Inference to the best legal explanation

Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 135-159

  Amaya, Amalia ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70450180888     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (71)

1. Abimbola, K. (2002), 'Abductive Reasoning in Law: Taxonomy and Inference to the Best Explanation', in MacCrimmon and Tillers (eds).
2. Aliseda, A. (2006), Abductive Reasoning: Logical Investigations into Discovery and Explanation (Dordrecht: Springer).
3. Allen, R. and Pardo, M. (2008), 'Juridical proof and the best explanation', Law and Philosophy 27:3, 223-68.
4. Amaya, A. (2006), An Inquiry into the Nature of Coherence and its Role in Legal Argument. PhD Dissertation (Florence: European University Institute).
5. Amaya, A. (2007a), Reasoning about Facts in Law: Essays in Coherence, Evidence, and Proof. S.J.D. Dissertation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University).
6. Amaya, A. (2007b), 'Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology', Artificial Intelligence and Law 15, 429-47.
7. Amaya, A. (2008), 'Justification, coherence and epistemic responsibility in legal fact-finding', Journal of Social Epistemology 5:3.
8. Anderson, D. (1986), 'The evolution of Peirce's concept of abduction', Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22, 145-64.
9. Anderson, T., Twining, W. and Schum, D.A. (2005), Analysis of Evidence, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
10. Anderson, T., Twining, W. and Schum, D.A. (1990), 'The inference to the best explanation', Erkenntnis 33, 319-44.
11. BonJour, L. (1985), The Empirical Foundations of Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
12. Conte, M.E. (1999), Condizioni di Coerenza: Ricerche di Linguistica Testuale (Firenze: La Nuova Italia).
13. Day, T. and Kincaid, H. (1994), 'Putting inference to the best explanation in its place', Synthese 98, 271-95.
14. Dershowitz, A.M. (1996), Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System (New York: Simon and Schuster).
15. Flach, P.A. and Kakas, A.C. (eds) (2000), Abduction and Induction (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
16. Fraassen, B. van (1989), Laws and Symmetry (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
17. Frankfurt, H.G. (1958), 'Peirce's notion of abduction', Journal of Philosophy 55, 593-97.
18. Gärdenfors, P. (1988), Knowledge in Flux (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
19. Harman, G. (1965), 'Inference to the best explanation', The Philosophical Review 74, 88-95.
20. Harman, G. (1980), 'Reasoning and explanatory coherence', American Philosophical Quarterly 17:2, 151-7.
21. Harman, G. (1986), Change in View: Principles of Reasoning (Cambridge: MIT Press).
22. Hastie, R. and Pennington, N. (1996), 'The O.J. Simpson stories: Behavioral scientists' reflections on the "People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson"', University of Colorado Law Review 67, 957-76.
23. Hintikka, J. (1998), 'What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology', Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34:3, 503-33.
24. Hoadley, C.M., Ranney, M. and Schank, P.K. (1994), 'WanderECHO: A Connectionist Simulation of Limited Coherence', in Ram and Eiselt (eds).
25. Hobbs, J.R., Stickel, M.E., Appelt, D.E. and Martin, P.A. (1993), 'Interpretation as Abduction', Artificial Intelligence 63, 69-142.
26. Houser, N., Roberts, D. and Van Evra, J. (eds) (1997), Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).
27. Iranzo, V. (2001), 'Bad lots, good explanations', Crítica 33, 71-96.
28. Josephson, J.R. (2002), 'On the Proof Dynamics of Inference to the Best Explanation', in MacCrimmon and Tillers (eds).
29. Josephson, J.R. and Josephson, S.G. (1994), Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
30. Kakas, A.C. and Sadri, F. (eds) (2002), Computational Logic (Berlin: Springer Verlag).
31. Kapitan, T. (1992), 'Peirce and the autonomy of abductive reasoning', Erkenntnis 37, 1-26.
32. Kakas, A.C. and Sadri, F. (1997), 'Peirce and the Structure of Abductive Inference', in Houser et al. (eds).
33. Klein, P. and Warfield, T.A. (1994), 'What price coherence?', Analysis 54, 129-32.
34. Laudan, L. (2007), 'Strange bedfellows: Inference to the best explanation and the criminal standard of proof', International Journal of Evidence and Proof 11:4, 292-307.
35. Lehrer, K. (1990), Theory of Knowledge, 2nd Edition (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
36. Lipton, P. (1993), 'Is the best good enough?', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 43, 89-104.
37. Lipton, P. (2000), 'Inference to the Best Explanation', in Newton-Smith (ed.).
38. Lipton, P. (2004), Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd Edition (London and New York: Routledge).
39. Lycan, W.G. (1988), Judgment and Justification (New York: Cambridge University Press).
40. Lycan, W.G. (2002), 'Explanation and Epistemology', in Moser (ed.).
41. MacCrimmon, M. and Tillers, P. (eds) (2002), The Dynamics of Judicial Proof (Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag).
42. Magnani, L. (2001), Abduction, Reason, Science (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
43. Moser, P.K. (ed.) (2002), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
44. Moser, P.K. (ed.) (2000), A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (Malden: Blackwell).
45. Niinuluoto, I. (1999), 'Defending abduction', Philosophy of Science 66, 436-51.
46. Niinuluoto, I., Sintonen, M. and Wolenski, J. (eds) (2004), Handbook of Epistemology (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
47. Okasha, S. (2000), 'Van Fraassen's critique of inference to the best explanation', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 31:4, 691-710.
48. Peirce, C.S. (1960), Collected Papers, in C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
49. Peng, Y. and Reggia, J. (1990), Abductive Inference Models for Diagnostic Problem Solving (New York: Springer-Verlag).
50. Pryor, J. (2001), 'Highlights of recent epistemology', The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52, 95-124.
51. Psillos, S. (1996), 'On Van Fraassen's critique of abductive reasoning,' The Philosophical Quarterly 46, 31-47.
52. Psillos, S. (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth (New York: Routledge).
53. Psillos, S. (2002), 'Simply the Best: A Case for Abduction', in Kakas and Sadri (eds).
54. Ram, E. and Eiselt, K. (eds) (1994), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
55. Raz, J. (1992), 'The relevance of coherence', Boston University Law Review 72, 273-321.
56. Schum, D.A. (1999), 'Marshalling thoughts and evidence during fact investigation', South Texas Law Review 40, 401-54.
57. Schum, D.A. (2001), The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press).
58. Schum, D.A. (2002), 'Species of Abductive Reasoning in Fact Investigation in Law', in MacCrimmon and Tillers (eds).
59. Schum, D.A. and Tillers, P. (1991), 'A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation', U.C. Davis Law Review 24, 932-1012.
60. Simon, D. (1998), 'A Psychological Model of Judicial Decision-Making', Rutgers Law Journal 30, 1-142.
61. Simon, D. (2004), 'A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision-making', The University of Chicago Law Review 71, 511-86.
62. Sintonen, M. and Kikeri, M. (2004), 'Scientific Discovery', in Niinuluoto et al. (eds).
63. Thagard, P. (1978), 'The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice', Journal of Philosophy 75, 76-92.
64. Thagard, P. (1989), 'Explanatory coherence', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, 435-67.
65. Thagard, P. (1992), Conceptual Revolutions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
66. Thagard, P. (2000), Coherence in Thought and Action (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
67. Thagard, P. (2003), 'Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference', Cognition and Emotion 17:3, 361-83.
68. Thagard, P. (2006), 'Evaluating explanations in law, science, and everyday life', Current Directions in Psychological Science 15, 141-5.
69. Thagard, P. and Verbeurgt, K. (1998), 'Coherence as constraint satisfaction', Cognitive Science 22, 1-24.
70. Tillers, P. and Green, E.D. (eds) (1988), Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
71. Walton, D.N. (2002), Legal Argumentation and Evidence (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press).