kind of sociological jurisprudence when I ponder the "logic(s)" of factual inference and proof in legal settings.
That's in part because I think (contrary to some or much rational choice theory?) it does make sense -- and it is necessary -- to think and talk about the "purposes," "functions," "interests," "preferences," etc. of societies and parts of societies (including systems of legal proof) and that it is not enough to conceive of the "interests" and "preferences" etc. of social groups as being nothing more than an aggregation of the interests, preferences, etc., of the individual members of such social groups.
I also think a connection must be made between logic(s) in the abstract and the logic(s) that is (are) in actual use in societies and their parts: we need to look in part to how lawyers, judges, jurors, etc. actually reason and deliberate about matters such as evidence and facts. But, if possible, an attempt to link logic with actual legal practice, or conventional legal practice, should be done in a way that tends to preserve (so to speak) the logical character(s) of the method(s) of reasoning and deliberation that is (are) customarily used in investigation and proof in trials and other such legal settings. Is this possible? I propose to find out. (More accurately said, Joannes Pilapil and I will try to find out.) Hint: I suspect it is possible.

 
&&& The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan

Low-Copy Number DNA

This paper on DNA -- particularly low-copy number DNA -- is, I think, extraordinarily important.
Full title of paper: 

Forensic DNA Statistics: Still Controversial in Some Cases

by

William C. Thompson, Laurence D. Mueller & Dan E. Crane

 

&&&
The dynamic evidence page

Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan